Democrats And Obama' s Specific Spending Excesses

The first headline I saw this morning was from CBS News titled "National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama."

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.



The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.



It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.



The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

The very next headline I saw was "Spending, not entitlements, created huge deficit" from Byron York at Campaign 2012 who breaks down the 2011 projected deficit, separating the expenses associated with the economic downturn from the specific spending excesses of Obama and the Democrats, showing that half the projected deficit is a "down payment on the Obama domestic agenda."



York starts by showing the stark contrast from 2007 to 2011:

There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.

He goes on to explain how we went from a $160 billion deficit in 2007 to the nearly $1.4 trillion projected for 2011.

But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere.

York fairly shows that half of those figures can be directly related to the economic downturn and posits that certain spending would have had to be done whether it was a Democrat or a Republicans in control of the White House.



Then he shows the other half of the problem, and that lies directly at Obama's feet.

That's a deficit increase that would have happened in an economic crisis whether Republicans or Democrats controlled Washington. But it was the specific spending excesses of President Obama and the Democrats that shot the deficit into the stratosphere.



There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government. "It's spread all through the budget," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "It was essentially a down payment on the Obama domestic agenda." Green jobs, infrastructure, health information technology, aid to states -- it's all in there, billions in increased spending.



As for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP -- it has no specific line in the budget, either, but that is because it was anticipated to pay nearly all of its own cost, which it has.



Spending for Social Security and Medicare did go up in this period -- $162 billion and $119 billion, respectively -- but by incremental and predictable amounts that weren't big problems in previous years. "We're getting older one year at a time, and health care costs grow at 7 or 8 percent a year," says Holtz-Eakin. If Social Security and Medicare were the sole source of the current deficit, it would be a lot smaller than it is.



The bottom line is that with baby boomers aging, entitlements will one day be a major budget problem. But today's deficit crisis is not one of entitlements. It was created by out-of-control spending on everything other than entitlements. The recent debt-ceiling agreement is supposed to put the brakes on that kind of spending, but leaders have so far been maddeningly vague on how they'll do it.

Read the entire piece for actual dollar amounts.



The issues above along with job creation and growth are going to be central to the 2012 elections, presidential and senatorial, and are issues that need to be hammered home, relentlessly.



Obama inherited a troublesome economy but under his hand, his guidance, and his first two years a House and Senate completely controlled by Democrats, that economy spiraled downward in a free fall and Obama would tell you it is simply "bad luck."



American voters should keep an old expression in their minds over the next 15 months:



"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."



Then in November 2012, they should vote accordingly.



.

Majority NABE Economists Believe Spending Cuts Are The Solution To Deficit Problem

CNBC:

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts.



The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases.

Read it all and pass it along because you can be assured that Liberals and the majority of media won't be highlighting it for their readers.



.

Republicans Announce Chosen Six For 'Super Committee'

The soon to be fully formed "Super Committee" which will hold the responsibility of finding an additional $1.2 trillion in budget savings by November 23, 2011, to avoid pulling the recent debt deal agreement "trigger" which would cause automatic cuts in areas like Medicare and national security.

The 12-member group has until Nov. 23 to come up with a deficit reduction plan. If a majority approves the plan, the House and Senate must vote on it by December 23. If the plan is rejected, it will automatically trigger $1.2 trillion in cuts in areas like Medicare and national security.



The super committee's goal is to find $1.5 trillion in savings, though it appears it can still meet its mandate if it finds only $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. The recent downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, however, puts pressure on the committee to seek out greater savings.

House Republicans have chosen House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, to serve as co-chair of the committee, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.



Senate Republicans chosen are Senators Jon Kyl, Ariz., Pat Toomey, Pa., and Rob Portman, Ohio.



Senate Democrats have already announced the three Democratic Senators for the committee, which are, Senators Patty Murray, Wash., to co-chair the committee, Max Baucus, Mont. and John Kerry.



House Democrats have not announced their three choices for the 12 member committee.



H/T Hot Air, via Twitter.



.

Obama Owns The Credit Downgrade

Some back and forth between political parties on a nifty nick name for the recent downgrade of America's credit rating from AAA to AA+, with Liberals calling it the "Tea Party Downgrade" and Conservatives calling it the "Obama Downgrade".



Considering the S&P is threatening yet another downgrade if "government fails to make the cuts outlined in the debt ceiling agreement," it is pretty clear that according to the credit agency the U.S. Government spends too much and needs to cut the deficit.



Correct me if I am wrong, but Tea Party members and conservative Republicans have been harping, very publicly about spending cuts and deficit reduction since before the midterm elections.



NYT:

Representative Blake Farenthold, a freshman Republican from Texas, said the S.&P. report could have a beneficial effect. “Anything that encourages the new committee to get the job done and get us back on a rational fiscal path is a good thing,” Mr. Farenthold said.



