Author Topic: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process  (Read 351286 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
FDR on Welfare
« Reply #1100 on: May 17, 2019, 08:30:18 AM »
“The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America.”
   - FDR 1935
« Last Edit: May 17, 2019, 11:30:47 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Trillions to infrastructure or trillions to redistribution.  Choose one.

We can't agree on how to close the deficit much less pay off the debt.  Liberals  supported trillion dollar deficits under Obama and criticize smaller deficits under Trump.  Obama thought Bush deficits were un-American, unpatriotic.  He was probably right, then he doubled them.  Since taking the House, Democrats have had no plan to narrow the deficit, just proposals to end the surge in growth, our only path out of it.  Republicans spent like drunk sailors under Bush and have made no effort to reform entitlements or hold the line on spending under Trump.

Common economic sense tells us that full employment and healthy economy is, at a minimum, no time to run bigger deficits than we already are. That means that from here forward we have to make choices.  For each new big government proposal, free college for all for example, we need to ask the simple question, 'instead of what'?

The Left loves the Trump idea of two trillion in new infrastructure spending.  Now ask the budget question, instead of what?

You want more money for bridges, highways, airports and storm sewers?  Instead of what? 

72.2% of federal spending (2017) is payments to individuals.
https://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-brief/troubling-trend-federal-investment-spending

You aren't making something a priority if you are just proposing to do it in addition to increases in everything else. 

Want free health care?  Instead of what, instead of social security?  Try proposing that.  Want free college?  Instead of what, all safety net programs?  Want a massive federal infrastructure superstructure?  Fine, instead of what, instead of all redistribution programs?  Want it all?  You're going to have to grow the economy like we've never seen before which means, ironically, even lower tax rates and lower burden of government.

It's a contradiction.  The more public sector you want, the smaller you'll have to make the burden of the public sector on the private economy.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2019, 07:41:04 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Govt spending, deficit, debt budget. The way forward: Spending caps
« Reply #1102 on: May 28, 2019, 08:58:24 AM »
"Governments generally get in trouble because they can’t resist over-spending when the economy is doing well and generating lots of tax revenue.

The way you solve this problem is not with a balanced budget requirement (which often serves as the justification for tax hikes), but some sort of spending limitation rule."
   - Dan Mitchell
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/proven-reforms-to-restrain-leviathan-government/

See spending caps in Hong Kong and Switzerland.  The US should have federal spending caps.  Too bad nobody gives a rip about fiscal responsibility.  Millenials should care the most about spending, long term debt and the burdens on future generations but instead we tell them the world is going to end in 9.75 years.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 09:03:21 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
67% of the federal budget is transfer payments to individuals
« Reply #1103 on: June 12, 2019, 05:10:06 PM »
67% of the federal budget is transfer payments to individuals, not governing.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/george-will-conservatism-trump-warren.html
--------------------------------------------------
Law of holes, if you find yourself in one, stop digging.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17667
    • View Profile
Re: 67% of the federal budget is transfer payments to individuals
« Reply #1104 on: June 13, 2019, 12:58:46 AM »
67% of the federal budget is transfer payments to individuals, not governing.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/george-will-conservatism-trump-warren.html
--------------------------------------------------
Law of holes, if you find yourself in one, stop digging.

We won't, until we hit lava.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1105 on: June 13, 2019, 05:45:36 AM »
I do wish Trump would at least mention the debt.

I don't think I have ever heard him even mention it - not once . 

OTOH it wouldn't make any difference if he did .

The Left would just blame it all the military rebuilding
and then make it about a too expensive wall etc

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1106 on: June 13, 2019, 06:43:56 AM »
Revenues up 2%.  WHO KNEW??!!
Spending up 9%.
Deficit up 39%.  (19% if not for some calendar/timing changes.)
The first eight months of fiscal 2019, which started Oct. 1.
[It's the spending stupid.]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-grew-39-in-first-eight-months-of-fiscal-year-11560362539

Posted previously, 67% of federal spending is transfer payments to individuals, not governing or defense.  No one (including Trump) is addressing the problem.

Both parties are to blame but Democrats taking the House made things worse in several ways.

