Bye Bye Funding.

November 18, 2005 8:56 AM

CNN reportsthat the House passed HR 4241 this morning by a narrow vote almost entirely along party lines. This is part of the Republican Party's Operation Offset (previously discussed here) designed to cut spending to counter the deficit, growing by leaps and bounds because of Iraq & Katrina (among other things). Now they'll have to work to reconcile it with the Senate version, SR 1932 (voting record here). You may want to Write your representative to let them know how you feel. You might also want to express your displeasure to the two Dems who didn't vote, considering the bill passed by a margin of 2. [Budget Filter]
posted by papakwanz (48 comments total)

Heaven forbid, rather than cut social programs, they do something incredibly daring and...raise taxes. But wait, they just voted to renew current tax cuts. Alas.
posted by Atreides at 9:03 AM on November 18, 2005

Who were the two Dems? In the Senate, there was only one who didnt vote, Corzine (D) NJ.
posted by kozad at 9:06 AM on November 18, 2005

What in the bill is objectionable exactly? Cutting peanut subsidies?
posted by zeoslap at 9:06 AM on November 18, 2005

kozad:

Sorry about that, I just realized that my post wasn't very clear at the end. The two Dems were Towns and Boswell, and they didn't vote on the HOUSE bill, not the Senate bill. The House bill passed 217-215, meaning Towns and Boswell, for whatever reason, let it pass.
posted by papakwanz at 9:08 AM on November 18, 2005

What in the bill is objectionable exactly? Cutting peanut subsidies?

Terminates funding for enhanced access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas, valued-added agricultural product market development grants, rural business investment programs, rural business strategic investment grants, rural firefighters and emergency personnel grants, and for initiative for future food and agriculture systems.

Doesn't sound like they're pandering to their base anymore. Or anybody.
posted by jon_kill at 9:09 AM on November 18, 2005

DailyKosFilter
posted by wfrgms at 9:10 AM on November 18, 2005

Will this affect the 2006-2007 academic year?
posted by wendyfairy at 9:10 AM on November 18, 2005

Does anybody have any news on the latest legislation in any other countries? I'm particularly interested in Liechtenstein.
posted by spock at 9:17 AM on November 18, 2005

DailyKosFilter??

Didn't see it there. Saw it on Rawstory.
posted by jsavimbi at 9:19 AM on November 18, 2005

What in the bill is objectionable exactly?

On first reading, the Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2005.
posted by I Love Tacos at 9:32 AM on November 18, 2005

Still, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, were buoyant -- if exhausted -- after sweating out a big victory on the budget cut bill.

Classic. "Buoyant" about their "big victory" of passing a bill by a margin of two non-votes in a chamber they firmly control.
posted by rusty at 9:42 AM on November 18, 2005

Does anybody have any news on the latest legislation in any other countries? I'm particularly interested in Liechtenstein.

Not trying to be overly sensitive about my post, but I think this snark is unwarranted. Looking at the front page, I see numerous other posts about current events in the US. Do you make this same remark in all of them? It's not like they prevent anyone from putting non-US-oriented posts up.

And if you want to see news about Liechtenstein's legislation, why don't you do some research and post it? There are FPP's about the Canadian Supreme Court, voting in the Falklands, and elections to Quebec's National assembly. I'm sure your news would be welcomed.
posted by papakwanz at 9:51 AM on November 18, 2005

Amen, papakwanz.
posted by spicynuts at 9:58 AM on November 18, 2005

The deficit is only aided and abetted by Iraq and Katrina spending. The real impetus behind the deficit is the TAX CUTS.

Further, if I'm remembering correctly, Operation Offset provides for $50 billion in spending cuts. Operation Tax Jihad provides for $70 billion in tax cuts.

So this Republican "spending cut" increased the deficit by $20 billion, and cut some services at the same time.

There is really only one philosophy left to the current batch of Republicans, and that's tax cuts. And they intend to tax cut the US government directly into bankruptcy.

By 2010, you (yes YOU) will owe $38,000 dollars of US debt if you are a US citizen. The lion's share of that is deficit that is directly a result of the Republican Tax Cut Jihad of the last few years. By 2010, interest payments will be higher than the spending on the Pentagon.
posted by teece at 10:00 AM on November 18, 2005

Heaven forbid, rather than cut social programs, they do something incredibly daring and...raise taxes. But wait, they just voted to renew current tax cuts. Alas.