Another freshman Republican, Representative Steve Southerland II of Florida, said the credit report created “a sense of urgency for the two parties to come together.” The possibility of a further downgrade “scares me,” Mr. Southerland said.



The stated goal of the new panel, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is to cut federal budget deficits by a total of “at least $1.5 trillion” over the next decade.



The first round of savings under the new law, coming from annual caps on appropriations, is estimated at $917 billion over 10 years. Standard & Poor’s had said it was hoping to see $4 trillion in total deficit reduction. If the joint committee wanted to reach that goal, it might seek a bigger, more comprehensive deal, aiming to save $3 trillion rather than $1.5 trillion over 10 years.



If Congress wants to satisfy the rating agencies — Moody’s and Fitch have so far kept their AAA ratings of government debt — it will need to lock in substantial deficit-reduction measures, without using the kind of budgetary gimmicks that sometimes appear to produce savings under accounting rules prescribed by Congress, several lawmakers said.

According to The Daily Caller, Let Freedom Ring executive director Alex Cortes has launched a site called TheObamaDowngrade.com.

Let Freedom Ring executive director Alex Cortes said the reason his organization launched TheObamaDowngrade.com is to point out how it’s largely the president’s fault for the credit downgrade. Like Kibbe, Cortes says both political parties are responsible for overspending through the years. But, he argued, Republicans are the “only ones” who have put “serious reforms” on the table in recent months.



Cortes said he thinks Cut, Cap and Balance — which passed the House due to Republican support — was the only plan put forth that fit Standard & Poor’s criteria for averting a downgrade. He also argued that entitlement reform was essential in order to prevent future downgrades.



“It’s because of the tea party that we got any cuts whatsoever,” Cortes told TheDC. “The president requested a clean debt ceiling increase with no spending cuts or reforms. I think it’s clearly Obama’s downgrade and that’s what our campaign says.”

No one doubts that Obama inherited an economic problem when he took office, but after 2 1/2 years into his presidency, with the first 2 years being helped by a Democratically controlled House and Senate, spending has increased, the deficit has increased and now America's credit rating has been downgraded.



There is no doubt that Obama owns this downgrade and no nifty shifting of blame to the Tea Party is going to divert the American public into forgetting who has been fighting against spending cuts and deficit reductions and who has been fighting for them.



[Update] Powerline takes a walk down memory lane:

Let’s take a walk down memory lane. What did the Democrats do with respect to federal debt during the four years they controlled both Houses of Congress? Here is a summary of the deficits the Democrats racked up during that time:

FY 2008 — $460 billion

FY 2009 — $1,410 billion ($1.4 trillion)

FY 2010 — $1,300 billion ($1.3 trillion)

FY 2011 — $1,600 (estimated) ($1.6 trillion)

Of the $14.5 trillion national debt, nearly $4.8 trillion–one-third of the total–was incurred during that four-year period when the Congress was exclusively controlled by the Democrats. Moreover, and equally important, during that time the Democrats did nothing to assure the markets that they have a long-term plan to deal with the country’s burgeoning debt. On the contrary, for more than two years the Congressional Democrats have refused to adopt or even to propose a budget! If you are looking for the reason why rating agencies have lost faith in the ability of our government to get its spending and debt under control, you need look no farther.

(Cartoon above Henry Payne via Townhall)



.

Tea Party Nation Founder: What Washington Has Forgotten

Judson Phillips, founder and chief executive of Tea Party Nation, has taken to the Washington Post opinion pages to remind readers exactly what the Tea Party Nation stands for and the quote of the day definitely has to go to him.

As the founder of Tea Party Nation, I feel confident in saying that the Tea Party understands what so many in Washington seem to have forgotten: We do not have a debt crisis. We have a spending crisis. There is only one way you get to a debt crisis — you spend too much money.

Phillips, in one short op-ed, has brought the whole crisis back to the basics. When you spend more money than you have, you borrow and create debt with interest and end up further and further in the hole.

We hear Obama and Democrats continue to talk about increasing taxes to lower our debt, yet Marco Rubio said it best when he said we don't need new taxes we need more taxpayers.

Cut spending, quit creating an atmosphere of fear for our business owners, (Fear being the word OF the business owners in relation to the Obama administration) so they will spend more, expand and hire more people and Washington would then have a good start on getting a handle on the spending problem we have.

We in the Tea Party understand a basic concept that Washington has forgotten: When you are in a hole, quit digging. Every time we have approached the debt ceiling, we have been told the same thing: If we do not raise the debt limit, it will be the end of the world as we know it. A couple of years later, when we find ourselves facing the same crisis, we’re told the same thing.

The message to Washington is very simple.

Put down your shovels ladies and gentlemen.

.

