US politics

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a solid retort, but given the history that I laid out, I do not believe that the GOP is sincere in its request.

In that case, the smartest thing the Administration could have done was call their bluff and pass the corresponding cuts. Then trumpet to the hills that the GOP are liars when they still refuse to support the extension. But if the GOP makes the offer, and is turned down, that responsibility lies with the Administration.

Why should I be?

I dunno. Maybe because some Republicians have voted for the seven previous extensions? Ben Nelson also voted against the extension. Was he just voting that way to hurt Obama too?

[DanteGabriel]

In that case, the smartest thing the Administration could have done was call their bluff and pass the corresponding cuts. Then trumpet to the hills that the GOP are liars when they still refuse to support the extension. But if the GOP makes the offer, and is turned down, that responsibility lies with the Administration.

I am sure there is some gamesmanship involved in the extension of unemployment benefits. I imagine the Democrats think they can use the no vote as a cudgel against the Republicans in the next few months leading up to the mid-terms.

[Shryke]

If it was so inconsequential, it should have been easy for Dems to finance it by cutting some spending elsewhere, which is the only demand the GOP made in exchange for supporting it. Apparently, though, the Administration was unwilling to cut an inconsequential amount of money from its budget, and would rather have people go without unemployment instead.

So you are saying the GOP is holding millions of Americans hostage over a petty pissing contest about next to no money?

[The Progressive]

Scot,

It's absurd to take unconfirmed anecdotal story as a premise to make any legitimate criticism against policy that were shown to be effective and efficient at ensuring public safety. Moreso given that there are existing mechanism to report/complaint about undilligent inspectors.

Once again, your hyperbolic rant against governmental actions seems to be as baseless as usual.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

How many people have read Mr. Pollan's book? Yet you are the only critic who's questioned this particular story. Mr. Salatin's friend was fighting with the FDA according to Mr. Pollan's book. You can't really believe there aren't federal regulators who know who they can mess with and who they can't? The smaller the target the easier it is for regulators to get away with the sorts of abuse Mr. Pollan writes about in his book.

[The Progressive]

Serious, Scot .......... are you saying that if there's another person somewhere on the vast internet who questioned the credibility of that "friend of the farmer" account, then your premise would be legitimately debunked?

Your better argument would have been the lack of inspectors along with the financial strain for small farms to comply would have been more credible.

[DanteGabriel]

Lev,

How many people have read Mr. Pollan's book? Yet you are the only critic who's questioned this particular story. Mr. Salatin's friend was fighting with the FDA according to Mr. Pollan's book. You can't really believe there aren't federal regulators who know who they can mess with and who they can't? The smaller the target the easier it is for regulators to get away with the sorts of abuse Mr. Pollan writes about in his book.

I don't even remember what the specific issue up for debate was, but at some point you tried the "I can't imagine someone else wouldn't have thought of this so it must be wrong" argument before, and it went over like a lead balloon.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev, DG,

Fair points. I'm simply suggesting that as damning an indictment of industrial farming as The Omnivore's Delimma is I'd be suprised if Mr. Pollan is feeding us a load of BS with that story no body would have called him on it. Pollan's got a good reputation as a journalist. I trust him.

[TrackerNeil]

While I also bemoan the easy-to-purchase politicians of the U.S., I also see this as something we cannot change. It is a product of the over-riding philosophy of the U.S. - individualism. People look out for themselves, and they value individual rights over collective rights. These politicians are products of this culture, and so that's they way they are. You can't on one hand fan the fervor flames of rugged individualism while on the other hand expect the appearance of a cache of selfless leaders willing to promote good for the public. It does not compute. In other words, you cannot in one breath demand tax cuts so you can retain more of your earned money at and ask that the politicians forego pork projects and frivolous spending for political gains. The politicians are doing what you're doing, in essence, so don't throw stones.

If we have cars, we will have car accidents, and some deaths. If we let people own handguns, there'll be violence related to handguns, and some accidents. If we pursue rugged individualism and capitalism, there will be corruption and selfish interests taking over the public policy. We'll just have to deal with it the best we can, as long as we agree that the over all benefit still outweighs the cost.

Hmm...interesting. I hadn't thought of things that way, but it makes sense, and it certainly explains alot. Well, except for the disconnect between the dedication to individual achievement and the desire for our elected officials to be otherwise dedicated.

[DanteGabriel]

Yeah, I like TP's theory too. It also may explain why some poor people buy into it when the GOP starts trying to sell them on the defense of the privileges of the super-wealthy. It doesn't matter that social mobility is actually fairly low in the United States as long as you keep selling schmucks on the American Dream and convince them that they, too, can become wealthy, with just hard work and good ol' American ingenuity.

[Ser Vlad]

The federalism argument in the U.S., in terms of policy not constitutionally, is really just a surrogate for less v. more government in general. Theoretically, the argument is that the states should be able to take over for a lot of the stuff the feds do. But as a practical matter, I think many people who espouse federalism would oppose that stuff even if states were to take it over. They just want less government/taxation period, and the most logical place to start is with the level of government that currently plays the largest role.