WHY DOESN'T SPENDING GO DOWN WHEN EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES ARE UP?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 06:46:29 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17667
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1107 on: June 13, 2019, 12:27:15 PM »
Revenues up 2%.  WHO KNEW??!!
Spending up 9%.
Deficit up 39%.  (19% if not for some calendar/timing changes.)
The first eight months of fiscal 2019, which started Oct. 1.
[It's the spending stupid.]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-grew-39-in-first-eight-months-of-fiscal-year-11560362539

Posted previously, 67% of federal spending is transfer payments to individuals, not governing or defense.  No one (including Trump) is addressing the problem.

Both parties are to blame but Democrats taking the House made things worse in several ways.

WHY DOESN'T SPENDING GO DOWN WHEN EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES ARE UP?

Because we have become a feckless and irresponsible people, and future generations will rightfully curse us for it.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
Don't worry , be happy G Will has the solution
« Reply #1108 on: June 13, 2019, 02:39:32 PM »
GM wrote :

"Because we have become a feckless and irresponsible people, and future generations will rightfully curse us for it."

Don't worry , "Genius" George Will has it all figured out:

We need open borders as such and take in as many immigrants as we can "absorb" to pay for my Social Security . 
Hey genius did it occur to you these immigrants are costing more than they pay in - medical care , food stamps , medicaid , free schools,
though they keep our supply of drugs high though I would have no idea if that relates to cheaper prices to keep the dirtball drug addicts happy.

Excuse me, I mean those suffering from their disease of brain addiction and need for social approval........

I wouldn't read Will's book if it were free. 

LIke I asked , where in the Constitution is it we need to power the US forward on a Ponzy scheme?

Which reminds me I want to get to the local Barnes and Noble to buy "Unfreedom of the Press" this weekend.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 02:57:08 PM by ccp »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
Trump plan to cut spending if he wins
« Reply #1111 on: July 23, 2019, 08:37:41 AM »
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/President-Trump-tells-aides-to-look-for-big-14109681.php

OTOH
can Trump win with rational budget cuts against a Party hell bent on spending increases and claiming they will only tax the "rich" promising everything for "free".

Hard to win when the crats always put together enough victims promising to give them other people's money etc.....

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Re: Trump plan to cut spending if he wins
« Reply #1112 on: July 24, 2019, 04:55:46 PM »
But of course and why doesn't every President think of this, we'll cut the budget later.

He avoids all the political pain of cutting the budget, then runs on spending cut promise.  He is doing what he does best, stealing the tactics of the Left and using against them.  Only he actually could cut spending if he won decisive majorities - and why wouldn't he.

Trump could not make substantial cuts the first two years with R majorities - because of the weal economy that Obama left him, record no. people on food stamps for example.  He couldn't cut spending these two years because of the Pelosi / Resist House.  Paraphrasing Obama to Medevedev, he will have more leverage to do that after his reelection. 

Could be true.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 05:01:19 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Government programs, spending, deficit, It's the Spending Stupid
« Reply #1113 on: August 20, 2019, 09:02:09 AM »
Speaking of the Dem candidates who wish to replace Trump, how many will blame Trump and blame "tax cuts" for the deficit and how many will look at real data and offer real solutions.  You already know the answers are all and none.  If not for the Democrat House, a result of the fake Russia collusion story, Democrats could blame Trump for this and have it stick.
----------------------------------------------------------
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/13/its-the-spending-stupid/
The current federal budget fiscal year still has two months to go, but the deficit is already bigger now than it was for all of last year, and heading to more than $1 trillion. Naturally, the Trump tax cuts are getting the lion’s share of the blame.

But the latest data on spending and revenues from the Treasury Dept. make it abundantly clear that it is out-of-control spending, not tax cuts, that are driving the deficit upward. Unfortunately, no one in Washington seems to care.

From October last year through July this year, total revenues climbed 3.4%. That’s faster than overall GDP growth, which means revenue growth is now outpacing the economy.

Corporate taxes climbed 3% [Doug: How is this possible?], payroll taxes are up by more than 7%. Both are signs of a healthy economy and a strong labor force – which is exactly what backers of the tax cuts predicted would happen.

