Debt Reduction Super Committee Fails To Agree

Hugh Pickens writes "VOA reports that the latest effort to cut the U.S. government's debt apparently has ended in failure as leaders of the special 12-member debt reduction committee plan to announce that they failed in their mandate from lawmakers to trim the federal debt by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the collapse of the effort. 'Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms,' said Republican Senator Jon Kyl. 'They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes.' Democratic Senator Patty Murray, one of the committee's co-chairs, says that the Republicans' position on taxes was the sticking point. 'The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet,' Now in the absence of an agreement, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to domestic and defense programs are set to take effect starting in January, 2013, and the lack of a deal will deprive President Barack Obama of a vehicle for extending a payroll tax cut and insurance benefits for unemployed Americans, which expire at the end of the year." (Though the official deadline for the committee's hoped-for plan is tomorrow — the 23d — they were to have provided it for review 48 hours prior.)

Comments

Ain't that a surprise

[madhatter256]

The committee was like having a deer convince a wolf not to eat him and the wolf trying to convince the deer that it should be eaten.

Take two polarizing political topics, put them in a room and you will get a stand still, especially when elections are just around the corner....

Re:Ain't that a surprise

[rhsanborn]

With campaigns running 1.5 years, elections are now ALWAYS around the corner.

So both and get it done!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus really?

These aholes should just compromise. Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree? Well then why not fix the problem quickly by agreeing to these two points that would solve the problem in a hurry? Sure, I am not an economist, but I bet my understanding of solving the debt problem is just about as good as a senator or congressman who spends his time raising money all day, rather than trying to figure out this country's problems.

(yes I could be very wrong, and i look forward to more intelligent replies below, but at least i have proposed a solution right there! much better than 90% of our leaders....)

Re:So both and get it done!

[Qzukk]

The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot. The Republicans were willing to cut spending a lot (but not on their programs) and raise taxes only on the middle class.

The whole thing was doomed from the start, the only time "bipartisianship" works is when both parties get to increase the power of government and fuck over everyone else. It's uncanny how, now that it's fallen apart, the Republicans are already rushing to break their promise of automatic spending cuts (but only on their programs). What principle! Of course, it's not without precedent, it's just like claiming that Medicare is saving money through cuts in doctors' pay that Congress cancels year after year.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Anonymous Coward]

The point everyone is missing is that the committee DID make a choice - a cowardly one at best. By punting they essentially chose the automatic spending cuts and can blame each other for what comes of it. We truly have no real leaders in Congress or the Whitehouse right now. The control of special interests in government has given us crony capitalism at all levels. We need to fix this asap.

Re:So both and get it done!

[CrimsonAvenger]

The committee's mandate was to look at both where taxes could be raised, and spending cut.

Alas, part of the problem is that Obama has no real interest in raising taxes, since one obvious tax increase would be to repeal Obama's tax cut along with Bush's tax cut.

Remember, an election is coming up, and raising taxes is bad just before an election. Which was why, when Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts, he set it to expire just AFTER his next election.

By the same token, everyone can agree that spending cuts are necessary. Except the Dems of course. Note that the biggest proponent of NOT cutting Defense Spending is Obama's Secretary of Defense, not the Republicans.

That said, the nasty part of "spending cuts" as a solution is that they're meaningless.

This Congress could vote to reduce real spending by 5% per year for the next ten years (which would just about balance the budget), but budgets are written annually.

And next year's budget, being a law, and automatically overriding previous contradictory laws, can be written with a 5% INCREASE in spending even after an agreement is made to reduce spending. And there will be no ill-effects.

Note that this was what happened when Reagan raised taxes in exchange for spending cuts. Taxes went up, and the spending cuts never happened. Ditto Bush Sr. And this is what will happen to any deficit solution that involves spending cuts - the spending cuts will be ignored by future congresses who need to bribe voters with the public treasury, and we'll be back where we were.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right - good Liberal talking points. It's the Republicans' fault and the Democrats are to be shielded. As many would say, "how has Obama's presidency worked for you?" Most of your "rich" people are Democrats, and try to get out of paying taxes just as feverishly as Republicans. When the Obama administration didn't have enough Republican opposition at the beginning of Obama's "regime" to put the brakes on his wacky plans, the USA got saddled with Obamacare and trillions of dollars flushed down the rat hole (Solyndra anyone? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? - although already corrupt before Obama took office). Obama wasn't looking for bipartisanship or compromise when he took office - he just stated "we won" (the Democrats) and shoved his socialist agenda down the USA's throat to the delight of the Democrats. Now that the Republilcans are in the majority in the Congress and have to be the adults in the room, they have to deal with the mess caused by the previously Democratic Congress (who were the majority since the last two years of Bush - who was no Conservative). "Just keep throwing money at it" indeed.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Attila Dimedici]

The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot.

Actually, the Democrats were not willing to cut spending. They were willing to cut the amount that spending would be projected to increase. Note, they were not actually going to cut the amount that spending increased, just the amount it was projected to increase. They would have "relied" in future Congresses to actually abide by those reduced projections.
This is the problem with these discussions. One side says, "We will cut spending over the next ten years, but we need to raise taxes now." What they mean when they say that is that they will reduce the amount they project spending to increase, with most of the reduction coming toward the end of those ten years (far enough out that no one will be held accountable to actually abide by the agreement). Congress cannot be trusted with tax increases until they actually cut spending. In my lifetime, Congress has passed bills saying they would "cut spending" multiple times, yet every year of my life Congress has spent more money than the previous year.
In my lifetime, Congress has NEVER cut spending.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I read of the reports, the Democrats were willing to cut spending on Medicaid and other programs IF the Republicans agreed to raise taxes for the wealthiest 2%. The shame in this case is clearly the Republicans failing to agree to a compromise. Instead of debating by how much to raise them, they're rejecting the idea outright. THAT my friends, is why I hope to see the day when the Republicans find themselves without any $$ during their campaigns.

Re:So both and get it done!

[residieu]

The Republicans have signed a pledge that they will never vote to raise taxes on anybody for any reason whatsoever. If they violate that pledge, the head of the organization who created it can and will ensure they lose their seat by cutting off their campaign funding.

