Some back of the envelope thoughts about this debt deal which you can find here.
Seems the plan negotiated by Washington DC comes up a little short. According to the article the credit rating agencies wanted $4 trillion in cuts to maintain the US AAA credit rating and the negoitiated settlement only came up with $2.5 trillion. None the less the Asian markets are celebrating the deal, as are the pre markets here, as well. I wonder what will happen when the inital euphoria wears off? (here)
One is a political question: I concede there’s probably plenty of fat in the defense budget, but why do the Democrats always equate national security with welfare programs as they do in this language?
Total reductions would be equally split between defense and non-defense programs. Across-the-board cuts would also apply to Medicare. Other programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil & military pay, would be exempt.
Why do Dems always think of our national security as optional? Isn’t the beginning of the pursuit of happiness being free to do it? Giving people free money taken from others is not an enumerated power but national security certainly is. Why then equate its importance with food stamps or welfare programs whose budgets, by the way, have EXPLODED since the stimulus bill vaporized the 1996 Welfare Reform Act?
Recently one of the Pentagon big shots was asked what our biggest national security problem is right now. He said, “the debt.”
The President is given a Harry Reid ‘big wet kiss’ by not having to consider the debt limit again before the election.
They claim there will be no tax increases in this deal, but most of the budget cuts take place starting in 2013 after the President is safely re-elected (?) and the BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE!! So there will be tax increases.
Across-the-board spending cuts would apply to FYs 2013-2021, and apply to both mandatory & discretionary programs.
Ceding decisions on the federal budget to a super committee is just inane. We send THEM to Congress to make these decisions. If we worked our butts off to elect more republicans than democrats, then why would we exchange their more conservative fiscal values for those of democrats?
Same as House-passed bill, framework creates a 12-member Joint Committee required to report legislation by November 23, 2011 that would produce a proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5T over 10 years.
Besides, haven’t we see these committees before? Shoot, the president pretended to care about the debt problems before and had a blue ribbon committee give him a big fat book of recommendations which he promptly ignored. I know! Lets take the flatter tax rate idea from that plan. Anyone? Anyone?
As in House-passed bill, framework imposes spending caps that
would set clear limits on future spending & serve as barrier
against gov’t expansion while economy grows
Spending caps—remember Nancy Pelosi’s pay-go?–can be ignored by declaring an “emergency.” The feds in 2010 declared the Census an “emergency,” even though it wasn’t, to get around their largely ignored pay go plans. To give you an idea of what an “emergency” constitutes, the City of Portland City Council recently designated the plastic bag ban an “emergency” to get around more hearings in order to ram it through before anyone noticed.
The Balance Budget Amendment (BBA) is given lip service but there’s nothing holding anyone’s feet to the fire:
Same as House-passed bill, framework requires both House & Senate to vote on a BBA after Oct. 1, 2011 but before the end of year
There’s more language on the BBA but I’m waiting to hear what the folks involved say about it tomorrow. I heard Senator Jeff Sessions I believe say tonight that he wants seven days to read the bill.
This will get more interesting.