Hey, that's unfair. Those dollars are gonna trickle down from rich people to the po' folks like sweet nectar from the gods. Any day now...just you wait...

Classic. "Buoyant" about their "big victory" of passing a bill by a margin of two non-votes in a chamber they firmly control.

Hey, a win's a win. Athletes don't celebrate in a more subdued manner when they win close games...quite the opposite, in fact.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:03 AM on November 18, 2005

You may want to Write your representative to let them know how you feel. You might also want to express your displeasure to the two Dems who didn't vote, considering the bill passed by a margin of 2.

This is where you cross the line. It was just newsfilter up to that point, but now you have climbed up on your soapbox and it seems you might want to GYOB.
posted by caddis at 10:05 AM on November 18, 2005

There is really only one philosophy left to the current batch of Republicans, and that's tax cuts. And they intend to tax cut the US government directly into bankruptcy.

That's one thing I don't understand. The Republicans really do seem intent on bankrupting the country. Which, leaving the morality aside for a moment, is really bad business practice. Hell, even Henry Ford was smart enough to realise that if the upper class were the only ones making a decent buck, there wouldn't be anyone to buy the stuff the rich get rich by selling...

So what's the motivation? Are they really, truly that shortsighted? Or is it some sort of Atlas Shrugged thing?
posted by you just lost the game at 10:08 AM on November 18, 2005

To make it simple for the kids:

The GOP:
1. provides deep tax cuts for those making over $550,000.
2. slashes funding for
a. student loans
b. medicare
c. food stamps
d. school lunches
e. on and on and on
3. gets millions in campaign contributions from large corporations for a job well done.

Q.What's the job well done?
A. Consolidating power into the hands of the few, by hoarding wealth, and halting middle class growth by cutting large swaths of social programs.

Q.If the GOP is so evil, why do working class voters vote them in?
A. The GOP uses a smoke screen of caring about gay marriage, abortion, and other civic concerns. Their actions, however, present an unfortunate truth. The GOP cares nothing about values, morality, or patriotism. They care, as their actions have shown, about profit, power, and dirty dealing.

These are dark days.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:11 AM on November 18, 2005

Enhanced Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2005 - Provides for: (1) additional bankruptcy judgeships; (2) temporary bankruptcy judgeships; and (3) conversion of existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships.

At least they're planning ahead.
posted by substrate at 10:24 AM on November 18, 2005

Remember, deficit spending is a tax. It's just a tax you'll have to pay later, when you're more wealthy and in a higher tax bracket.
posted by delmoi at 10:28 AM on November 18, 2005

Bravo, The Jesse.
posted by blendor at 10:37 AM on November 18, 2005

Ever have one of those days when you just feel snark-o-licious? Apologies. Carry on.
posted by spock at 10:40 AM on November 18, 2005

"Are they really, truly that shortsighted?"
-you just lost the game

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist

Yes. Yes they are truly that shortsighted.
posted by cows of industry at 10:41 AM on November 18, 2005

It's a tax you pay interest on! Woohoo!
posted by mek at 10:41 AM on November 18, 2005

"Bravo, The Jesse."
-blendor

Seconded.
posted by cows of industry at 10:43 AM on November 18, 2005

I think my next goal is to become stealthy and strong enough to drown Grover Norquist in the bathtub.
posted by mephron at 10:47 AM on November 18, 2005

Congressman Boswell of Iowa was "recovering" from surgery and Congressman Towns of Brooklyn had left the capitol and couldn't get back in time for the 2:30 AM vote.

What were you doing at 2:30 this morning?
posted by Xurando at 10:50 AM on November 18, 2005

I find it amazing, btw, that fourteen Republicans would go against Hastert and Blunt. This is what you get with DeLay out of the picture and the President's poll numbers reaching Nixonian lows. Of all the Republicans that voted NO, the most puzzling is Walter B. Jones (R-NC) whose web-site touts his affiliation with Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. He's as red-state as they come.

