Posted on 08/01/2011 1:54:00 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Worth reading for this weeks hot debate!
Spending cuts are not till 2013 given to next congress non-binding after the (Obama) election.
There still has to be (or should be) a FY12 budget passed BTW for October 1. Another set of CRs coming?
Let’s see. My wife is spending $80,000 more than we make and has hit our credit limit.
Solution? I agree to get a credit limit extension for another $80k, if she’ll reduce her plans to increase her spending from $160k to only $155k.
Oh yea, great deal.
Why don’t we trust the Republican leadership? Sen. Corker (R-TN) said this morning on CNBC that the real total of spending cuts would “probably be $40-50 BILLION,” because the Boehner deal only obligates this Congress to try to cut the budget. Future Congresses are not bound by anything this Congress does.
The same vanishing spending cuts happened in last December’s budget deal, when Boehner’s billions in cuts shrank to millions. So again, the GOP will give Obama and the Dems the money they want to buy votes with for next year’s election, and the spending cuts are practically nil. No wonder sane people don’t trust these scam artists.
This bill allows for the Bush tax rates to expire, which is a tax increase......
The “cuts” they are talking about would have more meaning if they were not talking in ‘baseline budgeting’ terms. As is, it’s a sham and charade.
I know Reid wanted to slip a provision in the bill that would excuse his refusal to present a budget for the next two years. I don’t know if he got it. I wish the Pubs would make more of a point of it, perhaps even stirring up another “crisis” when futire CR’s come up. We need a dim budget on the table for the purpose of next year’s election campaigns.
Secondly, I am amused at all the reasons this compromise bill is a “failure”, “sellout”, etc>:
It did not make a one-year cut of $1.2 Trillion from the budget THIS year.
It did not make permanent the Bush Tax cuts.
It did not abolish base line budgeting.
It did not compel PASSAGE of a BBA.
Anyone who thinks those things were remotely possible this year lives on Planet “Head UP the Ass”
Anyone who thinks those things a possible at ANYTIME in the future better get started buildiing the Republican numbers in the House, Senate and White House— and not just any Republican, but the most conservative ones electable. We’ve got a shot to move in that direction 15 months from right now.
Another Cr cave, dang, we know what will happen there.
I am much more realistic than many when it comes to the current political realities of single House control, so I am not dwelling on those myself. My big problem is delaying the cuts till 2013 AFTER the election and non-binding on the next congress. That is standard political cowardliness and helps Obama get re-elected which is why he wants it.
That is a point I have been making too. And any cuts put into law now can be easily reversed by a Speaker Pelosi if the plan is to lose the election in 2012(worst case).
And I am more realistic than some in rating the current compromise. It doesn’t do squat in addressing the debt crisis we are now facing. Worse, it relies on those same old gimmicks to create the image of spending restraint— non-binding “cuts” in the rate of spending GROWTH, cementing in bigger deficits year after year, relying on the 18th “commission” to reign in spending after 17 miserable failures with the same fix, and then labeling those few who actually want to fix the problem as some kind of lunatic fringe.
My point is that the real problem will be faced in the real world in one of two ways: (1) We get a solid majority of conservatives in all the political units or (2)after a total financial collapse followed by 10 or 20 years of who knows what, something else will emerge.
Maybe the odds are strongly against (1), but the alternative forces us to try.
And I have seen a number of posters calling for #2 which would be a disaster if it had the GOp name on it.
I posted on another thread that the House should sent the Senate a $50B debt extension so House Republicans can improve this bill to get more of their votes, I know it's risky business but passing this deal 'as is' helps Obama get re-elected, few voters will care what he originally demanded in this, just as few voters cared that Clinton originally opposed a BB when voting in 1996.
Even if republicans took ten senate seats (they won't) they would still need to get ten democrats to come on board. None of them ever, ever will for that version of the BBA. I doubt you even get moderate to liberal republicans like S. Brown or O. Snowe on board, they only voted for CCB because in wasn't highly publicized and they knew it wouldn't pass (IMO).
Now a straight version of the BBA is possible, and might have even been possible now if they hadn't wasted all that time on CCB and the Paul Ryan plan. So I'm not sure the establishment republicans were the only ones running a con. Conservatives wasted precious time on symbolic legislation.
But anyway, I agree w/ your basic point: many people here need a reality check (or simply need to read the constitution and understand how hard it is to amend the constitution).
I agree with you that passage of BBA is very unlikely in foreseeable future. Also, I don’t think there is any scenario where it could have passed this year. (Parenthetically, I would add that the BBA cure can be worse than the disease unless it is very carefully drafted.)
However, when the vote is taken this year on the BBA - and I hope it is a well drafted version— some of those 23 dim senators up for reelection are going to have to vote against it. If that helps next November, then good. If it doesn’t help—se la vie.
Good posts, Yosemitest, very helpful.
There is no deal. The Republicans only think they have a deal.
Experience has shown that the Democrats do not keep their word on deals.
They are like Lucy with the football, telling Charlie Brown to trust her that this time she won’t pull the football out of the way.
The CBO has already discredited points one and two.
AND
there are now multiple versions of the balanced budget amendment floating around.
I think Boehner all along never believed that real cuts were going to happen, and so has been using this entire crisis to set things up for 2012. Including the vote on the balanced budget. He knows it will go down, but he really wants to get Democrats on record as having voted against it, becasuse it tends to be extremely popular with voters.
Whehter or not all this has the desired political effect next fall remains to be seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.