Gallup- 55% to 35%, Majority More Concerned About Lack Of Spending Cuts In Debt Battle

Gallup shows Americans want some type of compromise in the debt ceiling battle but lower into the Gallup poll it shows that by a 20 point margin, 55 percent to 35 percent, the majority "say they worry more that the government would raise the debt ceiling without plans for major spending cuts, than that the government would not raise the ceiling and an economic crisis would ensue."

The question: Which concerns you more: The government would not raise the debt ceiling and a major economic crisis would result, or the government would raise the debt ceiling but without plans for major cuts in future spending?

55 percent of respondents are more concerned about the lack of spending cuts than about any crisis that would result in no debt limit increase.

Bottom Line

Americans would like their representatives in Washington to compromise and get a debt agreement in place before the Aug. 2 deadline, but at the same time are concerned that any such agreement include major spending cuts.

Now, answer it out loud folks.. which party is fighting very publicly for spending cuts and which party is fighting against making those cuts?

Video- Boehner Response To Obama's Veto Threat On Cut, Cap And Balance Act

Video below (H/T Hot Air)

This week, the House will pass a plan that addresses our debt and spending while taking action on the debt ceiling. And while the House once again acts responsibly, the administration still won’t present a plan or even say what cuts it’s willing to make to end Washington’s spending binge and the economic uncertainty that it’s creating. This unfortunate veto threat should make clear that the issue is not congressional inaction, but rather the President’s unwillingness to cut spending and restrain the future growth of our government.

Yesterday when Obama's veto threat first hit the news, I said "Despite all Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, he has no desire to rein in uncontrolled government spending. He has no desire to lower our deficit."

I stand by that today.

Passing the CCB Act through the House of Representatives is smart and would force the Democratically controlled Senate, where 23 Democratic members are up for reelection in 2012, to either pass it or reject it, all done publicly so voters will see exactly where the holdup is and who is blocking America from starting down the long path to become fiscally responsible.

Should it make it through the Senate, then Obama's veto would confirm to all Americans just where the buck stopped and who is preventing real "change."

.

Obama Wants Everyone To Share the Sacrifice... Except For Him

We have been hearing quite a bit from Democrats and Barack Obama about "shared sacrifice", yet when it comes to spending cuts to the Executive Office of the President (EOP), cuts roughly in line with the cuts to other departments in various House spending bills that have been taken up so far, Barack Obama balks.

Proposed House cuts to the Executive Office of the President's (EOP) budget will hurt administration efforts to cut the deficit, the White House argues.

The Obama administration made the argument in comments on H.R. 2434, the 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. That bill could be on the House floor as early as next week, and would decrease funding for the EOP from $705 million to $640 million.

Seems everyone but Obama should have to sacrifice.

.

Op-Ed Columnist David Brooks Doesn't Understand The Concept Of Republicans Keeping Promises

David Brooks over at New York Times' Opinion page writes a piece which starts by detailing how Republicans have changed American politics by focusing a large spotlight on spending restraint, debt reduction, forcing the serious start to entitlement reform discussions and Brooks determines Republicans have been effective negotiators.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

Every item Brooks listed were parts of the Republican campaigns in 2010 before the midterm elections. Promises they made to their constituents. Promises their constituents made very clear would be kept or they would not be given yet another chance to prove they would be fiscally responsible, fight for what their constituents elected them to do.

Emphasis mine in the quoted portion of Brooks' op-ed column above because after stating so clearly what Republicans have done in the short time they had control of the House of Representatives and a gain in net seats in the Senate giving Democrats less of a majority they had before the 2010 midterms, he then decides to have a temper tantrum about Republicans continuing to keep the promises they made in 2010 to win those very seats.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

He goes on to rant and rave a bit more but you get the gist, right?

In the original quote up above it states, and I emphasized his quote, that Democrats "have agreed not to raise taxes", then in the second portion he complains bitterly about Republicans not closing tax loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures... all of which is just a fancy way of saying Democrats are still trying to raise taxes using the Democrat's code words for taxes which is "revenue increases."

A normal Republican in Brooks' world would seize the opportunity (meaning quit while ahead), yet the first set of quotes, from Brooks in the very same piece, credit Republican's "tough and inflexible" negotiation stances and saying they proved to be "effective" in getting us where we are today where we are focused on spending cuts and balancing the national budget.

In the bottom portion of his piece he continuously contradicts the very basis of the of the top portion. One has to wonder if he has a dual personality or he truly doesn't understand that Republicans are keeping the promises they made, one of which was to not fold a winning hand, to not stop until we have a balanced budget. Especially when that winning hand has the backing of the majority of Americans.

Every poll conducted of late has shown that two of the top issues in the minds of voters are the national debt and spending cuts. The exact things, along with job creation that Republicans campaigned on and have publicly fought Democrats tooth and nail for, since last November 2010.

This battle is over the debt ceiling. The last one was a budget. The next one might be an appropriations bill or yet another budget bill, but Republicans must, at every turn, with every vote, continue to fight for spending cuts and balancing our budget aka not spending more money than we have. They must continue to fight against the Democratic solution to everything which is spend more/tax more instead of getting their spending habits under control.

