Debt Limit Negotiations: What Winning Looks Like

ATR ^ | 2011-06-30 | Mattie Corrao

[92nina]

Reports are surfacing today that suggest Democrats are conceding their demand for tax hikes is a non sequitor in the debt limit negotations. After the President's laughable attempt yesterday to blame the government's spending problem on tax treatment of corporate jets (policy he has previously supported) it is clear any discussion involving taxes represents a non-serious approach to the debt limit debate. The Hill reports today that in an effort to save face on the negotiations, Democrats are hoping to net Republican support for defense spending cuts. As we pointed out in the fall, conservatives should have no problem supporting military prudence - especially if it comes as a lesson to Democrats that tax hikes can't solve a spending problem. That Democrats see defense spending as a "concession" from Republicans in the debt limit debate means that ultimately taxpayers will be the winners in these negotiations. This represents recognition, finally, that taxes cannot play a role in solving what is, and remains to be, a government spending problem...

Read more: http://www.atr.org/debt-limit-negotiations-winning-looks-like-a6304#ixzz1QrjhkTyq

[92nina]

Democrats suggesting defense spending cuts instead of tax hikes in exchange for a debt limit increase means taxpayers are winning the debt limit negotiations.

Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at at Digg and at Reddit and in Stumbleupon and Delicious

[b4its2late]

Sure, make our country more vulnerable than they have already made it with continual defense cuts while fighting 3 wars off shore.

And... Why is there a debt limit when they keep raising it?

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm on board with Defense cuts. I think we need to cut everywhere, and I have no sacred cows. Everything is on the table.

My problem is that the Democrats (and people like John McCain) will draw up a list of 100 places to cut the federal budget -- and 99 of those places will be DoD.

I don't want to play that game.

[OB1kNOb]

I agree with you. There are cost cutting opportunities everywhere. No sacred cows.

[92nina]

I would agree with you if the Defense Department were solely just our men (and women) fighting overseas. (As well as the technology that helps them.) But as we saw with the knaves for repealing DA, DT, there is an entrenched bureaucracy in the Pentagon that needs some trimming.

Maybe we should go back to just the War Department and set aside certain other functions; or maybe we just need a better Commander-in-Chief...

[92nina]

I agree also; let’s hope the GOP doesn’t accommodate the Lefties typical knee-jerk reaction to the military.

[JPG]

Many useless agencies exist (EPA, Dept of Education, etc) that employ thousands of useless bureaucrats. They go to work everyday and must justify their positions by ‘doing something.’ What they do is waste money and cause problems and need to be sent packing.

[SMARTY]

There is abysmal waste, duplication, mismanagement, etc. all over the place.

If politicians did NOTHING but clean up their act, we could save money right there

What ever changes are made, accountability MUST be consistent.

[b4its2late]

I vote for both.

[ataDude]

You forgot the Energy Department and the Department of Agriculture. :-)

Hasn’t the Energy Department been a huge beacon of success? It was created in the 70’s to lower our dependence on foreign oil.

[JPG]

I believe my use of ‘etc’ covered the vast multitude of useless agencies. Flush them all!