In other words, they have been blatantly bribed. They have signed a pledge admitting that they have been bribed.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Democrats were willing to cut spending a little and raise taxes a lot"

Your facts are in error. The Democrats were on record offering a 17-1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. Unless you've redefined a "little" and a "lot" in an interesting and misleading way, you're wrong.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Bucc5062]

I read the article and was amazed at how spot on David Frun was in analyzing the republican party's woes (thus America's woes). His commentary about Fox News and the effect commercialized press has had on the party was chilling. The Coulters, Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys of the sound media have only one interest, making money. Sadly, their method is to foment angst, division, and distrust so people will come back for more, the modern day owners of the coliseum. Thumbs up, thumbs down, it does not matter to them as long as the people come back to see the next show.

For me, it is a sad day in this country when the First Lady of the United States of America is booed in public. A woman who has tried to do good things for people in this country. A mother with two good children. A representative of our country. This is a serious sign of disrespect brought about by the non-stop name calling, truth-bending, and derogatory statements from Fox, Rush, and company. Perhaps they need to watch "The Ox Bow Incident" to realize what happens with uncontrolled mobs. We are becoming the Mob the "Right" should be most afraid of. One of the best lines in the article:

for it is the richest who have the most interest in political stability, which depends upon broad societal agreement that the existing distribution of rewards is fair and reasonable. If the social order comes to seem unjust to large numbers of people, what happens next will make Occupy Wall Street look like a street fair.

Indeed, the mob is fickle, the mob is anarchy, the mob is and will be a creation of the radical party who's interests are of Self first, Party second, and country a distant third.

 

Re:So both and get it done!

[catchblue22]

If the republicans are this uncompromising and extreme in opposition, I shudder to imagine what they will do with real power. The extremism just seems to keep on ramping up in pitch.

Re:So both and get it done!

[stdarg]

Aren't the democrats just as uncompromising and extreme?

Attributing blame to one party and adding all the "shuddering" verbiage paints you as uncompromising and extreme yourself.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Anonymous Coward]

In two years with a supermajority in both the House and Senate, and the White House, Democrats failed to produce a budget. Now with the White House and Senate there is still no budget after another year. Three years of this administration ; No Budget.

But it's the "Tea Tards" holding up the ability to get our national finances in order....

Re:So both and get it done!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

As much as I would have liked to beat up on the Ds they seemed to be more willing to compromise than the Rs. Both parties offered some sort of compromise but it seemed that the Ds were more sincere but it may have all been a facade. Also the Rs basically were in a great starting position since they didn't have to do anything and it would be 100% cuts*. Basically it gave both parties some talking points for the election.

* Remember in Washington a cut is just slower growth. The purpose of the super committee was to cut the projected debt 10 years out by 1.2 or so trillion dollars which could be accomplished if the next base line budget is about $120 billion less than it is currently projected to be. To put this in perspective so far this year the US Federal government has spent $3.6 trillion so $120 billion would be about 3% of our current budget, probably less

Re:So both and get it done!

[kb_one]

With all due respect I think you're making a false equivalence here. Please provide an example of how the Democrats are as extreme as Republican with regards to debt reduction. The Democrats have put their sacred cows on the table despite popular support for preserving the social safety nets. They've offered cuts to these programs in exchange for tax increases on the richest people in our country. Republicans have refused all discussion of tax increases without reservation. Not once have Republicans come to the table with a plan to raise taxes on the richest people in the country. The best they could do was a tax plan that effectively lowered the tax rates on the richest people while eliminating many itemized deductions that benefited the rest of us! So please do tell us where the Democrats were extreme during any part of these discussions.

Re:So both and get it done!

[jackbird]

Um, I remember Obamacare taking a year to get through, with the dems extending compromise after compromise and getting nothing in return from across the aisle, before finally passing a watered-down mostly-unworkable proposal in exasperation.

And I'll see your Solyndra and raise you a Rapiscan, a Halliburton, and a Blackwater.

Re:So both and get it done!

[Moryath]

Aren't the democrats just as uncompromising and extreme?

The short version? No.

Obama offered them a jobs bill that was 98% copy-and-paste from previous Republican jobs bills. The Republicans shouted it down because 2% compromise, along with having to share the credit for passing a jobs bill with "the n*gg*r from kenya", was too much for the Racist Republican Base to stand.

Re:So both and get it done!

[TheRaven64]

The rate of inflation on the US dollar is around 3.5% at the moment, so an increase of 2% is a cut in real terms.

Re:So both and get it done!

[kb_one]

"The Republicans proposed a plan that would have raised taxes by eliminating deductions while lowering marginal rates (thus raising effective rates). "

The plan the Republicans proposed lowered taxes on the richest people in the country (lowering the top rate possibly to 28% from the current 35%). Logic dictates that if this plan truly does generate any revenue at all it will be at the expense of the middle and lower classes paying more in taxes. The Democrats and a significant majority of Americans believe the richest people in our country should pay their fair share of the taxes and they believe they are not currently paying a fair amount. Why would the Democrats even consider such a proposal?

In regards to your comment on "mythical spending cuts" I believe you're being disingenuous and not fairly representing the opposing viewpoint. The fact that Democrats are offering any cuts at all to social programs is a true act of compromise. Again, many Democrats and a majority of the American people do not support any cuts to these programs.

In regards to my claims about what the American people believe or support please do some research on recent polling about social safety net cuts and taxes. Many polls have been done by a variety of sources and the result has been very consistent.

Re:So both and get it done!

[berashith]

this is the biggest point, exactly. The republicans were willing to address "revenue increases", but only if this was a trade with reducing taxes on the highest bracket. This is the biggest insincerity I could imagine. To basically attempt to only raise taxes on middle class, when the numbers obviously show that this is the section of the population that cant afford it. I normally back most of what was call the Bush tax cuts, as there were a lot of pieces that helped many people, and a few things in trade that helped only a few people. Now it has become a farce in that the only bargaining point is to destroy the pieces that are good for most.

Re:So both and get it done!

