The WSJ reports that it’s beginning to look a lot like Cliffmas, and no one has any idea what sort of gifts to put under the nation’s burning tree.
Illustrating the gravity of the cuts, the Pentagon plans to notify 800,000 civilian employees that they could be forced to take several weeks of unpaid leave in 2013 if a deal isn’t struck, and other agencies are likely to follow suit.
The cuts, which members of both parties have referred to as a “meat ax,” are the product of a hastily designed 2011 law that required $110 billion in annual spending reductions over nine years to reduce the deficit. Their severity, representing close to 10% of annually appropriated spending, was intended to force Democrats and Republicans to come together on a broader package of deficit-reduction measures, which would replace the cuts. That effort failed, raising the prospect of the cuts’ taking place.
Complicating matters, the White House hasn’t informed federal agencies or contractors of precisely how the cuts might be administered, leading to confusion about the potential impact. Several federal agencies referred questions about the cuts to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. OMB didn’t respond to questions.
OMB, who leads that now? Looks like it’s Jeff Zeints, an alum of Bain & Company, and his unenviable job is to dodge questions about what the splatter pattern will look like after we lurch over the cliff and hit whatever boulders and beasties are down below.
Meanwhile talks started up again this morning, then went into recess, and have started up again. “Progress,” they report. Boehner’s tack of skipping over Harry Reid’s head to talk directly with Biden seems more than a bit desperate. You’ve moved up the chain a link, but all that’s done is gotten you closer to chatting with Capone. You’re no closer to actually nabbing him, you’re just hearing what he wants from the guy right next to him instead of the guy who sits around the corner of the table from him.
The fact that Reid could not even get a counter proposal out to offer shows that the Democrat caucus is as divided as the Republicans’, despite the fact that going over the cliff gives the Democrats on the left their fondest hearts desires: divided opposition, weaker defense, mostly untouched entitlement spending, and higher taxes on “the rich.” The recession that’s sure to follow just drives up the rate of dependency. Heads Obama wins, tails the Republic loses.
The disagreement between and within the parties is a fundamental one. For all the president’s talk of “putting politics aside,” we can either move toward a government that starts spending within its means, or we can continue to have a government that doesn’t even bother to pass budgets and keeps spending at a rate that will eventually crash the entire system. Obama and his Democrats prefer the latter — no budgets, and pouring buckets of money on our fiscal fire. They’re using the current crisis to advocate for more spending, not restraint. That’s their politics, and Obama, Reid and Pelosi have no intention of putting them aside. The Republicans prefer to have some kind of controls on how much the government spends. They’re not putting those politics aside. But they blew their chances when they got Obama to renew the Bush tax cuts and when they struck the deal that created the fiscal cliff in 2011. The American people blew their chance when they re-elected Barack Obama to the presidency. That vote was essentially a vote to put economic reality aside. Good luck with that.
Not sure about this:
“a hastily designed 2011 law that required $110 billion in annual spending reductions over nine years to reduce the deficit. Their severity, representing close to 10% of annually appropriated spending”
Federal spending is about $3.5 trillion. $110 billion represents around 3% “cut” if it’s really a cut. More likely a reduction to the increase. I understand the differences between discretionary and non-discretionary, but a true plan would include all aspects of the budget, which we know isn’t something our betters in Washington could come to grips. They have us concentrating on one ring of a three-ring circus while the whole tent is on fire.
Republicans have conceded that the deal, if it is reached, will not include any new spending cuts. The main issues now are how much tax rates will rise and how much new spending will be added.
too bad the meat ax won’t be swung at the politicians.
Defending the World, Bankrupting Ourselves: After decades of American protection, our friends can form their own alliances to confront any adversary. Steve Chapman | December 6, 2012
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/06/defending-the-world-bankrupting-ourselve
Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases: Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, gestures during a Republican presidential debate on Sept. 12, 2011, in Tampa.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
Republicans painted themselves into a corner long ago, when they abandoned the fight against spending and took up the battle for tax cuts. Spending is the problem, not deficits or taxes. If you fix spending, deficits and taxes take care of themselves.
I say go over the cliff. Let’s at least get some cuts. The tax increase is no worse than increasing a deficit, or printing money, or defaulting. Let’s cut and watch it bleed.
The cool thing is, if it’s already been pre-decided that you’re going to get the blame no matter what you do, then you can do whatever you want… Including, for once, the right thing.
exactly, and almost nobody gets it.
Focusing on taxes plays right into the hands of the con artists. Now they get to play demagogue extraordinaire.
The problem is that the con men have added one trillion, unbelievable isn’t it, to the federal (spelled M A F I A) budget, and nobody says a word about it.
You couldn’t make this shit up if you worked at it for a lifetime.