Just to put things into perspective.

The Day Obama took office the national debt was $10.626 trillion, today the national debt is $14.396 trillion.

During Bush's two terms the debt increased by $4.9 trillion. (Source, CBS News)

In two-and-a-half years, Barack Obama has raised our debt by almost as much as Bush did in eight.

Oh, and about those taxes?

So far this year, individual income tax payments were up 28 percent to $701.8 billion, while corporate tax receipts increased 5 percent.

Last month's deficit was close to the congressional estimate, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday projecting a $59 billion shortfall in May and a total federal budget deficit of $929 billion, $6 billion less than the deficit last year at this time.



Incoming revenue increased 19 percent, or $28 billion, compared to last May.

Republicans finally understand we cannot tax and spend our way out of this mess, cuts must be made, entitlements must be recalculated and adjusted to a sustainable level, a balanced budget must be created and our politicians must abide by it.

These are non-negotiable promises that were made and that must be kept.

We are done. Compromise time is over.

Fight to get our fiscal house in order and we will vote for you in 2012. Give up that fight, compromise on the promises made, and we will vote your butts out as fast as we did the Democrats in the midterms of 2010.

Yes Mr. Brooks, as your headline says, this is a no-brainer.

.

Debt Limit Talks: Bush Era Rates Off Table And House Democrats Feel Ignored

After the bipartisan talks imploded last week when Democrats insisted that part of the deal include $400 billion in tax increases. This forced Barack Obama to finally come to the table in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, which stands at $14.3 trillion now, to allow the U.S. to borrow more money.

There have been a flurry of meetings that now include Obama, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a separate meeting with House Speaker John Boehner and another meeting with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), assistant to the leader.

The Hill reports that the administration has stopped insisting on ending the Bush-era tax cuts.

I am starting to get a vague sense of deja vu though as I see headlines like "House Democrats feel jilted by the president in budget, debt talks."

Just as House Democrats did in December after Republicans took a large net gain of House seats,the biggest turnover of seats in decades, to take control of the House of Representatives, House Democrats are now upset, feeling that they are being taken for granted and ignored and complaining publicly.

“How is it that the House Democrats played such an important role [in the majority], and all of a sudden [the White House says], ‘Forget it, we’ll work with the Senate and the Republican leadership?’ ” asked Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), vice chairman of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee.

House Democrats’ frustration with Obama is boiling in the intense heat of negotiations to reach a budget deal and raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Capitol Hill Democrats have been steaming for months, since being sidelined during talks to extend the George W. Bush-era tax rates and fund the government this year. Many say the White House takes their support for granted but ignores them when it comes to making policy.

“Before this year we were playing a strong role,” said Cuellar, but “now a lot of us feel like we’re almost being ignored.”

Before this year they played a strong role because they had an overwhelming majority, and they had a Democratically controlled Senate and White House and were able to shove anything that they wanted through because the GOP could not stop them from railroading laws and bills.

November 2010 midterms ended that one party reign.

They are frustrated, speaking out to reporters, angry and aren't at the point where they can admit the reason they are being "ignored" treated as if they are "irrelevant" is because House Democrats are irrelevant at the moment.

Of course Obama is taking them for granted, who else are they going to support in 2012? The Republican candidate against Obama?

I don't think so.

Obama knows the answer to that question and so do the House Democrats that are throwing their temper tantrums.

The Obama administration needs the debt ceiling voted on, passed and raised by August 2, 2011.

Republicans have made it clear that for any debt ceiling raise to pass the House of Representatives, an equal amount of spending cuts be part of the deal. Want $2 trillion (example) then cut that same $2 trillion. Republicans want a balanced budget amendment to show they are serious about stopping the practice of spending more money than we have.

Republicans seem to have learned their lesson when they were thrown out of leadership positions the last time by their base for spending like drunken sailors with taxpayer money. They understand they campaigned in 2010 on the premise of cutting spending and lowering our deficit and if they do not fight to keep those promises, they can be replaced again in the next election.







Wasteful Government Spending

Gallup found that 73 percent of national adults understand what liberal Democrats and Barack Obama (yes, redundant) do not seem to be able to... that wasteful government spending is more to blame for the rising federal budget deficit than not raising enough money in taxes.


Corporate Taxes vs Budget Cuts

In May, a New York Times/CBS News poll (neither organization can be accused of a "conservative slant") shows that most Americans prefer budget cuts over raising corporate taxes.

In general, however, few Americans back increasing taxes on American businesses: only 37 percent said corporate taxes should be increased to help reduce the federal budget deficit. The rest agree with an alternative argument that increased taxes would discourage American companies from creating jobs and hurt them in the global marketplace. Thirty-two percent would rather see corporate taxes remain as they are now and 26 percent said taxes on corporate profits should be decreased.