If that's the case, then the only province that would really count as being so politically aligned would be Alberta... though there are certain things which they'd favour increased spending on, if the Conservative party is an indication of their overall political inclination. Quebec is firmly in the more government and taxation camp, though. Just less anglophone government.

[Shryke]

Not even Alberta is anti-Federal Government. They are just anti-"Federal Goevrnment being controlled by non-Albertans" and/or anti-"Federal Government doing things we don't like".

[TrackerNeil]

Yeah, I like TP's theory too. It also may explain why some poor people buy into it when the GOP starts trying to sell them on the defense of the privileges of the super-wealthy. It doesn't matter that social mobility is actually fairly low in the United States as long as you keep selling schmucks on the American Dream and convince them that they, too, can become wealthy, with just hard work and good ol' American ingenuity.

And it certainly explains the support for the estate tax, for which very few actually qualify.

[Nymeria Sand]

Lev,

Hell, I'd do away with state bloc grants and mandates altogether. If the Feds want something done let them attempt to administer it themselves instead of pushing it off on the States to do for them.

Are you proposing cutting all federal aid to the states...completely?

And just who was responsible for the block grants? :) Yes, the Democratic Congress enacted them in 1966 and 1968, but they totaled less than 1% of aid to states. The block grants of the 80's were disastrous, particularly in education. I mean, everyone knows that Reagan wanted to dissolve the Department of Education. He made no bones about it. Reagan cut the funding in the block grants, told the states to spend it, then had the gall to criticize them for the way they were spending the money, saying that test scores and achievement were down and they weren't doing their jobs. In the 60's and 70's, state departments of education had improved with the help the federal dollars brought. Reagan changed all that, and as a result, we're now stuck with No Child Left Behind.(See: Terrel Bell, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform)

What's funny is that they became popular in a time of budget deficits rather than surpluses. Post-Watergate, they were seen as giving power back to the people, because the states could better control who got what--a redistribution of wealth, as it were.

[Nymeria Sand]

Nymeria,

I'm not a Republican but I do sit on the right side of the aisle. I've made some very specific cut recomendations. Does that count?

Absolutely it counts. I was talking about the Tea Partiers more than anyone, but it seems that the Republicans' main goal is to just oppose Obama no matter the issue, no matter the cost, no matter how it hurts their constituents. If they were really pissed off about the deficit, they'd have been rioting under Bush. But we didn't hear a peep out of them. They say "cut spending", but what exactly do they plan on cutting? I haven't heard a single idea from them about how to go about it--they don't know what they're doing, nor do they care, but they're damned sure that tax cuts are the way to go. I don't get it. 5th grade math would tell you that you can't reduce the deficit while cutting taxes. I'd like someone to show me ONE historical example where that actually worked.

Cutting spending won't do you a damned bit of good if you cut taxes. At best, you're just maintaining the status quo.

Jamie,

I said, last thread, cut NASA. I'll add the sexy new fighter Aircraft and other big ticket military projects to the pile. What will you cut from entitlements?

I don't know about cutting NASA completely, although it really has kind of outlived its usefulness and commercial entrepreneurs are getting in on the act. Most of the stuff it works on and has always worked on is military in nature. In fact, NASA reports directly to the Defense Department.

I do agree with Obama that cutting Ares was a good idea. I'm a science geek and it nearly killed me, but Ares was way over budget.

Which entitlements would you cut? No one in their right mind will touch Social Security. It's political suicide. Unemployment? VA?

How about some of the business entitlements, such as tax welfare for corporations? Tax entitlements cost the federal government 2 1/2 times as much as all direct entitlement programs like Medicaid, welfare, and Social Security. How about eliminating the entitlements for farming, mineral mining, and logging? How about for banks and other financial institutions? Insurance companies? Energy companies (including BP)? Tax breaks for multinationals (again, including BP)?

Would you go for that? Or are businesses and the wealthy the sacred cows and can't be touched? Any cuts to entitlements are on the backs of the little people?

[Annelise]

Given all the talk about the deficit and how to address it, I thought I would post this.

A White House commission tasked with winding down trillion-dollar deficits has won a boost from Congress’s leading GOP budget hawks, who say it is off to a strong start.

Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republicans on the House and Senate Budget committees have praised a proposal by the fiscal panel’s Democratic co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, to limit government spending and revenue to 21 percent of gross domestic product.

“I like Erskine a lot,” Ryan said of Bowles, a former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration. “He’s becoming my new favorite Democrat. He’s in the ballpark. We’re getting near the target if that’s the case.”

Gregg said spending and revenue limits like the ones Bowles has suggested would be “incredibly positive.”

“Get spending down and revenues up. … That would be very close to a stable situation,” Gregg told The Hill.