True, customs duties are up sharply as well, thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but they account for a relatively small portion of federal revenues.

Now take a look at the spending side.

Federal outlays have rocketed up 8% so far this fiscal year, compared with the same months last year. That means spending is climbing at about six times the rate of inflation.

A chunk of this is from the increase in Defense spending, which is up by close to 10% compared with last year.

But two-thirds of the entire increase in spending is due to just other three items in the budget: health care spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare), Social Security, and interest payments on the debt.

In other words, it’s entitlement spending – and more specifically, health care spending  – that is driving up the deficit, not tax cuts.

What’s the response to this among our esteemed leaders in Washington? Nothing. No, worse than nothing. Another spending spree.

The latest bipartisan budget deal, which Trump signed earlier this year, hikes spending above its already projected growth levels by $320 billion over the next years. Defense spending got a boost, but only in exchange for an even bigger hike in domestic spending.

Meanwhile, every Democrat running for president is busy trying to find new ways to double or triple the size of the federal government, while pretending that it all can be paid for simply by making the rich pay their “fair share.”

The truth is that getting the deficit under control is not hard. It doesn’t require tax hikes, just a modicum of spending restraint.

As we noted in this space not long ago, there were two times in recent years when Congress managed to control its spending urges, and both times saw dramatic drops in the deficit. The first was after Republicans took control of Congress under President Bill Clinton. The second was when Republicans took control of the House under President Barack Obama. The numbers tell the story:

Overall spending growth averaged just 3% from 1994 to 1999. The economy boomed, and the budget went from a $255 billion deficit to a $236 billion surplus in just six years.

When Republicans regained the House in 2011, they again hit the brakes on spending, to the point where outlays were lower in 2014 than they were in 2011. The deficit collapsed from $1.3 trillion to $441 billion in four years.

Unfortunately, in every other year, neither party could control its urge to splurge.

Trump has promised to get tough on spending next year. That’s how it always works in Washington. Spend like a drunken sailor today, and promise to sober up tomorrow.

The problem is that with the national debt now topping $22 trillion, and scheduled to go up another $13 trillion in just a few years, tomorrow will be too late.


Note to Readers: Issues & Insights is a new site launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page.
------------------------------------------------

[Doug] Spending should be LOWEST during times of full employment - even under the Left's Keynesian rules.  When you are a trillion dollars in deficit before heading into slower economic times you have removed the ability to add fiscal stimulus as a policy tool when the business cycle inevitably changes.

Oh well.  We warned them, over and over and over again on these pages.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Government regulations
« Reply #1114 on: September 09, 2019, 11:24:32 AM »
Potential Two Liner of the Day:
 “How ’bout a demonstration of government regulation working?
You guys successfully ban telemarketers and then we’ll talk.”

Hat tip Powerlineblog,com
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 02:29:21 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Federal deficit, up 18% since Dems took the House
« Reply #1115 on: September 13, 2019, 04:39:03 AM »
Big story yesterday, did not  come  up in  the debate - except to hear 10 people's ideas on how to expand it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-deficit-tops-1-trillion-in-first-11-months-of-fiscal-year-treasury-says-11568311201?mod=hp_lista_pos5
-------------------------------------------------

Strange to concede Trump will be the only candidate to address the budget deficit (in his 2nd term).

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1116 on: September 13, 2019, 07:05:45 AM »
And if Dems do discuss it
it is ALWAYS we need to tax more to pay for the deficit

NEVER spending cuts

Some Dem last night made some comment how Trump "exploded the debt"
( implying the tax cuts - as though this money was rightfully the politicians all along)
when we all know the real problem with the debts locally and nationally are entitlement programs.

Wangs money lottery give away with what?  his personal money , campaign money (illegal likely).

If he would do this prior to being elected than one can only imagine what this guy plans to do by taxing us.
he probably has a plan to tax 49 % of the population so he can use that money to buy the other 51% .


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1117 on: September 13, 2019, 07:27:47 AM »
ccp:  "And if Dems do discuss it
it is ALWAYS, we need to tax more to pay for the deficit"
...
"tax 49 % of the population so he can use that money to buy the other 51% ".
----------------

Right, raise SOMEONE ELSE'S taxes.  Someone else, the evil productive people will easily pay more and you will receive more and more free stuff.