[DragonWriter]

Of course, you also forgot "Abandoned Bretton Woods, starting us on the road to the current economic mess,

The current economic mess has fuck-all to do with Bretton Woods, which had collapsed for all practical purposes long before the Nixon administration formally abandoned it, and is more directly tied to the the abandonment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 that were designed to prevent conflicts of interests between investment and commercial banking -- because of the direct role such conflicts had had in the financial collapse that produced the Great Depression.

Its perhaps not surprising that the behavior resulting from removing those provisions directly contributed again to a major collapse.

Re:So both and get it done!

[UnknowingFool]

It's the same party that said:
People earning over $250K a year are not rich. . . Teachers earning over $50K are rich and greedy for not wanting to accept fewer benefits and pay.
Warren Buffet is a great example of capitalism . . . unless he disagrees with our tax plan, then he's socialist."

Re:So both and get it done!

[Teancum]

The problem is that almost any agency you want to cut has some strong constituents and with that some fairly substantial amounts of money involved which can be used for political campaigns. If you cut a whole agency in particular or do "disproportional" cuts compared to other agencies, that implies those federal workers plus contractors plus communities where those agencies have major facilities are going to be complaining. That is easily several million dollars in campaign contributions that can easily be used to finance an opponent in select districts (especially where those key facilities are located at).

As a result, nothing gets cut because everybody in Congress is paranoid about eliminating anything, for fear of losing their position if they vote for these major cuts that are almost universally acknowledged as being needed. You can say you are in favor of a balanced budget, but when you have to deal with specific details about what actually needs to be cut it becomes a completely different story. It is easy to be in favor of cutting an agency that isn't in your district, but eventually even those congressmen have to cave in just to make sure that their favorite federal agency isn't cut.

Re:So both and get it done!

[a_ghostwheel]

Or homeowners with active mortgage.

Re:So both and get it done!

[shilly]

When you make $50,000 a year, and you've got $48,000 on the credit card. You need a raise and you need to turn off cable, internet, stop eating out, and pay off that credit card.

And the great thing is, once you do it, you find you've got about $1,000 a month more money to spend. [snip]

This home-spun shit really gets on my tits. It ignores the enormous scale effects which differentiate national economics from household economics. It's the same category of error as not understanding the cube-square law in biology. A national economy in which everyone, including the government, pays down debt and stops spending is an economy that is shrinking. When economies shrink, demand for goods and services shrink, tax take falls, and companies are forced to lay off workers... there's no point in ignoring this reality just because it doesn't fit your homely philosophising.

Re:So both and get it done!

[shilly]

Horseshit twice over.
1) The "lofty 1% realm" now takes home a quarter -- *a quarter* -- of all US income. And the wealth disparities are even greater, because there are huge accumulated assets.
2) Money works harder in the hands of poor people than in the hands of rich people. Rich people save or buy assets like land, more than they spend. Poor people spend money on daily necessities.

Re:So both and get it done!

[LordLimecat]

My understanding is this-- that the problem is, were republicans to compromise and increase taxes, increase debt ceiling, etc, everything the dems wanted, and in return secured cuts of several hundred billion, all the cuts would be postponed over the next 10 years so that they never happened, and meanwhile taxes WOULD be higher and borrowing would continue.

Its not because of who Dems are, its because of the nature of government. Governments will NEVER want to lower spending, it is phenomenally hard to do so-- even when default is around the corner (look at Greece). So, aside from already being a republican, I understand why you cant just compromise down the middle, because it will inevitably NOT be down the middle once the scores are all settled.

Honestly, I think its a little crazy to talk of super big spending cuts in military while we still have military forces out and about, but sure-- if they could release a budget for this year with equal cuts to entitlements and military THIS YEAR that would really stick, I would be for that.

As for raising taxes, the question becomes, if the government has spent the money it was given really really poorly, why do we want to give them more money to spend, rather than making them actually make the hard choices and fix their budget now? It seems an awful lot like getting another hit of heroin and promising everyone that NEXT week you'll go clean.

Re:So both and get it done!

[geekoid]

Except the democrats have history and the study of economics on their side.

the republicans have some document they signed based on nothing driving their position.

OTOH: this surprises no one, and was a tactic for the republicans to appease their base in order to let the government function. There was never going to be a compromise. Each the committee was too small to come up with a solution, and then deflect what the constituents don't like.

And I don't think the Hawks are going to actual let the cuts happen.

Since Reagan* The republican party has gotten more and more extreme. The religious right has gotten more and more power. They are not know for compromising, being practical, or logic. They have an entrenched belief, and nothing as small as facts, and examples from history will deter them.
They used to be fiscally Conservative, and social moderates. No longer. Now they are a bunch of whack a doodles....with power.

The republican party is a theocrat party.
Seriously. To you literally need to Bow to specific people and be anointed for a position. And they want you to ahve to bow to power as well.

This annoys me because I was a republican, years ago. It also annoys me to no end because the stuff they are doing is so crazy no one believes it.

*some might argue Nixon

I blame Norquist

[Enry]

Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.

Re:I blame Norquist

[Joce640k]

No. Tax increases are only a temporary solution at best.. At some point somebody has to put their foot down and stop spending so much money.

(Especially on "wars"...)

Re:I blame Norquist

[Anonymous Coward]

This is blatantly wrong, and the talking point "you can raise everyone's taxes to 100% and it won't work" would be laughable if it wasn't said with such seriousness.

You fret of the dangers and ineffectiveness of raising taxes to 100%, then turn around and cut programs you fundamentally disagree with in the name of "you have to start somewhere". I implore you to look at any actual data for the historical tax rates on the rich: they are the *lowest* they've been in decades. They were around 30% in the mid-90s, now they're almost half that. Raising taxes, not even to mid-90s level, would bring in significantly more revenue than cutting inadequately small programs from the budget in the name of partisanship. The rich can obviously handle the extra taxation--they did just fine in the 90s, and now we are quite literally "rewarding them for doing nothing". Their taxes have been the lowest ever since 2001, and yes we've had wars and a recession, but where are the jobs? They're sitting on massive piles of cash.