Government Shutdown vs Spending Cuts

In April Rasmussen found that 57 percent of polled voters suggest that a government shutdown would be preferred to not doing the deep spending cuts necessary to get the federal budget on its way toward balance. Only 31 percent believe that avoiding a shutdown is more important.


The bottom line here is that this battle, like the previous budget battles since November is being aired publicly with the same public referred to in the polls above, watching as Republicans fight for spending cuts, a balanced budget amendment and Democrats fighting to raise taxes.

I can almost see all those public statements used in GOP campaign videos with Democrats and Obama stating over and over again "raise taxes" with the GOP candidate saying "cut spending."

Democrats need to stop playing to their 13 percent fiscally liberal base and start playing to Americans as a whole or even to the 38 percent that view themselves as moderate on fiscal issues, or 2012 is going make their massive losses in 2010 look like a walk in the park.

.

The Republican Messaging Problem

We find it amazing that the Democrats and the mass media are not making a big deal out of how much trouble the Republicans are in at the moment. Even liberal leaning pundits seem to think that the Bin Laden bounce for Obama has run its course. We do not know where they get this idea because we cannot find one poll that is not positive for Obama and they actually are getting stronger for Obama with every passing day. If the presidential election were to be held now, Obama would be a shoo-in.

Now it is true that the Democrats and the media tried to convince the public that the special election held in New York's district 26 showed that the Ryan budget plan is the kiss of death for the Republicans in 2012 and most pundits did not buy that. The problem is not with the Ryan budget plan but rather with the Republican messaging. They are trying to sell it as as a necessary reform to balance the budget. They keep pushing that line and not only will they not gain control of the Senate in 2012, but they will not defeat Obama and will come close to losing the House of Representatives as well.

At the time of the 2010 elections, the generic congressional ballot was running from 7 to 15 points in favor of the Republicans depending upon which poll you looked at. Right now our average of those polls is actually slightly in favor of the Democrats. Clearly the Republicans have a gigantic messaging problem. How about a message that proclaims they are try to SAVE Medicare before it goes bankrupt? Is that too much to ask of the Republican leadership? The voters voted for Republicans in 2010 in hopes that the Republicans would jam the brakes on all that the Democrats had done in the previous two years.

What have they gotten in exchange for this vain hope? They have gotten Democrat-lite from the Republicans instead. As Obama has said, Democrats bring a gun to a knife fight. The Republicans do not bring a knife or even martial arts to the fight. The Republicans are wimps and they have no clue on how to go for the Democrat jugular. The Democrats run ads proclaiming that the Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare and kill granny. How do the Republicans respond? They point to charts and figures that there is a problem with the financing of Medicare. How about proclaiming that the Democrats are sitting idly by while Medicare goes broke and that this is what will kill granny?

Republicans seem to think that the baby steps they have taken towards controlling government spending are all it takes to win public approval. How about wielding a meat axe instead? Whole departments need to be axed as they are doing more harm than good. Polls showed that a majority of the likely voters did not have a problem with shutting down all but the essential parts of the federal government if that was what it took to get the Democrat's attention to their habit of spending other people's money like a whole carrier group of druken sailors. What did the Republicans give them instead? They gave them cuts that did not even come to the amount the government borrowed while they were arguing about it.

The debt ceiling hike is the last chance the Republicans have to make good on their promises for the 2010 elections. They have just one chance to make believers out of the voting public that they are serious about cutting government spending. They need to refuse to raise the debt limit no matter what cuts the Democrats agree to. The public will support this stand. The folks in Congress need to learn to live within their means just like everyone else has had to do. The Republican leadership (and that means you, Mitch McConnell) need to get in the Democrats' face and stay there no matter how much the media beats up on them for doing that. Frankly, we doubt that the Republicans have the guts to do this and that means that we get four more years of Obama and continued Democrat control of the Senate and perhaps the Democrats regaining control of the House to boot.

Gallup: Plurality Opposed To Raising Debt Ceiling: Far Left Thinks Americans Too Stupid To Understand Issue

Welcome Mahablog readers, discussion continues at a followup post.

The debt ceiling is a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow and by a 47 percent to 19 percent margin with 34 percent saying they don't know enough to say, a plurality of Americans are against raising the debt ceiling.

Even more worrisome for Congress members and Barack Obama is that 57 percent of Americans are closely following the public discussion about raising the debt ceiling. Especially members that are up for reelection in 2012.

A majority of Americans (57%) say they are closely following the news about "discussions to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, the maximum amount of money the U.S. government can borrow by law." Republicans are following the issue more closely than are Democrats and independents; upper-income Americans are following it more closely than lower-income Americans; and those with a postgraduate education more so than those with a high school education or less.

More on the implications over at Gallup.