Isn't that exactly what you would promise if you were a smake oil salesman, Bernie Madoff, et al.

Not to mention that putting higher rates on the higher incomes DOES NOT BRING IN MORE REVENUE.  We have proven that over and over and over.  Why do they keep denying math, science and history?

Putting a higher tax on everyone, SKIN IN THE GAME, is the only way you actually call the question of whether or not we want bigger and bigger government and smaller and smaller personal incomes.  Otherwise it is, cut and cap the spending stupid. 

Any slimeball scam artist [Chavez, Castro] can promise free shit from others to take power.  The question is, who can see through it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
Wesbury: Fear the Spending, Not the Debt
« Reply #1118 on: September 23, 2019, 04:48:25 PM »


Monday Morning Outlook
________________________________________
Fear the Spending, Not the Debt To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 9/23/2019

Never underestimate the ability of politicians to mess up a good thing. They're certainly trying in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, many people are concerned about the wrong thing. Nice even numbers fascinate people, and through the first eleven months of this fiscal year (October 2018 through August 2019), the U.S. budget deficit was over $1 trillion ($1.067 trillion to be exact), up 19% versus the same eleven months the year before. The government usually runs a surplus in September, so the budget deficit for full Fiscal Year 2019 should come in at roughly $950 billion – that's close enough to $1 trillion for government work.

Meanwhile, the public debt is at a record high $22.5 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects roughly $1 trillion annual deficits as far as the eye can see. So, it's easy to understand why so many are concerned. Some even think the US is headed for bankruptcy. And, unlike with Greece, there's no one big enough to bail-out the US.

Here's what they're missing: in spite of record debt, the net interest on the debt should finish the year at 1.8% of GDP. For perspective, that's lower than it ever was from 1980 through 2001, during which it averaged 2.7% of GDP – and some of those years saw budget surpluses.

Moreover, net interest relative to GDP is unlikely to rise dramatically anytime soon. Imagine we wake up tomorrow morning and Treasury yields are miraculously at 4.0% across the entire yield curve, from short-term securities to long. That would be well above the 2.5% average interest rate taxpayers already pay on all marketable Treasury debt outstanding, including the securities issued many years ago.

Moving from 2.5% to 4.0% is a 60% increase in interest costs, which also means that, once we roll-over enough debt, the interest burden relative to GDP would rise by 60%, as well. But a 60% increase from 1.8% of GDP, would put us at 2.9%, very close to the long-term average in the 1980s and 1990s. And, interest rates aren't going to 4% in the real world anytime soon, plus it takes time for the debt to rollover.

The Treasury Department could use the current era of low long-term interest rates to lengthen the maturity of the debt. The best idea we've seen is for the Treasury to issue perpetual inflation-indexed debt and then step aside and let the private sector slice and dice these instruments into bespoke securities. The market could create everything from plain vanilla 10-year Treasury notes, to 50-year zero-coupon debt, to debt instruments that don't pay interest for the first twelve and a half years and then pay every six months after that.

But here's another reason not to fear the current debt of $22.5 trillion: the assets of all US households combined are $129.7 trillion. Yes, they have debts worth $16.2 trillion, but that still leaves a net worth of $113.5 trillion.

Now let's imagine households paid off not only their own debts but the federal government's, as well. That would have left them with $91.4 trillion in mid-2019. That's about 4.3 times GDP. From the early 1950s through the mid-1990s, this ratio – the net worth households would have after paying off their debt and the national debt – hovered between 2.8 and 3.3 times GDP. Now it's near a record high.

None of this means US fiscal policy is in a good place; it's just that the debt is manageable, we're not going bankrupt. The real fiscal problem is the level of spending and the need to fix entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and "Obamacare." If we don't fix these programs, then in the next few decades the federal government will be spending relative to GDP in a normal year as much as it was spending at the peak of the crisis after the last recession. And when all we hear about is the deficit, it takes away the focus on spending and lets politicians sell the idea that it's all excessively low taxes that cause it, even though tax collections are at an all-time high.