But wait! It looks like Congressman Jones has undergone a reverse conversion. Holy jebus!
posted by fubar at 10:54 AM on November 18, 2005

I will not take the extreme position that supply-side tax cuts pay for themselves, but (from the looks of it) many people in this thread seem to think that "tax cuts for the wealthy" produce no economic benefit, which is untrue.

Federal tax receipts are growing much faster than federal spending outlays: 15.2% versus 8.5%, respectively.

Remember, deficit spending is a tax. It's just a tax you'll have to pay later, when you're more wealthy and in a higher tax bracket.

Well, that's technically true, but only meaningful if the real interest rate on the debt is greater than the growth rate of the economy.*

*I am (on principle) thoroughly opposed to deficit spending, but the issue is not as cut-and-dried as you imply it to be.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:16 AM on November 18, 2005

I will not take the extreme position that supply-side tax cuts pay for themselves, but (from the looks of it) many people in this thread seem to think that "tax cuts for the wealthy" produce no economic benefit, which is untrue.

So? Firstly, I don't think anyone said that, and it seems almost totally irrelevant here. Second, it is highly likely that tax cuts that put money in the pockets of millions would have done much more. Further, this gain could quite easily be wiped out by the fundamental economic problems that massive tax cuts over the last 5 years have caused. Taxes are going to be raised, or the US government is going to go bankrupt. Lastly, I'm not even remotely convinced that the metric you give actually measures the economic efficacy of tax cuts for the wealthy.

In 4 short years, we'll be paying more interest than anything else in our federal budget. It is highly unlikely any economic gain of giving capital even more power will even begin make a noticeable dent in the fiscal, budgetary, and societal problems that creates.
posted by teece at 11:26 AM on November 18, 2005

Congressman Jones could use a nice hot cup of STFU, really.

First you foment the masses with freedom fries bullshit, riding the jingoisting emotional wave. Now he looks out for the back-home emotional wave.

Listen asshole you helped send them to death hoping it would be a quick and easy mission with a lot of political gain to get..a lot of praise for your "leadership" you twit, now you want their bodies back so that they'll praise your "leadership" for asking them back ?

Fuck you so much oh so much you and all your kind.
posted by elpapacito at 11:27 AM on November 18, 2005

Can’t say I oppose tax cuts as a way to spur growth (for the reasons Kwantsar outlined).
I think the Norquist quote is unwarrented, since that was more an expression of the desire for a smaller, less taxing, less spending government. That vision apparently has no place in this administration.
We can dicker about economic philosophy all we want and about spending priorities - I suspect I’m fairly far to the right of most of you* - but it’s clear that this administration is big on spending overall, so it’s a moot argument.
And the cuts in grants to rural areas and agraculture is a complete 180 for the GOP.
In Illinois, I suspect the entire state - downstaters traditionally republican - will turn a very dark blue. Hell, my district is a republican stronghold and I’ve been hearing WTF?’s from folks who were precinct captains.

(*whatever the hell that means anymore, I'm certainly far more of an economic conservative than the bunch in office now)
posted by Smedleyman at 11:38 AM on November 18, 2005

I think the Norquist quote is unwarrented, since that was more an expression of the desire for a smaller, less taxing, less spending government. That vision apparently has no place in this administration.

Are you kidding? By driving the government into complete bankruptcy this administration is going to force the country to make the choice between higher taxes and fewer services. They're betting that people are going to want fewer services.

As we've seen today, this isn't necessarily the case.
posted by bshort at 12:11 PM on November 18, 2005

Smedleyman: Norquist despises government. He is not some kind of principled, small government guy.

He is a zealot who would essentially eliminate government. He wants Social Security completely gone. He wants Medicare completely gone. He wants almost all government regulation of industry gone (EPA, FDA, FEC, etc). Indeed, he envisions almost no role for the federal government other than defense. In other words, he'd like America to be more like some Banana Republic.

But he knows he can't get that by simply asking the voters. So he wants to cut taxes, again and again, giving the benefits of those cuts to the top 1%. He wants to do this until the fiscal situation is so bleak in the US that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will be eliminated, whether the voters wanted it or not.

The quote is completely warranted -- he backs up the sentiment given therein again and again. The man is a slime, and he's either very dishonest, or very out of touch with reality.