The Hill:

Republicans and some Democrats have said that they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling without serious spending cuts and fiscal reforms attached. But President Obama and Democratic leaders have urged Republicans not to play politics with the vote, arguing that failing to hike the limit would lead to a debt default that would send shockwaves throughout world financial markets.

Considering more Americans by a very large margin do not want to see the debt ceiling raised than those that do, Democrats can cry foul about attaching spending cuts and fiscal reform conditions and call it "playing politics" all they want, but Republicans who campaigned on these issues and were handed control of the House of Representatives and a net gain in the Senate in 2010, understand that without those attachments they will be publicly breaking trust with the voters that elected them.

As far as the so-called progressive left is concerned, Americans simply are too stupid to actually understand the issue.

But my impression is that most people in this country aren’t even being exposed to basic explanations of the issue. They just hear “debt” and “raise,” and they’re agin’ it.

Then again that is the same old song the left like to sing whenever the majority or plurality of Americans disagree with them. In their minds the American public isn't educated enough on (insert issue here), the American public aren't capable of looking into an issue and making their own determination.

I completely disagree with that. I believe the American public is watching the issue closely, they understand the ceiling is going to be raised but want to make sure the endless merry-go-round of borrowing, spending and being forced to borrow more because Washington overspends, ends.

Poll after poll done' this year, from a variety of polling organizations, show that the economy, jobs and the national deficit are the top issues in the minds of Americans.

American voters are watching, they are engaged more than I have ever seen in my 40+ years and I seriously doubt they appreciate being told they are too stupid to understand what they are seeing.

[Update 5/15/11] Maha responds and I respond back, all links found here.

.

YouCut Phase ll And Spending Cuts Dollar For Dollar Equal To Raise In Debt Limit

YouCut Phase 2 was unveiled Wednesday and works much like the original YouCut with a few additional advantages.

The Daily Caller explains:

“This updated version builds upon the success of the original YouCut program by allowing Americans to vote on a spending cut, and track the legislation in real-time, from introduction by a member of our freshman class, through the committee process, to a floor vote and ideally to enactment,” Cantor said.

The initial numbers for YouCut were quite impressive with 500,000 votes each round and Republicans are hoping to double that amount of participation from the general public.

The three options for this week for the public to vote on what spending to cut are Terminate the Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation which would save $60 million, Terminate U.S. Contributions to the Asian Development Fund which would save $356 million or Terminate U.S. Contributions to the United Nations Population Fund which would save $400 million.

Below your vote option is a place where you can suggest your own ideas for spending cuts.

When the first version of YouCut was unveiled, Democrats controlled the House so Republicans could suggest a vote on the winning spending cut but was often refused the opportunity to bring it to the House floor by Nancy Pelosi who was Speaker of the House at that time.

Now that Republicans control the House, these votes will come to the floor and the newly improved site will allow you to track the progress of the cut, see when it comes to the floor, if it passed and the public can continue to participate by following up by encouraging your Senate reps to bring it to the floor. (Senate is still controlled by Democrats, so those calls will be important)

Democrats are fast to criticize the YouCut idea because the cuts are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the overall federal deficit.

Freshman Austin Scott of Georgia responds "Well, that’s fine. Lets get started. We didn’t get into this situation overnight. And we’re not gonna get out of it overnight. Nobody’s gonna wave a magic wand one night and we’re gonna wake up tomorrow and everything’s gonna be OK fiscally."

I have pointed out before and it is worth repeating. You put a bucket under a leak, each drop may be small in comparison to the size of the bucket itself, but as they all drip in, eventually the bucket fills up.

Nobody is going to pretend that each cut, individually, is going to fix our deficit problems and by the same token, Scott is correct, we didn't get this far into debt overnight so any and all cut must be accompanied by a concrete long term fiscal plan.

Human beings are hard wired into wanting to see results instantly but any savings, spending cuts and long term budget deficit plan is going to have to account for long term spending cuts where the results are not only seen instantly but where a change in spending set the standard in the long run.

So a plan to cut trillions isn't and shouldn't be trillions right this second but should be spread out so that over the course of time so that Washington is reprogrammed to spend less.

We could cut trillions right this second but without a spending plan for the future, we would simply be making a one time cut and the deficit would be rising again at an unsustainable level by the time the next budget comes up for a vote.

Debt Ceiling

Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has made it clear that if Obama wants a debt limit increase it will be dollar for dollar, hand in hand with spending cuts to equal the amount of the increase.

Boehner took the ambitious stand in negotiations to raise America’s debt ceiling while speaking to the Economic Club of New York, saying, “Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.”

While the Treasury Department has yet to specify exactly the size of the increase Congress will need to approve for the $14.3 trillion debt limit, estimates are currently settling in around $2 trillion. That means, according to Speaker Boehner, that the White House and congressional Democrats would have to agree to spending cuts equal to at least $2 trillion as well.

The only thing “off the table” is tax increases, said Boehner. Everything else – including entitlements — will be subject to spending cuts.