Your point of China having a freer economy proves you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Either explain these ridiculous points with data, or go read a few actual news articles instead of gluing your ear to whatever radio talk show is feeding you such misinformed BS.

Re:I blame Norquist

[tekrat]

You wrote:
" In fact they tend (on average) a higher percentage "

Citation needed.

In fact, the very wealthy pay a far lower percentage on their money earned that you do. Warren Buffet himself has stated that his secretary, who probably earns a $60,000 to $80,000 per year salary, pays a higher percentage of her income as taxes than he does, and most people cannot even fathom what Buffet makes per year (hint: more than a billion).

While YOU are paying taxes (probably automatically deducted from your paycheck), you're likely having 25% to 30% of your pay going into taxes.

The rich have most of their income coming not from "working" (i.e., payroll), their income is coming from the stock market, where their money is making money for them. These are "capital gains", which are taxed at 15% -- let me repeat that in case you missed it -- at least 10% lower or maybe as much as half of what YOU are taxed at.

And that assumes that they are being completely honest with their incomes. Most of the wealthy have complicated accounting, offshore accounts, tax havens, and other grey-area dodges/loopholes that allow many of them to come in well under the 15% tax rate.

Anyone who assumes that the Rich are paying their fair share is either naive, or woefully misinformed.

Exxon Mobile for example, paid ZERO corporate taxes last year, in fact, they were GIVEN money by the government in the form of energy subsidies. General Electric also paid ZERO corporate taxes. This is while they are laying off thousands and raking in record profits.

Please find me an example of any wealthy individual or corporate entity that pays as much in taxes by percentage as the rest of us do.

Re:I blame Norquist

[nedlohs]

WW2 crushed the US economy. Gasoline, coffee, sugar, meat, cheese, etc were all rationed because the domestic economy was being destroyed by the war effort.

Shortly after the war is a different story of course. Then you have the US with it's industrial capacity diverted away from the war and to real economic production. Aided by the fact that almost every other industrial nation in the world had been bombed into oblivion and hence the US had a huge capital advantage and could pay high wages and produce better products cheaper than the rest of the world. But that was after the government got out of the way.

Re:I blame Norquist

[Slashdot Parent]

Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.

The tax increases being proposed would not have come even close to paying for current spending levels, never mind future spending. There is no way out of this without reducing spending, and especially reducing future entitlement exposure.

The Democrats' intransigence on entitlements is more damaging than the Republicans' intransigence on tax increases, but I guess in the end, the biggest problem is intransigence on both sides. Somebody needs to slap both sides silly and remind each of them that they have got to throw a bone to the other side if they want to get anything done. Both sides were going for all-out wins, but if you leave the other side nothing to take back to their districts, you will not get their support.

As someone who is fairly right-leaning on economic issues, the way I was hoping this would work out would be for the Democrats to put their thinking caps on and look at the numbers, see that the money isn't there and never will be there, and cave on entitlement reform in exchange for the Republicans caving on tax increases because they need to give the Democrats something to hang their hats on. Instead, Democrats refused to budge on entitlements, leaving Republicans nothing to take back to their districts, and vice versa on tax increases.

Re:I blame Norquist

[Ash Vince]

Anyone who thinks the rich isn't paying their fair share hasn't thought it through.

You should explain this to Warren Buffett or this fellow then I guess:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewcampione/2011/10/14/warren-buffetts-tax-return-and-what-congress-already-knew/

Why should a rich person that makes $1M pay $500,000 for the same services and protections from their country that a poor person that contributes absolutely nothing to society and receives $25,000?

Well one major reason is that if you are sitting on a big pile of money then you need the rule of law (ie: FBI, Secret Service, etc) and the military to keep someone else from stealing it. The rich have far more to lose that the poor so it is entirely appropriate they pay a little more for their increased need for protection. This is especially the case with regard to our armed forces as the very rich are often not the people who actually sign up to give their lives in our defence. Even the poor who do not serve their country directly still often suffer more emotionally as they are also more likely to see friends and family go off to war then never come home.

Kick'em all out

[vinn]

I say we all get together and agree to not re-elect a single member of Congress. We could clear the entire House next year and a decent chunk of the Senate. I don't care if the new members are democrats, republicans, blue, green, red, or purple, it just seems like the entrenched politics is completely broken.

It's too bad we can't figure out a way to just throw them into jail.

Republicans and Taxes

[jellie]

I don't know why everyone tries to be "fair" and blame the Republicans and Democrats equally for not "compromising." Any rational person knows that it makes no sense trying to close a budget deficit without raising taxes and undoing some of the damage of the Bush years (when he cut taxes for the wealthy, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) The Republicans were never going to agree to anything, but they get to play the blame game as usual.

Re:Republicans and Taxes

[downhole]

Says who? Every time we get into one of these debt crises, people say we have to cut spending and raise taxes. And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It's gotta stop somewhere. That's why I say no tax increases until we've really cut spending. Like not a small decrease in the rate of future increases, more like 10% actual cuts across the board, including both entitlement programs and the military.

Re:Republicans and Taxes

[acoustix]

Says who? Every time we get into one of these debt crises, people say we have to cut spending and raise taxes. And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It's gotta stop somewhere. That's why I say no tax increases until we've really cut spending. Like not a small decrease in the rate of future increases, more like 10% actual cuts across the board, including both entitlement programs and the military.

THIS! A thousand times this!!!

Raising taxes would only bring in more money that would be spent. I don't care what your party affiliation is, but you know damn well that more revenue coming in means that it will all be spent and none of it, NONE OF IT would go to reducing the deficit. Prove to me that you can cut spending and then we'll talk about raising taxes. Until then you're not getting a single cent from me.

Re:Republicans and Taxes

[Alomex]

And in the end, the taxes get raised, but the spending never actually gets cut, and so the Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

Actually spending went down during the Clinton years as percentage of GDP, which is the metric that matters. The last time before that when spending went down was during the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

You should note that there is no a priori "right" level of expenditures. You can choose to create a Haiti still level of government services in which case 10% of GDP in government expenditures would be too high, or you can create a cradle-to-grave, free education, free health care, safe streets, government backed pensions, system like in Sweden, and if you can provide that for 30% of GDP you are getting the deal of the century.