Members of both parties have doubted that the fiscal commission, created by President Barack Obama to consider spending, tax and entitlement policy reforms, can get the bipartisan support needed for an agreement.

Fourteen of the commission’s 18 members must approve recommendations before they can be sent to Congress for up-or-down votes. And since the panel includes six congressional Democrats, six members chosen by Obama and six Republicans, at least two GOP lawmakers must sign on to the final agreement for it to advance. Obama wants the commission to report out recommendations by Dec. 1.

Bowles and Obama have said that “everything is on the table” when it comes to the commission’s work.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) has said she’s “skeptical” the commission can get much done, particularly because Republicans have been averse to tax increases. GOP leaders in both chambers had initially been reluctant to name Republican lawmakers to the panel because of fears it could call for such hikes — anathema in the party.

But endorsements by Gregg and Ryan for Bowles’s idea could give GOP panel members cover to support its recommendations.

Gregg said most members of the commission are making a genuine effort to forge some sort of deal.

“There may be a few members that don’t feel that way, but I think there are easily 14 members right now that understand we have to do something,” Gregg said.

To hit Bowles’s targets, spending would have to come down. This year, federal spending is equal to about 24 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That number is expected to rise over the next few decades as entitlement costs, especially for healthcare, grow.

To balance the budget at Bowles’s recommended spending levels, revenues would still have to go up. Federal revenue is at 15 percent this year, below the historical average of about 18 percent. (The historical average for spending is 18.5 percent.) CBO projects revenue will rise to about 19 percent under a scenario in which Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class are extended — as Democrats aim to do — and other tax rates remain roughly constant.

Bowles, in laying out his general targets at a fiscal commission meeting last week, said the last time the federal government had a balanced budget — in the late 1990s — spending and revenue were lower than 21 percent as a share of the economy.

While Bowles called for a general spending target, Republicans are pushing for enforceable caps. Gregg suggested making any spending beyond set levels subject to approval of a 67-vote supermajority in the Senate.

He noted that a recently enacted budget enforcement tool, the pay-as-you-go law, has been waived multiple times by Democratic leaders seeking to pass items they considered “emergency spending.”

Reaching the spending and revenue target levels is not going to be easy, Bowles acknowledged. To help the commission get there, Bowles laid out an ambitious agenda that involves greater scrutiny on defense spending, reductions to other discretionary spending, more healthcare savings and reforms to the tax code.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a liberal on the fiscal commission, wouldn’t rule out backing spending or revenue targets, but he said the commission must first understand the range of options.

“Are we still Iraq or Afghanistan during this particular threshold? If we are, how are we paying for it?” Becerra said in an interview. “Are we finding ways to better control private-sector costs for healthcare? ... You’re seeing only the product of an equation without knowing what the variables are.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/107395-gop-hawks-boost-obamas-fiscal-panel

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nymeria,

I suggested cutting all agra subsidies upthread too. Corporate welfare needs to go... now.

[The Progressive]

Hey, an actual comprehensive plan being put together to address budget-deficit.

I guess swordfish's incessant complaint about the lack of a comprehensive plan really got to them. ;)

[Annelise]

Regarding the extension of unemployment benefits.

When the U.S. Senate returns July 12, Democrats should have the 60 votes they will need to finally overcome a Republican filibuster of the extension.

Why?

Because West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin (D) is expected to have appointed a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd by then.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/107395-gop-hawks-boost-obamas-fiscal-panel

Speaking of uneven tax distribution. I saw a suggestion to tie this to individual state unemployment rates, to avoid the reoccurring political fights and grandstanding. I wonder what rate would be appropriate, given all our givens.

Did anyone notice Michigan only has the 2nd highest unemployment rate now? First time since 2006. It's a come-back, baby!

[RAddichio]

Are you proposing cutting all federal aid to the states...completely?

And just who was responsible for the block grants? :) Yes, the Democratic Congress enacted them in 1966 and 1968, but they totaled less than 1% of aid to states. The block grants of the 80's were disastrous, particularly in education. I mean, everyone knows that Reagan wanted to dissolve the Department of Education. He made no bones about it. Reagan cut the funding in the block grants, told the states to spend it, then had the gall to criticize them for the way they were spending the money, saying that test scores and achievement were down and they weren't doing their jobs. In the 60's and 70's, state departments of education had improved with the help the federal dollars brought. Reagan changed all that, and as a result, we're now stuck with No Child Left Behind.(See: Terrel Bell, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform)

What's funny is that they became popular in a time of budget deficits rather than surpluses. Post-Watergate, they were seen as giving power back to the people, because the states could better control who got what--a redistribution of wealth, as it were.

Why give members of congress more tax revenue to spend on pork projects? They simply use the additional taxes collected in order to buy votes for their re-election. The unspent stimulus funds should be applied to the national debt. It would be a start. The stimulus package did not create jobs, so why throw more money down the drain? Either return it to the taxpayer or make a payment on the humungous national debt.