Tag: Budget

Posted on

1 Minute Video showing growth of the federal deficit

June 7th marked the 10th anniversary of the first of President George W. Bush’s two tax cuts, which have played a disproportionate role in blowing up the deficit and debt.

As the Center for American Progress’ Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden found, the federal debt would be at a sustainable level today — even with the wars and the financial crisis — were it not for the Bush tax cuts.

ThinkProgress has assembled this short animation showing how the Bush tax cuts drove the deficit and debt up and are still ruining the budget picture today.

Adding insult to injury, in 2001, Bush promised that he would pay off the federal debt within 10 years.

Posted on

Budget agreement reached between Senate and House

I have to say I approve of the outcome of the budget negotiations that we’ve all watched unfold in the past few weeks.

Fiscally speaking, I’m pretty moderate. I believe in compromise between parties and chambers of the Federal government. I think we do need to make steps to reduce the national debt, but I think it needs to be done in a thoughtful, moderate manner. To make drastic, heavy handed cuts could negatively impact the slowly but surely improving economy.

What has emerged as the solution, for now, seems fair and a good step forward on many levels. AND it leaves social issues out of the equation – as it should be.

I applaud the work done to get the result the American people have been presented with. While I understand the “rock and a hard place” Speaker Boehner found himself, he made the right choices in jettisoning the social riders and got a good set of budget cuts for his caucus.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid did well for his caucus in standing up against the social issue riders but agreeing to substantial budget cuts.

It was a dramatic day, but in the end this was a good thing for America.

Not that anyone is asking me, but I approve of where this all landed.

Onward.

Posted on

Republicans set to re-invent Medicare

Republicans will present a budget plan for 2012 that will attempt to reduce spending by $4 trillion dollars over the next decade. The plan would dramatically reshape Medicare and the entire budget landscape.

From The Wall Street Journal: The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays health-care costs. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program’s soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan’s proposal would convert Medicare into a “premium support” system for those now under the age of 55. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums. Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others.

Democrats say the GOP plan will leave millions exposed to multiple risks. The Medicare premium subsidies would increase more slowly than health costs, they say, so seniors would end up with less coverage over time.

Republicans say the plan would introduce more competition and thus, reduce costs.

Good luck with that one, kids. I’ve never known a business to say ‘hey, let’s lower costs – we’re making too much money.’

I personally think changes do need to be made, but not sure I trust the Republicans – who are always looking out for their own wallet – to protect the average citizens of the country. The wealthy, yes. But that word “protect” can be a tricky thing, don’t you know, when we’re talking about average Americans.

Posted on

Senate rejects both GOP & Dem Budget Proposals

In an effort intended to demonstrate a walk to progress, both the GOP $60 Billion Budget cuts bill and the Democrat $12 Billion budget cuts bill were voted down today.

The GOP bill received 44 aye votes while the Dem bill received 42 aye votes.

Reports say the votes were meant to show Tea Party voters that their desired huge cuts were not responsible or possible while also demonstrating to liberal voters that more needs to be done in terms of budget cuts to come to a consensus on the budget.

From the AP: Republicans dominating the House, driven by a campaign promise to bring return domestic agency budgets to 2008, drove through last month a measure cutting more than $60 billion, imposing cuts of 13 percent, on average, to domestic agencies.

Senate Democrats had been slow to respond. Their alternative, unveiled only on Friday by Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, cuts about $12 billion below levels enacted for 2010. It’s also $30 billion below a Senate omnibus spending measure that Republicans sidetracked in December.

Inouye said his bill represented months of labor by panel members and their aides and “makes real cuts to real programs. But the cuts … are based on hearings, testimony and a thorough analysis of the current needs of every agency and department. By contrast, the Republicans in the House have thrown together a proposal … based on the campaign promise to reduce spending by $100 billion.”

The White House issued a statement Wednesday clearly stating that the administration opposes the GOP plan and that the president will veto any bill “that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks, or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits.”

Both plans would have funded the federal government through the end of September.