So rather than asking for more or less government spending, how about asking for efficient government programs for a change?

Re:Republicans and Taxes

[Feyshtey]

When dealing with an alcoholic, you dont buy them more booze and hope that they learn to drink less on their own.

This is a surprise

[dkleinsc]

The Democrats appear to have located their spines.

The game that's been going on for over a year is simple:
1. Make demands in exchange for continuing to have a functioning government after some deadline.
2. "negotiate" with the Democrats until several hours before the deadline.
3. Democrats blink, make an 11th-hour deal with Republicans to give them about 95% of their original demands.
4. Democrats declare victory and tell their constituents that the 5% that they got is worth it. Their constituents, apparently not as stupid as the Democratic politicians, don't believe them.
5. Republicans declare victory, and tell their constituents that the 5% cost was worth it, because they'll get rid of it soon enough. They then locate the next deadline they can use.

Let's bring some numbers into this...

[MikeRT]

What pisses me off the most about discussing the debt with most of the people I know is that they won't discuss the numbers. Why? Because they don't want to see what even Wikipedia will show them about how we spend money. The federal government spends the vast majority of its money on domestic spending, not military. The combined total spent every year on the Department of Defense and both the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still a few billion shy of all we spend on Social Security per year.

Just Social Security. Think about that for a moment. We spend as much on that as we do on the military, which is one of the only functions of the federal government which no one disputes is a constitutionally-defined function of the federal government.

There is no getting around the fact that first and foremost, we need domestic spending cuts. As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." I am paying into it now and it's a fact that I won't receive it. I don't mind paying for the elderly, but the program needs to be cut off at its knees now because it is the height of injustice to expect us and Generation X to fund such a horribly mismanaged program now that the Boomers want to retire. They had 1994-2008 to right the ship of state, to try to rebuild the trust fund (which was destroyed on their parents' watch) and ran one of the most irresponsible periods of American government in our history. Arguably, the worst.

As a practical matter, means test the heck out of Social Security and Medicare while cutting our military's responsibilities. We could shave hundreds of billions per year with neither a loss in our national defense nor creating any genuine inequity by cutting of access to the former for people with private retirement or other government pensions and by bring our troops home. The reason our budget is so out of control is first and foremost our inability to say "no" to anyone, be it the middle age people who want to collect a fat benefit check they don't really need or a foreign government expecting us to police the world.

There *are* no automatic cuts

[bradley13]

The problem is: there *are* no cuts. The so-called cuts are reductions in planned increases. Government spending continues to go up - just less than it otherwise might have. This is not success.

Anyway, the amount they were supposed to cut was a joke. They were supposed to trim 1.2 trillion over 10 years. That's 120 billion per year. But again - not off the current spending, but off of planned increases. The result would still have been a net increase.

Idiots re-arranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. It would be entertaining if it weren't so frustrating.

went as planned

[Charliemopps]

I surprised everyone is fooled by this. The solution to the problem at hand is obvious... Cuts in both military spending as well as social programs, and ending the Bush tax cuts... in fact, we probably need even more than that. But how can the republicans raise taxes and cut military spending and then go home and get re-elected? How can democrats cut social spending and not invent some new "screw the rich" tax? It would require a diabolical plan... pass a law that says if a special committee cant agree on a plan, all these things happen... Then find people to be on the committee that are all as far left and right as possible so that, not only will they not agree, but their respective electorate will praise them for not making a deal with those evil republicans/democrats. Taxes go up, spending goes down, everyone can blame everyone else... It's perfect! The only problem? Even this wasn't enough. We're still doomed.

Re:Rant on budgeting gimmicks

[Cthefuture]

And it's not just the government that does that, businesses do it too. Over the past few years we have seen consumers cutting back personal budgets which causes businesses and governments to increase prices or look for other sneaky ways to get more money from people in order to make their next budget cycle. Which then causes consumers to cut back even more, which then causes business to increase prices even more... and so on.

The whole thing is about to implode here at some point if businesses and government don't recognize that they need to seriously cut spending just like us normal people have been doing. You can't have infinite budget increases when the economy is going the opposite direction.

Norquist is hardly alone....

[RobinEggs]

Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.

I'm not sure if you can lay it all on Norquist, but he's clearly the most powerful proponent of the stupidest, most obstructive Republicans in the budget mess. Norquist, the 96.5% of the Republicans in congress (238 of 242 House, 41 of 47 Senate) who signed his pledge, and every single Republican candidate won't do anything that raises taxes by a single dollar.

And check out this:

In a debate in August, Republican presidential candidates were asked whether they would support a budget deal that bundled $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. All said no. They rejected any deal that involved raising taxes.

So they hate raising taxes. We get it. These assholes still can't accept a proposal that goes in their favor 11 to 1? They reject it out of hand before even talking about what the spending cuts would be? Are they joking?!??!?

Who the fuck supports a platform, for a major party in a democratic republic, that says: "We get every single thing we want and you get nothing you want. If you don't comply, we'll watch it all burn until you give it."

That's not debate. That's not governing. It's fucking economic terrorism; it's taking hostage of 295 million people to satisfy your ideological hard-on.

Re:Norquist is hardly alone....

[CrimsonAvenger]

So they hate raising taxes. We get it. These assholes still can't accept a proposal that goes in their favor 11 to 1? They reject it out of hand before even talking about what the spending cuts would be? Are they joking?!??!?

Tax increases have to be repealed. Note that noone ever write a tax increase with a built-in expiration date.

Spending cuts are only meaningful for this year's budget. Future congresses are in no way obligated to honor an agreement to cut spending made last year. Hell, they're not even obligated to honor an agreement to cut spending made by THEM THIS YEAR.

And finally, note that we've not had a Federal Budget for the entire Obama Presidency. Just a series of continuing resolutions. The Dems in the Senate stopped doing budget in 2008 so they wouldn't be hammered by their budget in the 2008 elections. And they've pretty much kept it up since then. The Republican House does a budget, sends it to the Senate, the Senate ignores it.

