Category Archives: budget

GOP Agenda: Meaningless Generalities and “Going Back”

19 Monday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, financial reform, Obama administration, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

It appears that Republicans are following the advice of Rep. Peter King (R-NY) about laying out their agenda for what they would do should they regain control of the House in the November mid-term elections. On Bill Bennett’s radio program last Thursday, Rep. King said this:

“I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.”

Yesterday on Meet the Press Rep. Pete Sessions and Sen. John Cornyn, both of  Texas (sigh) continued with that theme. When David Gregory asked Sessions to explain what the GOP would do to cut the deficit, Sessions replied with meaningless generalities like these:

“We need to live within our own means.”

“We need to make that sure we read the bills.”

“We are going to balance the budget.”

“We need to make sure that…we look at all that we are spending in Washington D.C.”

Sessions added something which stood out to me when Gregory pressed him for specifics. “He [Rep. Chris Van Hollen D-MD who remarked earlier about removing tax incentives for employers who ship jobs overseas] wants to diminish employers’ ability to be able to be competitive across the world…We need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminishing it.”

“Employers’ ability to be competitive across the world.” For instance Hanes:

“As recently as 2006 when Hanes was spun off from its parent Sara Lee Corporation, the company had 19 plants in the US and Puerto Rico. It currently has seven with one (Forsyth, NC) more scheduled to close by year-end 2010. Hanes now manufactures its wares across 17 plants and production facilities scattered across the Caribbean and Central America (Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras) to South East Asia (Bangladesh, Thailand, Vietnam), Micronesia (Saipan, Marshall Islands), a China manufacturing hub and one plant in Mount Airy, North Carolina.

…two thirds of the growth in earnings for Hanes came as a result of moving its production offshore and from financing activities.

Who benefits? Well management certainly does as do the shareholders. Its stock closed today at $25.97 up 78.3 percent year-over-year. Its CEO, Richard Noll, was paid $5.7 million in 2009. Not bad for a manufacturer of underwear and hosiery. Meanwhile, the company’s average wage in Bangladesh is $0.33 cents an hour. Of its 50,000 employees worldwide, less than ten percent work in the US.”

This is the “free enterprise system” that Sessions and his fellow Republicans want to “empower rather than diminish.” Great for creating jobs in Bangladesh, not so much in America. Not to mention the “go back” remark. There’s the GOP agenda in a nutshell.

Cornyn’s answer to the question was much the same, adding that he wants to wait and see what the debt commission has to say. Way to face up to those tough choices, Sen. Cornyn. Watch:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Kyl: No Need to Pay For Tax Cuts

13 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, George W. Bush, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Given their history, why anybody would give one ounce of credibility to any Republican and their faux concern about deficits is beyond me. But for those few amnesiacs who did, John Kyl should have cleared that up yesterday with this:

“Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to — if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.”

Two other deficit hypocrites, Judd Gregg and Eric Cantor chimed in:

“Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, joined House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in pushing for the extension of a series of taxes set to expire at the end of this year, including a series of cuts for households making more than $250,000 per year.

“If you want to do something to stimulate the economy, you could make clear that tax rates aren’t going to go up at the end of the year,” Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. “If this administration really wants to stimulate, say they’re going to continue those tax rates — all those tax rates.”

Never mind that when it came to extending unemployment benefits Gregg said, “we are on the path of passing on to our children a nation which they will not be able to afford as a result of the massive debt which is being put on their backs.”

That was over $33 billion. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost about $700 billion.

But, but, but, extending the tax cuts will “spur” and “stimulate” the economy, right? If this sounds familiar, here’s why. January, 2004:

“The tax relief the president has given to this economy is working,” Commerce Secretary Don Evans told CNN’s “Late Edition.” “On three separate occasions over the last three years, he’s provided additional tax relief for American workers, American families, businesses across America, and guess what? It’s working. The results are showing that it’s working.”

…Treasury Secretary John Snow predicted that hiring will pick up in 2004.

“All the evidence points in that direction,” Snow told ABC’s “This Week.” “And everything we know about economics indicates that, as you get an economy into high gear, as you get a strong recovery under way, it does translate into jobs.”

The result? “The worst private sector jobs record of any administration in 75 years.”


The Bushies were right about one thing. The tax cuts did work—if you happen to be in the top 1%, that is.

Time for a Leader, Not a Politician

07 Wednesday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is tell you exactly what you want to hear.”—Senator Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign when the other candidates were calling for a gasoline tax holiday in the face of soaring oil prices.