The problem is that out of control spending gradually erodes the character of the American people. It pushes citizens toward dependence on government checks for their income, rather than their own efforts. In a democracy, we want our fellow citizens to know the value of hard work, shrewd investment, and entrepreneurship. Having too many people living off taxpayers is no way to conserve those traits.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Re: Wesbury: Fear the Spending, Not the Debt
« Reply #1119 on: September 24, 2019, 06:15:58 AM »
"out of control spending gradually erodes the character of the American people. It pushes citizens toward dependence on government checks for their income, rather than their own efforts. In a democracy, we want our fellow citizens to know the value of hard work, shrewd investment, and entrepreneurship. Having too many people living off taxpayers is no way to conserve those traits."
--------------------------------
Wesbury is right to focus on the spending that is destroying us and not the debt that is manageable.   But the problems are related.  People see no limit on spending when they don't have to (directly) pay for it.

People in some 'blue' areas used to have a pride that we have (relatively) high taxes but we have great schools, roads, parks and quality of life.  We are so far past that now.  The Leftist argument (replacing Democrat blue) is that you can have everything free and someone else (or no one) will pay for it.  Now we have entire sections of the cities and neighborhoods that are outside of the productive sectors of the economy.

"tax collections are at an all-time high"     - Who Knew?!

People have to know the facts before they can make the right choices.  We already tax the rich and the corporations as far as we can without them shifting behavior and leaving.  We learned that (again) during the Obama years.  From here we can increase public spending by having everyone pay more which means raising taxes dramatically on the middle class and on the poor.  Notice that Democrats in the debates (the deniers of math) are not proposing that - while they propose tens and tens of trillions of new spending.

On the debt and the interest rates, Wesbury is only right about the short term.  This debt is permanent and growing rapidly.  The idea that interests can't go WAY up again seems greatly short sighted.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
what say Wesbury?
« Reply #1120 on: October 13, 2019, 06:40:02 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-president-trump-is-falling-short-on-eliminating-us-deficits-120027260.html


Of course the leftist rant:

"President Donald Trump’s “theory is that lowering taxes without lowering government spending will help to create growth,” Edelman says. “The growth will result in more tax revenue which will pay for the costs of running the government.”

no mention of Democrats wanting to increase taxes and only reduce spending on military  while expanding government everywhere else.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1121 on: October 13, 2019, 09:14:27 AM »
The spending increases in great part are due to the President being forced to agree to domestic spending increases in order to get necessary military increases.

The point about the deficit of essentially $1T while we have the economy running full tilt is a vital one!!!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Re: what say Wesbury?
« Reply #1122 on: October 13, 2019, 09:53:06 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/why-president-trump-is-falling-short-on-eliminating-us-deficits-120027260.html

Of course the leftist rant:

"President Donald Trump’s “theory is that lowering taxes without lowering government spending will help to create growth,” Edelman says. “The growth will result in more tax revenue which will pay for the costs of running the government.”

no mention of Democrats wanting to increase taxes and only reduce spending on military  while expanding government everywhere else.

Crafty is right, the compromises on spending in a divided government are, best case, increases on everything and widening deficits.

My take:

Balancing the budget requires economic growth and spending restraint.  The economy gets back on track, more than anything factor, when the trade issues get resolved.  Our only chance at spending restraint starts with a widely won conservative victory in 2020.  If we have divided government or RINO control, the status quo just gets worse.

In the first year of Trump we saw deregulation strengthen the economy.  In year two tax reform further strengthened the economy.  With those in place, the trade offensive was launched.  Trump had success with Canada and Mexico and some success with Europe.  The fight is now mostly with China.

The above steps strengthened our position in the trade showdown and the tariffs are designed to be temporary, a necessary detour along a long term path. They hurt US growth for now and have five times the hurt on China.  China will settle if the US doesn't cave first.  We can judge results now, stalled growth and deficits getting worse, but the end result of this is not in.