Without a real Federal Budget, we're not going to actually get ANY spending cuts, even if both Parties agree to them.

Who the fuck supports a platform, for a major party in a democratic republic, that says: "We get every single thing we want and you get nothing you want. If you don't comply, we'll watch it all burn until you give it."

Sounds like the Dems, alright. Oh, you meant the Reps? Alas, both Parties are dancing to that tune right now. Don't put all the blame on the one side unless you're trying to show which Party you support.

And note that by putting all the blame on the OTHER Party, you just convince everyone to who doesn't already support YOUR Party that your arguments are meaningless.

I am Jack's utter lack of surprise...

[Assmasher]

...seriously people?

F*** what I wouldn't give for the Clinton years again. Smart president, likes a little scandal, smart Republican congress, keeping each other in balance with COMPROMISE and working together. Ignoring that whole ridiculous impeachment thing (personally, I'm happier when the President is known to be getting some.)

Now? Well meaning, if weak (first term-itis), President, diametrically opposed Republican Congress who are caught between a rock and a hard place trying to embrace the Tea Party while ignoring its ridiculous 'no compromise' policies.

I remember when I first heard about the tea-party, it sounded good. People wanting common sense and a return to 'founding father' kinds of ways. Then it became popular and got hijacked by the whack jobs. The founding fathers espoused compromise and working together - the tea party? Hell no, "My way or the highway" is more their tune.

Government meant to operate in balance cannot operate when one part of the government simply will not work with the others.

Do I want my taxes to go up? F*** no. Should they go up to solve debt problems in addition to cutting spending? Of course. Make corporations making over 10 million dollars actually pay taxes? What a crazy idea...

Debt committee

[Independent_forever]

The fact that this group was needed simply tells the American people that we not only have a dysfunctional government right now but these so-called elected "leaders" can't get the job done and it is one they are paid to do....Congress failed the minute they appointed this smaller group. In essence, they punted on the hard decision so they could wash their hands of it--plain & simple. This government is a disaster right now and while the previous administration may have caused some things leading up to Obama's term, the fact is this administration does not take ownership of anything, blames other people/events for their problems and is dividing this country by the hour and setting us back decades both on the federal level as well as personal levels. I've never seen or heard of a President causing so much hatred and divisiveness among groups within the country. I hope all the black voters out there don't simply vote this guy back in simply because he is black--he has to be the most racist and divisive President this country has had in a long time. The only difference between him and people who are outwardly racist is the fact that he practices it through policies, speaking out of both sides of his mouth and puts things in motion behind closed doors out of public eye. To me, that's more dangerous than hate groups in the streets...at least you can deal with those idiots in public and in the open. How can you fight racism and hypocrisy on this level when you don't know until it is too late? Very disappointed in our government and we may need another Declaration Of Independence to free ourselves of this current government. It is in the Constitution and DOI--when the government ceases to be in place for the people and begins to usurp too much power it is time to disband it and create a new government---that's really what we need now as this cancer has been growing for decades long before Bush was in office. We've got a do-nothing Congress, divisive President and a court system that is out of control with a "Statist" agenda. We need to turn this country around and right this ship once and for all....America was NOT built to have government interfere in our lives and tax us ad infinitum--that's why we broke with England in case anyone forgot. The government believe it can dole our rights to citizens...they forget...WE, the people, give the government its power and WE the people can take it away. Otherwise, we might as well be Socialist or worse, Communist at our core and we know how well those systems works don't we. I find it hypocritical that WE, as a nation, are supporting revolutions around the world so people can opt in to Democracy YET our government is killing our democratic way of life and taking away the very freedoms other countries are dying for....

Why do you want more government

[Crashmarik]

And why do you think it needs to be a bigger part of your life ?

This is what you are asking for when you demand taxes be raised. Sure you may just want to soak the rich guy, I mean its hardly fair he has more than you do. What you really get is that money going to more bureaucracy that much more overhead in your daily life, and that much more of a boost to politicians patronage powers. That means that much less "Democracy" and that much more oligarchy in a country that has far too much of the later.

Re:Why do you want more government

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it really isn't. What people want is for the government to do the same or less but actually have more of the money it needs to do that through taxes. No more bureaucracy, no more patronage powers, just a slightly less fucked economy.

Sigh. THIS ALREADY HAPPENED.

[Viewsonic]

Did you not pay attention to the 2010 elections? Many were kicked out because they wanted something new. Now we have even WORSE people in office. Change for the sake of change rarely works. Quit saying this. Vote for people that back your views, or at the very least vote for the least evil if that doesn't exist.

They can't set aside bias because we can't either

[argStyopa]

The liberal left will come in here saying that categorically taking tax increases off the table was uncompromising and stupid.
The conservative right will come in here and point out that tax increases are always the answer for the left, who have no concept of fiscal responsibility and never met a government program that they didn't love.

I'm a conservative, but I'll be as objective as I can be: BOTH sides are arrogant, petulant, moronic, asinine, worthless bunglers that should all be fired. If the postal worker walks down the street and doesn't deliver the mail - she gets fired. If the paramedic looks great in his uniform and loves tooting his siren but never actually saves anyone, he gets fired. Congress's JOB is the control of the pursestrings. Period. They haven't done their job, yet we continue to re-elect them.

Let's be clear - to claim that Republicans are solely to blame is already tendentious. The 111th Congress (2009; you know, the one with the democratic majority in both houses, and a democratic president) DIDN'T pass a budget for 2010. To suggest that was somehow purely Republican fault is staggering mendacity.

I have already complained to my Republican congressman that they suck as negotiators - that the military (20% of federal spending) gets hit by 50% of the sequestration automatic cuts - was an idiotic agreement, and is essentially giving the Democrats who are typically anti-defense no reason to come to any agreement. No agreement = they already win. Thus I'm unsurprised that they've found no result to date.

Personally (and I know this is my politics speaking) I'm sick of the infinite expansion of government programs, seemingly no incentive by government to limit their spending, and their constantly assuming I as the tax payer am an endless font of more money.