Washington has spent decades learning the bad habit of spending more money than America has, then borrowing even more so they can spend even more. Anyone living on a budget knows that is not only unsustainable but if Washington was a household, that family would be homeless, unable to put food on the table, their credit cards taken away and their credit rating would be shot for a decade.

Politicians need to be retrained.

Republicans were thrown out of power by doing the very same thing and apparently they learned their lesson because not only did they promise while campaigning for the 2010 midterms to be fiscally responsible and force spending cuts, but after winning the largest net seats in the House of Representatives in over 70 years and being handed control of it, they are still fighting tooth and nail against Democrats to keep those campaign promises.

Now it is time to retrain the Democrats and if they continue to fight again fiscal responsibility, well, the 2012 elections can take care of that.

.

Democrats Join Republicans Insisting On Spending Cuts Tie In To Debt Limit Increase

With a national debt of over $14 trillion, government spending out of control and the very public battle between political parties showing Republicans insisting on spending cuts and Democrats fighting against them, the White House now needs Congress to increase our debt ceiling.

Republicans in Congress have insisted that any increase be tied to more spending cuts and a fiscal plan that shows Congress is serious about reducing the debt.

The Senate is still controlled by a Democratic majority and any deal made on raising the debt ceiling which includes spending cuts, will have to include Democratic support and it looks like that support is there.

Wapo reports:

The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a “real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.”

Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), generally a stalwart White House ally, is undecided on the issue and is “hopeful” that a debt-ceiling bill can be attached to a measure to cut the federal deficit, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula. Klobuchar is also up for reelection next year.

Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.)releases a statement explaining why so many Democrats are joining with Republicans to insist deficit reduction be a part of the package.

“As catastrophic as it would be to fail to raise our debt ceiling, it’s even more irresponsible to not take this opportunity to own up to our unsustainable spending path,” Sen. Mark Udall (Colo.), another Democrat challenging the White House, said in a statement his office released this week. “If we don’t take action to reduce our deficit spending, Congress will be facing this same debt ceiling vote in the near term – still with no end to our deficits in sight.”

Polls conducted by a variety of sources, from January 2011 (Reuters) and as recently as April 2011, (CBS News) show that there is consistent opposition by Americans voters to raising the debt limit.

In 2012, 23 Democratic Senate seats are in play and 10 Republican Senate seats, so decisions made now will be watched and judged and will undoubtedly be a factor in how constituents vote in those elections.

Resurgent Republic:

President Obama’s policy of raising the federal debt limit without any preconditions relating to limiting spending, i.e. a "clean debt limit," is supported by only one-out-of-ten voters, the least popular option of three presented in a Resurgent Republic survey conducted jointly with the American Action Forum.

The second-ranking option overall is "not raising the debt limit under any circumstances." That option places second among Independents and Democrats, and is the top preference for Republicans.

The preferred option, drawing support from a plurality of voters overall, is "raising the debt limit, but only in exchange for substantial spending cuts and a commitment to reduce the deficit." The days of "routine" debt limit increase votes may be history, with voters holding firm views about the debt ceiling vote in a time of concern over the economy and a pervasive view that "we have got to stop spending money we don’t have," as has been seen in previous Resurgent Republic polling.

The Democrats listed above understand the Republicans in Congress enjoy an overwhelming amount of public support to lower the deficit, cut spending and get our fiscal house in order.

They understand this because their chances at being reelected depend on it.


Semi-related :

McConnell turns the tables on Reid in budget fight

“I understand that the Majority Leader would like to have a vote on the House-passed Ryan budget and we will,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement. “But we’ll have a vote on the President’s budget at the same time. Since there is no Democrat budget in the Senate, we’ll give our colleagues an opportunity to stand with the President in failing to address the problems facing our nation while calling for trillions in new spending, massive new debt and higher taxes on American energy, families and small businesses across the country.”

Ouch.

.

The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011

The headline says it all and comes from the first line of the AFP's article reporting the news.

The US budget deficit shot up 15.7 percent in the first six months of fiscal 2011, the Treasury Department said Wednesday as political knives were being sharpened for a new budget battle.

The Treasury reported a deficit of $829 billion for the October-March period, compared with $717 billion a year earlier, as revenue rose a sluggish 6.9 percent as the economic recovery slowly gained pace.

Of course there are "explanations" "justifications" and "excuses" to convince the public that they shouldn't quite trust just the actual data . One plus one doesn't really equal two.

The Treasury argued that the pace of increase in the deficit was deceptive because of large one-off reductions in expenditures made during the first half of fiscal 2010, compared with previous and subsequent periods.

Those included a $115 billion reduction in funds spent on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- the financial institution bailout program -- in March 2010.

"America has a debt problem"- Barack Obama

It is the ending sentence though that should bother most people:

He [Obama] also "faces a looming battle over increasing the country's official debt ceiling, so that the government can continue to borrow to finance the deficit."