On the other side we have, let's say, $50 Trillion in new spending on top of an out of balance $4 trillion budget.  They offset government paid everything with tax hikes that already proved to bring in no new revenue.  The first step is to defeat these ideas in the public debate and at the ballot box.  The second step is to get Republicans with new power to govern responsibly.  The betting odds are steep but this is our only shot, IMHO.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
The Bipartisan Spending Party
« Reply #1123 on: December 23, 2019, 06:05:14 AM »
The Bipartisan Spending Party
Congress ends its year with a blowout for everyone but taxpayers.
By The WSJ Editorial Board
Dec. 22, 2019 5:23 pm ET


The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. PHOTO: JULIO CORTEZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Congress has left town for the year but alas not before another bipartisan spending party that has typified the Trump Presidency. The numbers deserve notice because they are likely to have more long-term impact than impeachment.

Lawmakers whooped through $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending for the rest of the fiscal year with little debate or objection. A bipartisan deal on the budget outlines in August was supposed to give Congress time to negotiate 12 individual spending bills, but as usual they couldn’t agree so they piled it all into two bills totalling more than 2,300 pages on Monday. A day later they added a list of tax subsidies, and by Friday it was law. Congress can act fast when it is greasing its own wheels.

The political secret to this bipartisan blowout is that the Republicans get more for defense in return for giving Democrats more for social welfare. An $860 billion national security bill gave President Trump $1.375 billion for his border wall—despite Democratic vows that he’d get none—and modest flexibility in where the wall can be built. The White House also won $738 billion for defense, $22 billion more than last year, and funding to create Mr. Trump’s Space Force.

Democrats cashed in with $555 billion for domestic priorities. They scored $25 million for “gun violence research,” $425 million in election security grants, and more money for Head Start and early childhood education. They increased funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and Medicaid for Puerto Rico.

Farm state Members added $1.5 billion in disaster relief, on top of the $3 billion Congress passed earlier this year. GOP Senator Chuck Grassley delivered a big tax break for Iowa’s biodiesel blenders, and the tax bill also showers largesse on distilleries, race-horse and Nascar owners, short-line railroads, and renewable energy. In return, Republican tax writers were able to pass a small list of “corrections” to their 2017 tax reform.

The only good tax news was agreement to repeal, permanently, three tax increases that Democrats had passed to make the phony ObamaCare numbers look real in 2010. Democrats were keen to repeal the so-called Cadillac tax on high-cost health plans. Unions have negotiated rich benefits and don’t want to be taxed on them. Republicans in turn were able to repeal permanently the taxes on medical devices and health insurance.

The Export-Import Bank was reauthorized for seven years, while the egregious federal flood insurance program was extended again through September without reform. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin landed his bill requiring taxpayers to underwrite the pensions and health care of retired coal miners.

Senator Lisa Murkowski was able to protect Alaskan salmon from competition. Speaker Nancy Pelosi included an earmark for the Presidio Trust, which maintains a San Francisco park. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell raised the minimum age to buy tobacco to 21.

The Club for Growth notes that the bills increase discretionary outlays by more than $175 billion over last year, and budget watchdogs estimate the higher spending caps Congress agreed to this summer will add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. Debt held by the public as a share of GDP is close to 80% and rising, 10 years into an economic expansion.

The budget problem isn’t a shortage of revenue. CBO says tax receipts grew 4% last fiscal year, through September, and 3% in the first two months this year. Economic growth is feeding the Treasury. But spending is growing much faster: 8% last fiscal year, more than four times the inflation rate, and 6% in October and November this year.

In addition to the latest discretionary bills, spending on Social Security (6%), Medicare (6.1%) and Medicaid (9.2%) continue to soar this year. Neither party shows any inclination to do anything about those programs, except expand them. Mr. Trump may yet join Barack Obama in the spending record books.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1125 on: February 10, 2020, 10:31:47 AM »
Key to making this argument is the baseline budgeting point:  Slowing future increases is NOT a cut!!!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1126 on: February 10, 2020, 11:16:56 AM »
Key to making this argument is the baseline budgeting point:  Slowing future increases is NOT a cut!!!

That's right, but you'll never convince the other party of it.  Trump's opponents are talking about new programs in the tens of trillions along with tax rate increases that would kill growth and bring in no new revenue.  Our only chance of containing the spending is to reelect this big spending President and hope his current words mean more than his actions so far.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1127 on: February 10, 2020, 03:57:25 PM »
"Key to making this argument is the baseline budgeting point:  Slowing future increases is NOT a cut!!!"