Before the leftist strawmen attack: of course I understand that some government is necessary, and that as a member of a society, I'm willing to cheerfully contribute a share of the costs. HOWEVER I don't agree with the $trillions spent on bailing out investment firms and banks, and protecting them from their bad choices. Yes, letting them collapse would have been disastrous for the US economy, but here's how I see it: we've already built a society that's trying to be capitalist on the up side, (so people can reap the benefits), and socialist on the down side (so people are protected from the results of their choices). This is logically unsustainable. The resulting economic collapse is nothing more than the resolution of this unsustainability....pretty much just like forest fires. The more we try to resist the natural forces of capitalism, the more cataclysmic are the ultimate results when these forces DO eventually succeed in breaking the levees.

I don't agree with $billions being spent to bail people out of homes that they bought and couldn't afford. Caveat emptor shouldn't be MY problem. As a homeowner that DID moderate my desires, who DID buy a home within my means (INCLUDING planning for rainy-day money, and working/saving at a level that isn't predicated on boundless optimism, an eternally-growing economy, and permanent employment), I'm the schmuck; as a homeowner that makes his payments, I'm going to be (again) the one charged to cover the losses by the banks AND taxed by the gov't to cover the giveaways by the Fed too.

I'm disappointed by the $billions (or more) apparently lost in Iraq and Afghanistan without our government apparently caring very much?

In my adult lifetime, I've heard repeatedly at the federal and state levels that whenever there's a budget problem (and let's face it, need is infinite and resources never are), elected representatives like to increase taxes today and promise to cut spending tomorrow (liberals) or cut taxes today and promise to cut spending tomorrow (conservatives). Tomorrow never seems to come.

I agree that to dig out of this hole, we WILL have to raise taxes. I complained to the Republican National committee that as a Republican I w

Re:Mod Up

[d3ac0n]

The problem is that no amount of "oversight" will ever be enough because you are essentially asking the government to police itself. You simply cannot separate the oversight body from the rest of the government without creating a quasi-police state with a bunch of unelected people having "oversight" over the elected ones. That sounds very much like Tyranny to me.

Alternately, you could create an elected "oversight" body, but then why have the original governing body in the first place? Oversight is a black hole of ever growing government and ever disappearing money.

The solution is to shrink the size of government and take power OUT of it's hands until it is back to the teeny tiny size it was intended to be by the Founders. Most of it's current duties should be devolved back to the state, local, and personal level.

Simply put, our Government is too big. Big Governments are always inevitably corrupt. Making our government bigger (oversight) won't fix the problem of it's excessive size.

Too late to reform Social Security

[pavon]

If the idiots in congress had actually done something (other than raise taxes) back in the early 80's when the NCSSR declared that social security would become insolvent, or in 1994 when Gingrich et.al. were making noise about it, or maybe even as late as 2000 when Gore made it a core part of his platform, then we could have had serious social security reform. The baby boomers would have had time to adjust their retirement plans and deal with the changes.

It's too late now. The boomers are already retiring, and it isn't right to pull the rug out from underneath them after the government has been promising them their money back (they paid into the program after all). Raising taxes is the only option for social security now. Which sucks for my generation, but at least I have time to plan around it.

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[TheRaven64]

from the same guys carrying around pictures of him and his family with chimpanzee heads pasted on

I love the fact that everyone was forwarding the pictures comparing Bush to a chimp, but anyone who compares Obama to a chimp is a racist. The celebrity chimps website was shut down over accusations of racism, even though most of the celebrities that they turned into chips were white.

Dems compromise, Republicans do not.

[FatSean]

The Democrats keep offering more and more cuts but get nothing back from the Republicans.

We need both revenue increases and spending cuts.

The Republicans, and the Tea Party radicals specifically, are the problem.

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[Calos]

Yes they were. The vast majority of those kinds of signs that showed up at the rallies were clearly labeled as being from the LaRouchians, who, having little in common with the TPers, sought to capitalize on the exposure the rallies were getting for their own goals.

As for what you linked to - yeah, that person screwed up. Though personally I was not aware that chimpanzee/monkey could be considered a racial insult; more of a general insult about competency or perhaps being a show trick controlled by someone else.

Y'know, like all those signs that had Bush morphed into a chimp.

Re:Why does it matter?

[Beelzebud]

During war time? It's fine to ask middle and lower class people to sacrifice their lives, but raising taxes on the rich is out of the question?

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[Count Fenring]

Awwwww.... does the concept of context escape you? Pobrecito... Let me lay it out for you - chimp is both an English language word describing a type of monkey, AND a racial slur. Which is implied is determined by the situation and surrounding language, a process known as "context." An extremely simple example - If I were to say "Your mom," the meaning would be radically different if you had said "Who do you think should make the cake for my birthday," or "Man, I'd like to bang-"

Re:Mod Up

[Qzukk]

point of ruling a law "unconstitutional" really is one of recognition

Except that this view is incomplete, and it's weaknesses make it horribly so. By cramming this act of "recognition" into the judicial system, we end up where we are now: the government can do whatever it wants until it hurts someone. Supporting this arrangement is like supporting using an elementary school as a shooting range: sometimes you have to be able to say "no, don't do that" before someone gets hurt, because no matter how hard you petition or how hard the government redresses, some grievances can't be undone.

I love that the republicans admit ...

[Surt]

that one side was willing to compromise. One side wants to cut entitlements, the other to raise taxes. Republicans say: the Democrats wouldn't compromise and do it all by cutting entitlements. The Democrats say: the Republicans wouldn't compromise and do it with a mix of taxes and entitlement cuts.

One side just sounds saner here. It's depressing.

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[TheRaven64]

What was the difference in context in the Celebrity Chimps case? They took a picture of President Bush and his wife, made them look like chimps (not hard in Bush's case) and posted it on a web site. Some years later, they took a picture of President Obama and his wive, made them look like chimps, and posted it on the same web site. Yet the second case received loud shouts of racism, the first did not.

The only difference between the two was that one was a white person and one was a black person. How on earth do you say that it's racist to say something about a black person but not racist to say exactly the same thing about a white person.

Having different standards for black and white people is practically the definition of racism.

