Posted on 03/17/2013 11:32:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
"In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for — or even a responsible public assessment of — the country’s long-term fiscal predicament."
Washington Post Editorial, March 14, 2013
Somebody must have realigned the planets. That's the only explanation I can fathom for the harsh criticism the editors of the Washington Post unloaded on the Senate Democrats newly released budget. The first budget Harry Reid & Co. has even bothered to introduce in four years, in case anyone is still keeping score.
The WaPo editors took some jabs at the House GOP's budget, as expected. But, the dissing of the Dems is nearly unprecedented.
The editors establish the foundation for their criticisms by citing a Feb. 28 analysis by William Gale and Alan Auerbach of the left-leaning Brookings Institute, as follows:
There has been halting but real deficit reduction progress in recent months. The United States faces no imminent budget “crisis.” Nevertheless, the economists write, “the 10-year budget outlook remains tenuous.” Even assuming steady economic growth, the national debt in 2023 will be twice as high as its historical average, as a percentage of the economy — and poised to resume rising. That long-term fiscal problem, driven by the growth of entitlement programs for an aging population, remains unaddressed. Dealing with it, Messrs. Gale and Auerbach write, will take tax and spending changes “several times the size of those adopted under the recent legislation.”
Thereafter, the editors unload:
Except for the part about no imminent crisis, the Senate Democratic budget recognizes none of this. Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores points against the Republicans and reassures the party’s liberal base — but deepens these senators’ commitment to an unsustainable policy agenda….
It is on the issue of entitlements that the Democrats’ document really disappoints. There is literally nothing — not a word — suggestive of trimming Social Security, whether through greater means-testing, a more realistic inflation adjustment or reforming disability benefits. The document’s fuzzy call for $275 billion in “health savings” is $125 billion less than the number President Obama has floated.
As for the coming flow of baby boomers into Medicare, the Democrats declare that “new retirees deserve the same promise of quality, affordable health care from which their parents have benefitted — and it is the position of the Senate Budget that they ought to get it.” There’s plenty of excoriation for the GOP “premium support” plan. But there’s no explanation of how the Democrats would pay for their “promise” — nary a hint of the many cost-saving reforms that would extend Medicare’s life without embracing the GOP plan.
In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for — or even a responsible public assessment of — the country’s long-term fiscal predicament.
And I’m serious. The jobs are not coming back.
There are jobs, maybe not in your neighborhood or city, but in our newspaper today small companies are trying to find licensed electricians, plumbers and welders. Yes someone may have to go to school for two years to be trained but it is doable and these are the kinds of skills that will always be needed.
Head for the oil patch if you want to make some money. Yes it may be hard work but it’s a job and it pays well.
If we get some manufacturing jobs back the repetitive tasks will be done by robots. Obama promised Hope and Change. Not sure what the hope thing was all about but I do know that life has certainly changed.
Time to figure out how to make lemonade out of the bunch of lemons that has been foisted on us.
To-mate-o...To-mot-o.
NO budgets were passed over the past four years -- except by the House.
In the absence of budgets, spending was automatically controlled by the Current Services Baseline -- the previous year's budget, adjusted upward by a specified percentage. The arrangement is an artifact of the Carter administration -- and, as planned by Harry Reid, it kept the Republican House from having any meaningful say regarding appropriations and expenditures since they gained a majority effective January, 2011.
I am convinced that nothing will bring back manufacturing like WWIII would. I hope we can recover our industrial base in an emergency fast enough to stave off disaster. Nobody thinks of that.
Man, that's a tough one.
Isn't the one trillion deficit each year since 2009 because they added the stimulus to the budget as a yearly expenditure? My understanding was since 2008, the budget has increased 25% mainly caused by the stimulus that was included annually by way of the Continuing Resolution instead of an annual budget.
You are correct.
While we were all led to believe that Porkulus was supposed to be a one-time-only expenditure, the Democrats took steps to build it into the departmental budgets. Accordingly, the stimulus became part of the Current Services Baseline.
Harry Reid knew exactly what he was doing. When they passed Obamacare, the Democrat leadership knew they were going to lose the House in 2010 -- and they developed a plan to short-circuit the House's Constitutional authority over appropriations. The method:
1. Build Porkulus into the departmental budgets
2. Then resist any attempt to pass a Congressional budget.
3. Presto! Expenditures were now controlled by the Current Services Baseline -- the only Congressional action required being the passage of a Continuing Resolution (which cannot effectively impact exactly what spending is taking place -- only the total amount).
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.