And nobody opposes tax cuts for growth -- Kennedy is the first guy to really do it, from what I remember. But tax cuts for the wealthy make really bad economic sense, and the people that campaign for them don't want them for growth -- they want them for purely selfish reasons. If growth is the actual desire of a tax cut, the lion's share of the money must go back to the middle class. Our economy is consumption-driven, not captial-driven, at least for now and the foreseeable future. Further, if deficits are incurred by the cuts, they MUST be weighed against the benefit of the tax cut and the sustainability of the deficit. Neither of these are currently considered by the tax cut jihadis. It's cuts for cuts' sake.

But the simple fact in America today is this: there is no longer any room for any tax cuts at the federal level. NONE. If we eliminate 100% of discretionary spending, we still have too little tax revenue to pay the bills. Not enough voters wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, or the military to make just the tax cuts we've seen amenable, let alone new ones. We can't stop paying interest without destroying the world economy.

Hell, not only is there no room for tax cuts -- we seriously need to be talking about repealing the cuts we've had.

Tax cuts as a growth measure is a canard. It has nothing to do with America's current economic situation. Tax cuts are an albatross on the American economy (in the form of massive, unsustainable deficit spending).

The current fiscal problem is not due to spending -- it's due to tax cuts. We need to quit losing sight of that fact.
posted by teece at 12:19 PM on November 18, 2005

The current fiscal problem is not due to spending -- it's due to tax cuts. We need to quit losing sight of that fact.

I disagree.
posted by caddis at 12:45 PM on November 18, 2005

caddis, the spending on the Iraq war is huge, but America could have absorbed it "fine" if Republicans had not cut taxes again, and again, and again.

It is, truly, the tax cuts that account for more than 50% of current US deficit over the last few years.
posted by teece at 12:47 PM on November 18, 2005

Oops, I forgot to add: the tax cuts are the gift that keeps on giving, too.

Eventually the war in Iraq will end, the $200 bn hit from Katrina is a one time thing, etc. But, assuming Republicans get the removal of all sunset provisions for their tax cuts (which they show every sign of doing), the deficit they provide will just keep on piling up, with no end in sight.
posted by teece at 12:50 PM on November 18, 2005

That's one thing I don't understand. The Republicans really do seem intent on bankrupting the country. Which, leaving the morality aside for a moment, is really bad business practice. Hell, even Henry Ford was smart enough to realise that if the upper class were the only ones making a decent buck, there wouldn't be anyone to buy the stuff the rich get rich by selling...

This group of Republicans - and their leaders are Norquist and Rove, don't kid yourself into thinking anyone else has any power - want to "starve the beast" and go back to the days of the company store. Everyone works for them and lives off credit and the benevolence of their employer. Indentured servitude from birth to death. Nothing brings a tear to a Republican eye faster than a person from the middle class dying with a dime in the bank. (This is a snark-free comment)
posted by any major dude at 12:51 PM on November 18, 2005

What I find objectionable about the current Republican strategy isn't that they want to cut Medicare and Social Security. Those are reasonable motives. My objection is that their approach is underhanded. As bshort and others have suggested, they're going to force people to make a choice between an enormous deficit or massively reduced services. They should be up front about their objectives by cutting services before they cut taxes. Show the public what they're getting and let the people decide.
posted by Loudmax at 1:25 PM on November 18, 2005

Won't third world debt forgiveness wipe out this deficit?.
posted by srboisvert at 1:27 PM on November 18, 2005

They should be up front about their objectives by cutting services before they cut taxes. Show the public what they're getting and let the people decide.
posted by Loudmax at 1:25 PM PST on November 18 [!]

If Republicans told the truth, they would never get elected.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:29 PM on November 18, 2005

We can afford a lot of stuff, including tax cuts, if we cut back on military spending. I am hoping that is where the pruning will start in the next administration (since I have no hope for this one).
posted by thirteen at 2:02 PM on November 18, 2005

Are you kidding thirteen? They are saving HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS by not supplying troops with body armor.
posted by parallax7d at 2:04 PM on November 18, 2005

“By driving the government into complete bankruptcy this administration is going to force the country to make the choice between higher taxes and fewer services.” posted by bshort

To clarify - I wasn’t arguing that. I thought I specifically avoided it saying it’s moot point.