It’s time for President Obama to take some advice from Senator Obama and not from his political advisers in the White House, like David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, who are telling him that the public mood is anti-spending and anti-deficit, and that it will be politically advantageous in the upcoming mid-term elections for him and the Democrats to play to the fear of a deficit boogeyman being ginned up by the right-wing noise machine and the president’s political opponents. Opponents who, let’s face it, don’t want to see unemployment go down or the economy improve between now and November. If the Republicans can get the president to focus on the deficit and cutting spending while unemployment hovers around 10%, they’ll be happy as pigs in slop, so to speak.

President Obama doesn’t help to counteract  the fearmongering when he does things like proposing spending freezes and initiating a debt commission stacked with deficit hawks and Social Security privatizers. In my opinion, this is a golden opportunity for a teaching moment.

If I were advising the president I would suggest a series of television appearances like Ross Perot did during his short-lived presidential campaign in 1992, (before he went all black helicopters, that is) complete with charts and graphs to illustrate his points. The American people, for the most part, aren’t stupid. We get a lot more than politicians and their political advisers give us credit for.

The president could start with a history lesson from 1937. About how FDR gave in to the deficit hawks of his day and started cutting spending before the country was out of the Great Depression which led to a “recession within the Depression” and delayed the recovery.

He could explain the stimulative effects of unemployment benefits. How that every dollar which goes out comes back as $1.64. How that almost half of the unemployed have been out of work for 6 months, something that hasn’t happened since the Labor Dept. started keeping that statistic in 1948. How the unemployed aren’t lazy bums looking for a handout—another popular meme of the noise machine—but that there are 6 applicants for every job opening, and that those over 50 who are disproportionately affected are Americans who have worked for the better part of their lives and have been caught up in an economic situation beyond their control. In their time of need they need our compassion, not our condemnation.

He could use the Gulf oil spill as a springboard to re-invigorate American manufacturing jobs in the field of clean energy, which leads to more people paying taxes and reduced deficits. We could be a country that makes things again, and in the process breathe new life into the rapidly disappearing American middle-class. As Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) said recently:

“We know what happens when the economy depends only on financial services and the creation of wealth through bookkeeping. Manufacturing jobs are good paying jobs that support families and communities, create spin-off jobs, and leads to innovation…We’ve spent the last 30 years pandering to those who have taken manufacturing off shore and in turn we lost the heart and soul of our country. We need to see ‘Made in the USA’ again.”

With signs of a slowing economy and the prospects of a double-dip recession looming, this is not the time for a politician with his finger in the wind gauging public opinion or re-acting to the misinformation and disinformation being put out by his opponents. This calls for someone to lead, educate to populace, and shape public opinion, not react to it.

Billions for Big Oil, Nothing for the Unemployed

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, economy, Gulf Oil Spill, lobbyists, Obama administration, oil exploration, Politics, special interests, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

We can’t afford to extend unemployment benefits, but:

“…an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”

Take, for instance, two of the major players in the Gulf oil spill—Transocean and BP:

“When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.”

Congress and the Obama administration are working (allegedly) on legislation that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks. The response from the oil companies? One wrong move and the economy gets it:

“Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs. “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

What are the chances of Congress eliminating these subsidies? Slim and none:

“Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.”

An example is Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is co-sponsoring the legislation that would end the tax breaks, but:

“While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.”

Social Security Cuts Straight Ahead

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Reading the road signs along the highway that leads to cutting or privatizing Social Security:

In December Blue Dog Jim Cooper, said a report which showed “that the governments unfunded liabilities are roughly $56 trillion” was “shocking.”  He called for a commission to address it.”

In January the White House signed on:

“[President] Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices–particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – should be made on his watch. “We’ve kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road,” he said.”

In February, Jane Hamsher at Firedog lake reported that:

“…people who have been briefed on the administration’s plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration.”

The president then packed the Debt Commission “with members who have an overwhelming history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security.”

Among those are the chairman of the commission, Erskine Bowles, who sits on the board at Morgan Stanley, and whose wife sits on the board at JPMorgan Chase. Can you say conflict of interest? Seems to me both those firms stand to benefit handsomely if Wall Street gets its grubby fingers in the Social Security trust fund.

The rules are that the commission recommendation must be approves by 14 of the 18 members:

“There are certainly enough votes on the right to block any significant tax increase proposals. There certainly aren’t enough votes anywhere to propose deep spending cuts in the bloated military budget. The only real question is whether there are five votes — enough to block passage — against cutting social programs, particularly Social Security.”

And in what’s becoming a pattern in this administration, much of the commission’s work is behind closed doors. Openness and transparency, anyone?

Then last Thursday Speaker Pelosi, under the cover of funding for Afghanistan, sneaked in language calling for an up or down vote on the commission’s recommendation, by a lame duck Congress in December.

Now comes this from Crooks and Liars:

“It’s a cynical political strategy almost beyond belief, but it’s becoming obvious that President Obama and the Democratic leaders plan to let the Republicans do what they’ve tried to do since the days of FDR: Cut Social Security.