"That's right, but you'll never convince the other party of it."

Of course, but it is the voters whom we must persuade!  It may take a while, but we MUST persist and overcome!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Baseline Budgeting
« Reply #1128 on: February 11, 2020, 06:50:27 AM »
Key to making this argument is the baseline budgeting point:  Slowing future increases is NOT a cut!!!

Famous people caught reading the Forum, Dan Mitchell of Cato / Heritage background follows up on Crafty's post:
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/the-medias-pervasively-dishonest-coverage-of-trumps-new-budget/

"Here are the three things you need to know.

1. The politicians created a system that automatically assumes big increases in annual spending, called a baseline.
2. When there’s a proposal to have spending grow slower than the baseline, the gap between the proposal and the baseline is called a cut.
3. It’s like being on a diet and claiming progress because you’re gaining two pounds each month rather than five pounds.
"

Please read the whole thing.  This probably won't be re-printed in the NYT / Wash Post.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 08:39:56 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Government Budget Politics - Thomas Sowell
« Reply #1129 on: February 11, 2020, 07:11:33 AM »
Tomas Sowell:  "Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do? The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place."

https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/03/05/budget-politics-n1525553

Dan Mitchell:
The “fireman first principle” – Describes how local government bodies (often coordinating with local politicians) will claim that firemen will have to be laid off and/or firehouses will have to close if there is any budgetary discipline. You can replace firefighters with cops or teachers if you want. The key point is to divert attention from the countless ways that local governments waste money by focusing on the few things that voters actually care about.

The “Washington Monument syndrome” – Based on a real-world example during the 1970s of the National Park Service claiming it would have to shut down tourist access to popular Washington-area sites if it was subject to fiscal restraint, the modern-day equivalent is President Obama scaring people with hysterical assertions about threats to food safety and airline operations.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/thomas-sowell-exposes-dishonest-budgetary-scare-tactics-and-cartoonists-mock-obamas-hysteria/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
It's the spending stupid.
« Reply #1130 on: February 18, 2020, 12:36:39 PM »
Federal revenues "are  up 6%" and "expected to be 16.7% of GDP, not far off the 17.2% before the tax cut. The problem is that outlays are rising faster—to 21.6% of GDP this fiscal year, the most since 2012 and well above the Bush and late Clinton years."   - WSJ  2-11-2020

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
more paper money more paper money
« Reply #1131 on: March 16, 2020, 09:16:11 AM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/fed-says-it-will-offer-an-additional-500-billion-in-overnight-repo-funding-markets.html

At this rate the National Debt will heading towards 30 trillion

there could be no point of return

What the hell is Donald et all doing ?

And of course the Dems promising the free stuff crowd and anyone would vote for them more free "crises " benefits paid for by yours truly and other working Americans

I bought the new book :

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/fed-says-it-will-offer-an-additional-500-billion-in-overnight-repo-funding-markets.html
haven't read it yet
Read Arthur Crosby book around 1991 but this one is supposed to be an update

will read after I finish the bubonic plague book I am reading

one interesting fact from that book is the latest theory is that it was not yersinia pestis or plague but anthrax that jumped from cattle to the peasants in the rural areas that caused a lot of the death and destruction at the same time.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17667
    • View Profile
Re: more paper money more paper money
« Reply #1132 on: March 16, 2020, 09:21:01 AM »
The debt is much worse than that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/fed-says-it-will-offer-an-additional-500-billion-in-overnight-repo-funding-markets.html

At this rate the National Debt will heading towards 30 trillion

there could be no point of return

What the hell is Donald et all doing ?