Re:Translation

[tbannist]

Except this is what the Republicans are actually saying:

Republicans: We need to increase spending on the military and cut everything else and we need to cut taxes on the rich.

The Republicans are actually preparing a bill which will cancel the automatic military cuts, and they were willing to raise taxes on the middle class in exchange for tax cuts for the rich. They seem to have little real interest in balancing the budget.

Why doesn't anyone recongnize that if you took every penny from the top 1% we'd still be completely screwed because we spend way too much .

Because that's not actually true. The richest Americans have about $1 trillion in cash reserves and American corporations have about $1.5 trillion in cash reserves. That's money that's not doing anything other than earning interest. There's an interesting argument to be made that that money is being kept out of the economy because taxes on the rich and corporations are actually too low.

Wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest Americans. The top 400 have about as much wealth as the bottom 50%. This means that the rewards of society are overwhelming going to the richest Americans, which probably means they aren't paying as much as they should in taxes. After all you'd expect the people profiting from the status quo to pay to maintain it, right?

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[geekoid]

"How on earth do you say that it's racist to say something about a black person but not racist to say exactly the same thing about a white person."

Well first you enslave on group for a while.

Then you free them, but still treat them as 'not real people' for 100 years.
Then you get angry when they want to sit, shit, eat, and get a shave as the same places as white people
And along this path, once in a while you beat some people to death because their skin happens to be darker.

So, yeah there is a difference.
Now, is it logical? no. It is not. It is a completely emotional reaction, but one the you can't really ignore.

you try to be even handed, but...

[AdamWill]

Just read the two statements in the summary. Nothing else is necessary.

Republican: "Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms. They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes."

Democrat: "The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet."

I mean, one of those is clearly a bald-faced misrepresentation: this is made clear within the statement itself. In the first sentence he flatly claims that Democrats would not "do the entitlement reforms". In the very next sentence he makes it clear that this is simply a lie: Democrats were entirely ready to do entitlement reforms, but on the condition that they were accompanied by tax increases. You know, compromise. That thing two sides who don't agree are supposed to do for the greater good.

The Democrat, by contrast, simply states that the Republicans would not agree to anything that included tax rises - whatever entitlement cuts were involved.

I just don't see where's the room for interpretation or greyness there. From their own statements it's quite clear that the Republicans are a) fundamentally dishonest and b) utterly unwilling to compromise.

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[Moryath]

Sorry, but the evidence of my own eyes and ears when visiting Tea Party events - and no, I was not there to "infiltrate", but to find out if what I had been seeing was truly representative of the movement - showed me precisely how racist these people are. A local buddy of mine with a latino-sounding name (actually of Spanish descent, as in his father is from Spain) was roundly booed and got shouts of "go back to Mexico" from this filth merely for showing up - and he was there because he's a registered Republican candidate for the state senate and was trying to get votes for the primary!

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[cayenne8]

Well first you enslave on group for a while.

Geez...get over it!!

No one in the US has had slaves in a LOOONG time.

Isn't it about time to quit playing victim here...and try to move on?

Re:Mod Up

[Moryath]

the founders envisioned a LIMITED central government who's role was kept at a minimum. Defending the country, ensuring peace and unimpeded economic traffic between the states (the infamous "commerce clause") and providing for jurisprudence over country-wide legal issues. that was it.

What you're forgetting is the WHY. They envisioned keeping things "local" where possible; more to the point, they wanted things kept to their definition of "local" in what could easily done in a week's travel. None of the original 13 colonies took more than a week to ride on horse from one end to the other, and some took significantly less.

Fast-forward to today. You can hop on a jet, and cross the country in hours. You can road-trip it in less than a week. Riding hard and trading driving shifts, you can road-trip New York to Los Angeles on the freeways in 1 day 21 hours (so assume maybe 2 and a half days to add in gas stops, pit stops, and food breaks). Communication speeds are even faster; you can get real-time communication with an amazing amount of the world over phone or internet at any time, infrastructure-wise.

The reason for the clauses of the constitution concerning interstate commerce and interstate relations grew, not because the government power was growing, but because the nation - communication and travel wise - simply "became smaller." The founding fathers would have taken an area like Texas and forcibly broken it up into multiple states, because they would never have seen it as viable to have one big "Texas State" with that much land mass - but even between 1776 and 1845, communication and travel technologies had made it viable to allow Texas to enter as a state without being broken up.

They also never considered what the march of the industrial revolution would do. Sure, they never considered the idea of something like the EPA - but they were DUMPING THEIR SHIT OUT THE WINDOW INTO THE STREETS; Thomas Crapper's company didn't start mass producing flush toilets until the 1880s. They never considered the need for something like the EPA and environmental regulations, because they never considered the idea of a factory dumping so much toxic waste into a river or down into the groundwater reservoir that the water became beyond-undrinkable and beyond-unlivable.

I could go on, but I hope the point is clear. The founding fathers envisioned "limited government" based on scale of communications. As time has marched forward, communications and travel technology have changed, industrial technology has changed, and the sheer mobility of humanity has changed, the federal government has had to take a more active role simply because the states are, by virtue of being "so close together" and interacting so frequently, in conflict more and more and more and more.

You don't believe me? Think about this: what happens if we leave environmental regulations to the states? Chances are, Illinois or Minnesota passes something really fucking lax, and the next thing you know Missouri and Louisiana are up in arms because the Mississippi and their drinking and irrigation water is being fouled.

Re:How do you get 2 politicians to agree?

[flaming error]

> No one in the US has had slaves in a LOOONG time.
Really? Slavery ended, let's say, in 1865. A child born into slavery in 1855 may have had a child in 1900, who may have had a child in 1945.

There are people alive today who personally knew former slaves.

There are people alive today who personally experienced the Jim Crow south.

There are people alive today who, because of their skin color, were unable to serve in the military as anything but kitchen staff. Prohibited from playing professional sports. Denied entry into their church's priesthood.

It's nice to think it's all past history, but I'm sorry to inform you that there are still too many open wounds to call the problem eradicated.

We might be able to move on sooner by healing the wounds than by ignoring them and letting them fester.