[…]

When I wrote about this last week, some readers insisted it would “never” happen, and questioned whether there was any logical reason Obama would support benefit cuts. So I talked to a couple of D.C. Social Security activists this week and posed that very question. I was told that Obama’s reelection strategy was based on allowing Social Security cuts to win over independent voters. (Apparently it polls well with the Tea Party crowd.)”

[…]

Now, seriously. How can any intelligent person convince themselves that the Obama administration isn’t backing this? The commission is stacked with deficit hawks; the national deficit is on track to be more fiscally sound if they let the Bush tax cuts expire; and Social Security, which is a tax-transfer program, doesn’t have a damned thing to do with the deficit.”

One solution I don’t see from the Debt Commission—lifting the Social Security earnings cap. According to John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, “eliminating the cap on taxable earnings would be sufficient to fully close the projected shortfall.”

And it would only affect about 6% of the population. But then again, those are the 6% who sit on these useless (for everyone but the elites) bi-partisan commissions and who write large checks to those in Congress who vote on their recommendations.

Cowards, Hypocrites, and Fools

02 Friday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quickly approaching mad as hell stage:

We have a Congress packed with cowards, hypocrites, and fools—on both sides of the aisle. House Democrats have passed a budget that’s not really a budget, and projected a balanced budget that’s not really a balanced budget because it excludes interest payments on the debt. They left out the minor details of how to achieve that lofty goal, depending on recommendations from the debt commission to cover their collective asses and keep them from having to make what could be controversial votes in an election year. Profiles in courage.

That would be the deficit commission packed with Social Security privatizers, some of whom support investing as much as 20% of the SS trust fund in the stock market. Speaker Pelosi, in the interest of openness and transparency, last night sneaked in inserted language in the war funding bill that would allow the House to have an up-or-down vote on the deficit commission’s recommendations in a lame duck session after the November elections. Buck passing and CYA at its finest.

Republican deficit hypocrites, who never saw a spending program they didn’t like when they held power, have now become fiscal conservatives, allegedly. They, along with their lackey Ben Nelson, have blocked the extension of unemployment benefits despite the fact that new jobless claims have hit their highest levels since March, and the unemployment numbers due out today are expected to show an increase from the 9.7% we have now.

Both sides have their collective moistened fingers in the wind which tells them that voters are worried about increasing deficits, so these geniuses look for ways to cut spending, except for the untouchable Defense Department, that is. Wouldn’t want to be accused of being “soft on terror.”. Never mind that the stock market is headed back down, pending new home sales dropped 30% from April to May, credit is still tightening, and many states are facing budget crises that, without federal assistance, could result in the loss of 900,000 more jobs.

Add these to the anticipated rise in unemployment and the prospects of a double-dip recession are increasing by the day. Exactly the wrong time to even be considering spending cuts, unless you want a repeat of 1937. Fools.

We don’t need one Howard Beale, we need to become a nation of Howard Beales.

The Real Cost of Killing the Tax Extenders Bill

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Conservatives, economy, George W. Bush, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The confederation of hypocrites and liars in the United States Senate, aka the Republican caucus plus Ben Nelson, voted today for the third time to kill the “tax extenders” bill which would have extended unemployment benefits, several tax credits, and Medicare funding to states facing budget crises.

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio, John Kyl of Arizona, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska all cited the cost of the bill and what it would add to the deficit, about $33 billion, as the main reason for their “no” votes.

Nice to see this new-found consternation about deficits from these four hypocrites. All four voted for the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which cost approximately $2.5 trillion, not one dime paid for, all deficit financed. All four voted for Medicare Part D, also in 2003, which cost another trillion dollars, not one cent paid for.

Since these 4 are so concerned about cost, let’s take a look at what the price of their action today will be. From Suzy Khimm at Mother Jones:

“In addition to the millions of Americans who stand to lose unemployment benefits, a huge number of private and public sector employees will lose their jobs due to state budget cuts. Without federal help, states will have to pour in more money to prop up Medicaid, forcing them to make cutbacks in other parts of the budget. As a result, Moody’s chief economist estimates that 200,000 jobs could be axed without federal Medicaid support, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts the number as high as 900,000—jobs belonging to teachers, firemen, police, and social workers, among others.”

The Wonk Room has more:

“[The Atlantic’s Derek] Thompson pointed to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report stating that “without the extended Medicaid funding, Pennsylvania plans to cut funding for domestic violence prevention in half, eliminate all state funds for addressing substance abuse and homelessness, cut funding for child welfare by one-quarter, and cut payments to private hospitals, nursing homes, and doctors across the state — among other steps.” But Pennsylvania is not the only state that will have to take dramatic steps if Congress doesn’t act.