And of course the Dems promising the free stuff crowd and anyone would vote for them more free "crises " benefits paid for by yours truly and other working Americans

I bought the new book :

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/fed-says-it-will-offer-an-additional-500-billion-in-overnight-repo-funding-markets.html
haven't read it yet
Read Arthur Crosby book around 1991 but this one is supposed to be an update

will read after I finish the bubonic plague book I am reading

one interesting fact from that book is the latest theory is that it was not yersinia pestis or plague but anthrax that jumped from cattle to the peasants in the rural areas that caused a lot of the death and destruction at the same time.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17667
    • View Profile
No worries! The Fed is on the job!
« Reply #1133 on: March 16, 2020, 09:29:44 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1134 on: March 16, 2020, 12:10:23 PM »
For the record, the Fed money is loans.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Virus spending
« Reply #1135 on: March 19, 2020, 09:29:44 AM »
Buckle your seat belt for the trillion of new spending coming.

Which party was it again that was worried about deficits?

I propose a trust but verify with penalties, true need-based financial help program.  You submit your true needs with rules and restrictions.  Must be based on direct losses from the immediate crisis.  If we find out later it is false or you had not disclosed or exhausted all other possible resources before turning to the federal government emergency fund for help, you must pay back all or double or triple damages depending on the circumstances of your case.

We need a commitment to reduce spending and reliance on government once the crisis passes.  A trade of emergency funding now for fiscal responsibilibty later would cost us  nothing.  Any chance of that happening?  No.

Pres. Obama's "emergency" spending of a trillion a year became permanent.  It's still costing us in Trump's deficits.

I can't believe they lied to us.  Right when they promised they had our best interests in mind.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1136 on: March 19, 2020, 09:55:15 AM »
"Pres. Obama's "emergency" spending of a trillion a year became permanent"

I am thinking this all began with Katrina

Evey disaster now has to be met with massive cash
and Federal aid
programs
and the rest

Everything is flood the market with monopoly money we really don't have to help "working families"
and to avoid the political humiliation and pain  CNN will inflict with a hot poker iron .
« Last Edit: March 19, 2020, 09:59:31 AM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
pass the bill so we can find out what is in it
« Reply #1137 on: March 26, 2020, 05:53:36 PM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/26/exclusive-sen-lindsey-graham-calls-on-governors-nationwide-to-develop-plan-to-fix-coronavirus-unemployment-loophole/

that the ticket...

let the Feds pay unemployment to people that is higher than they were making when they worked

what a swell deal

what idiot would bother to go back to work though most ill and get pain under the table when they can.

God only knows what other goodies are in here.

sorry but this whole thing is nuts.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17667
    • View Profile
Re: pass the bill so we can find out what is in it
« Reply #1138 on: March 26, 2020, 05:58:50 PM »
Normally I would be pissed off, but at this point it does not matter.



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/26/exclusive-sen-lindsey-graham-calls-on-governors-nationwide-to-develop-plan-to-fix-coronavirus-unemployment-loophole/

that the ticket...

let the Feds pay unemployment to people that is higher than they were making when they worked

what a swell deal

what idiot would bother to go back to work though most ill and get pain under the table when they can.

God only knows what other goodies are in here.

sorry but this whole thing is nuts.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10334
    • View Profile
one posters response to the 2 trillion bananza
« Reply #1139 on: March 27, 2020, 12:04:31 PM »
Tele46 minutes ago
Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

I am asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2019*

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 7/1/19. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on.
Less

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50323
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1140 on: March 27, 2020, 03:22:15 PM »
posted on my FB page (5,000 FB friends)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12233
    • View Profile
Government programs: Coronavirus Relief Act
« Reply #1141 on: March 27, 2020, 03:59:31 PM »
I get it. They had to do something. It was going to be big. Real big.  But it also needed to be surgically targeted and squeaky clean.  This is neither.

It also needed to come with a commitment that if we spend a fortune on a temporary emergency spending now, it will have an ending and be followed with real restraint at the end of the tunnel.

As details emerge, much of this spending is hideous.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17667
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs: Coronavirus Relief Act
« Reply #1142 on: March 27, 2020, 05:29:50 PM »
The public at large doesn’t care. It’s magic money from Uncle Sugar. Utterly divorced from anything real.


I get it. They had to do something. It was going to be big. Real big.  But it also needed to be surgically targeted and squeaky clean.  This is neither.

It also needed to come with a commitment that if we spend a fortune on a temporary emergency spending now, it will have an ending and be followed with real restraint at the end of the tunnel.

As details emerge, much of this spending is hideous.