“Norquist despises government. He is not some kind of principled, small government guy.” posted by teece

Well....the first bit I can empathize with. Can’t say I’m happy with the way the fed runs things. I’m not going to argue his character tho'.
I can’t disagree or agree with you on the banana republic stuff, ‘cause I don’t know all of his views that well. From what I’ve heard him speak on he seemed to be opposed to needless spending:

“We cannot allow anything that's called national defense to justify any and all spending. We need to be very, very careful that we don't overspend and say, oh, that's defense, when perhaps it isn't.”

And

“BILL MOYERS: You're on record as saying, my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub. Is that a true statement?

GROVER NORQUIST: No. The first part is an accurate statement of exactly what we're trying to do. We've set as a conservative movement a goal of reducing the size and cost of government in half in 25 years, which is taking it from a third of the economy down to about 17 percent, taking 20 million government employees and looking to privatize and get other opportunities so that you don't have all of the jobs that are presently done by government done by government employees. We need a Federal government that does what the government needs to do, and stops doing what the government ought not to be doing.”
From:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_norquist.html

Can’t say I disagree too much with some of that. Matter of degree really. I suspect I’m much more cautious than Norquist on privatization. There are liberties I want safeguarded and I don’t believe that can be done going that route. But why have your own - say - in-house staff and equipment to plow snow when you can bid and outsource it? (Just an example for sake of argument, I have no idea if anyone in the Fed plows snow).

I do agree with your points on the economy, but we diverge somewhat on tax cuts.
Federal discretionary spending was what - under 10% in years past? It’s well over 20% now. Are there things we can do without? Yes. Are there things we can’t? Yep.
Do the tax cuts go too deep? I’m ready to consider that.
But my previous statement was more one of philosophy than relevence to the current situation. All things being equal, I’d like to see taxes fall or remain stable instead of finding services to match the revenue stream.
But whether we give people tax cuts or not, there are huge amounts of porkish projects - including especially those related to the war - that are draining the coffers.
To my mind corruption and corporate handouts (not the tax or welfare kind, but straight here-ya-go for doing nothing or next to nothing like delivering mouldy food to the troops kind of handouts) render any argument on economic philosophy moot until the lawbreaking stops.

I consider the situation roughly similar to Hollinger and Conrad Black. It doesn’t matter how the company makes money or how much it makes when someone at the upper levels is carting off enough money themselves or sending it to their buddies to impact the company.

If the tax cuts are the flip side of that coin - and I’m hard pressed to see it, and I’m not as knowlegeable as I should be there, then I’d agree those have to stop. But ADM, et al.(big agrabiz) have deep pockets. Why the GOP would screw them but give tax cuts to “the rich” is something I’m not understanding. Or perhaps I’ve mischaracterized some of your concepts, teece.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:23 PM on November 18, 2005

We need a new Huey Long.
posted by papakwanz at 2:24 PM on November 18, 2005

ROVER NORQUIST: No. The first part is an accurate statement of exactly what we're trying to do. We've set as a conservative movement a goal of reducing the size and cost of government in half in 25 years, which is taking it from a third of the economy down to about 17 percent, taking 20 million government employees and looking to privatize and get other opportunities so that you don't have all of the jobs that are presently done by government done by government employees.


Right, because if you fucking privatize everything, there is nothing left that is in control of the people. The Corporations will control basic civic mechanisms.

And what a mighty price they will extract.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 4:36 PM on November 18, 2005

"there is nothing left that is in control of the people."

How so? Privatization of some services seems to work at the local and state levels. My town has private companies doing snow work. They farm out contracts to cut big trees because it’s cheaper than having a large truck on hand all the time. As a f’rinstance.
Certainly there are abuses and possiblities of abuse, but we have that now (Halliburton). So, why not do it if it’s more cost-effective?
(With the concessions to civil liberties I mentioned previously)
posted by Smedleyman at 4:46 PM on November 18, 2005

To me, it's not a question of whether it's done by a private company or a government agency, but about whether a given function is accomplished competently, efficiently, and for a good value for the money. Whether a given thing is government-provided directly or outsourced is less of a concern. (Well, as long as it's not "faith-based" with a heaping helping of proselytization - but that would destroy the competence factor I mentioned above)
posted by beth at 9:50 AM on November 20, 2005