Arizona would have to cut funding for its state court system, Colorado’s likely cuts “include eliminating state aid for full-day kindergarten for 35,000 children, eliminating preschool aid for 21,000 children, and increasing overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities,” while New Mexico “could eliminate a wide range of Medicaid services, including emergency hospital services, inpatient psychiatric care, personal care assistance for the disabled, prescribed medications, and hospice care.”

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, estimated that 200,000 jobs could be at stake in this debate over Medicaid funding. “If state governments don’t get additional help from the federal government in the coming fiscal year, then the job losses will be at least that large — in all likelihood, measurably larger than that,” Zandi said.”

Do the deficit hypocrites care? Hell no. A pox on all their houses.

Senate Turns Down Extension of Unemployment Benefits

17 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republicrats in the Senate gave a big middle finger to the long-term unemployed yesterday, as 12 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting down the extension of unemployment benefits, citing their hypocritical concerns about increasing the deficit as the reason:

“I’ve said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we’re spending,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who voted against the bill. “$77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We’ve got to stop doing that.”

Funny, Sen. Nelson didn’t have any problem with deficit spending when he voted for $165 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) also voted again the extension over her concerns that unemployment benefits are so generous that they encourage people to not look for a job:

“We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance,” Feinstein said. “The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?”

Right DiFi, the unemployed are getting fat and happy living on benefits that are about one-third of their previous wages. This coming from the ninth richest member of Congress whose assets in 2005 were estimated at $40 million. And oh by the way, whose husband, Richard Blum, just happens to own two defense contractors that benefitted greatly from Sen. Feinstein’s time as chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

Feinstein was echoing what Congressman John Linder (R-GA) said last week:

“Georgia Republican Rep. John Linder suggested Thursday that extended unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work…”[N]early two years of unemployment benefits are too much of an allure for some,” said Linder.”

OK, Rep. Linder, let’s apply your logic to the Pentagon. Since you also voted for the $165 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t that “too much of an allure” for the continuation of both wars? Let’s cut off their funding and end their addiction.

Last but not least, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) turned up the stoopid yesterday with his proposal that the unemployed undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. Right, Orrin. The 46% of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 6 months, the highest number since the Labor Department started keeping that statistic in 1948, would rather sit around the house, get high and watch the tube than go to work. Idiot.

I propose that members of Congress undergo drug testing. Or maybe more appropriately, brain scans.

Where Are the Deficit Hawks on Pentagon Spending?

25 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, economy, Iraq, Pentagon, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Think of what the reaction of the self-anointed deficit hawks in Washington would be to this headline in relation to any government spending not affiliated with the Pentagon:

“Cost of (insert name of program here) Will Be Double the Original Estimates”

Members of Congress would be stampeding to find a microphone and rail against wasteful government spending. The Tea Party movement would take to the streets in protest. Radio and TV talkers would be ranting about “stealing money from our children and grandchildren.” So why no outcry over this:

“Since 2001, when an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was expected to cost an already hefty $50 million, the plane’s cost has soared into the stratosphere…The estimated cost today is $113 million per plane.  Yes, that’s per plane….It’s also 2 ½ years behind schedule.  Keep in mind that the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy are planning to buy a combined 2,450 of them for what’s now an eye-popping $323 billion.”

That’s assuming there are no more cost overruns. Quite a stretch, to say the least.

“In other words, if all goes well from here (an unlikely possibility), a single future weapons system is now estimated to cost the American taxpayer almost one-third of what the Obama administration’s health-care plan is expected to cost over a decade.”

Where are Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln? Where are Sen. McConnell, Rep. Boehner and the born-again fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party? Strangely silent. To his albeit limited credit, Sen. McCain offered this scathing rebuke (sarcasm intended) :

“The taxpayers are a little tired of this. I can’t say that I can blame them.”

Strong stuff there, huh?

A Little Perspective on the National Debt

03 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Any time the discussion turns to the national debt, a popular tactic among Democrats is to go back to the origin of exploding debt numbers under President Reagan. They like to point out that when Reagan took office in 1981 the debt was $998 billion and when he left in 1989 it was $2.9 trillion, due mostly to tax cuts and spending increases over that time. That is true, but here’s the rest of the story.

Spending and revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives, and at no time during Reagan’s 8 years did Republicans control the House. In the 4 Congresses during Reagan’s 2 terms, the 97th thru the 100th, the average spread in the House of Representatives was 257 Democrats to 178 Republicans. The Kemp-Roth tax cuts of 1981, for example, passed 323-107 and there were only 191 Republicans in the House at that time. Likewise with spending. Democrats had the numbers to stop any of those proposals but didn’t.

Let’s be honest, when parceling out blame for our massive national debt there’s plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of fingers to be pointed in both directions.