There is something inherently wrong with the portion of that sentence I just emphasized.

Borrow money to finance the deficit. In debt, so naturally the only conclusion is to borrow more money, raising your debt in order to finance the continued out-of-control spending habits of our government.

When George Bush was President, then-Senator Barack Obama said "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem."

Of course now that Obama is the President, things are quite different and he "regrets" his vote against raising the debt limit, after that little speech because now he is the one asking Congress to raise the debt limit.

There is no doubt that America cannot default on it's loans. The debt limit is going to be raised, yet again, simply because there is no choice.

Fair warning to Republicans in control of the House though. They had better stick to their guns and make sure that before doing so a long term plan, in writing and signed off on by all parties involved, is in place to get our fiscal house in order.

Obama plans on giving a speech today because of course when he gives a speech all these problems just go away, right?

Handing it over to Andrew Malcolm from Top of the Ticket now for a second:

Hence, again the perceived need for another Obama speech today. He'll try to recapture control by adjusting the subject: Yes, yes the deficit is bad, though not as bad as you-know-which party makes it out to be. We do need to trim it with some cuts over time. But what we really need is more money to get stuff done.

You know, those rich people with the money to create new jobs? Let's take some more from them in taxes and Social Security assessments. Not from you! From them. Who's gonna oppose somebody else paying more taxes?

Obama's recent speeches have been lo-cal on substance, heavy on swell-sounding calls for someone to do something -- such as increase domestic oil production. The media reports. The people listen. They nod. And very few point out that, wait a minute, the guy talking is the one who can make that happen. So, why isn't he doing instead of talking all the time?

uh huh, yup, exactly.

With the continuing resolution for fiscal 2011 budget fight finally over, where Republicans had to fight Democrats and Obama tooth and nail just to cut billions in spending when our national debt is in the trillions, does anyone truly believe Democrats or Barack Obama are serious about fiscal responsibility? About slashing government spending to stop us from spiraling downward into debt we will never be able to pay off?

If so, I still have that swamp land in Florida for sale... call me, let's talk!

.

2011 Budget Deal: Summary – Final Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution

5 Page PDF of the Summary – Final Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution can be found here. (Via U.S. House of Representatives House of Appropriations)


The negotiated agreement between the House, Senate, and White House on a final Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution will prevent a government shutdown, fund the entire federal government until September 30, 2011, and provide essential funding for national defense. In addition, the legislation will cut an unparalleled nearly $40 billion in federal spending.

When this agreement is signed into law, Congress will have taken the unprecedented step of passing the largest non-defense spending cut in the history of our nation – tens of billions larger than any other non-defense reduction, and the biggest overall reduction since World War II. This remarkable accomplishment is the result of hard-fought negotiations that required all sides to come together to find common ground.

It has been the goal of this new Republican majority to keep precious tax dollars where they are needed most – in the hands of businesses and individuals across the nation so that they can create jobs and grow our economy. The final Continuing Resolution will allow Congress to further this goal, continuing the trend of budget reductions to dig our nation out of our dangerous deficits and debt for years to come.


A summary of the final Continuing Resolution (CR) follows*:


Overall Spending Limit: The final CR will include a total of $1.049 trillion in funding, a nearly $40 billion reduction from last year’s (fiscal year 2010) levels. This includes the $12 billion in reductions previously approved by Congress and signed into law under the previous three continuing resolutions, as well as nearly $28 billion in additional new spending cuts.

Agriculture: The CR funds Agriculture programs at $20 billion, which is $3 billion below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $3.2 billion below the President’s 2011 budget request.

The bill provides $1 billion for Food Safety and Inspection, which is $10 million below the fiscal year 2010 level, while allowing for uninterrupted meat, poultry, and egg products inspection activities of the agency. The bill also reduces Agricultural Credit Programs by $433 million, Agricultural Research Service by $64 million, and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture by $125.9 million below the fiscal year 2010 levels.


The CR also includes $6.75 billion for the Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which allows the program to support more than 9 million income-eligible mothers, infants, and children up to 5 years of age.

Commerce, Justice, Science: The Commerce, Justice, Science section of the CR contains a total of $53.4 billion, a $10.9 billion, or 17%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $7.1 billion, or 12%, from the President’s fiscal year 2011 request.

The CR provides funding above fiscal year 2010 levels for National Institute of Standards and Technology research and manufacturing programs, as well as critical FBI national security and prisons/detention requirements. Justice Department appropriations are reduced by $946 million below fiscal year 2010, with significant reductions to grant and construction programs, and Commerce Department appropriations are cut by $6.5 billion below fiscal year 2010. The bill also includes $18.5 billion for NASA and fully funds the newly authorized exploration program.

This section of the CR also prohibits funding for: the establishment of a Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the approval of new fisheries catch-share programs in certain fisheries; and for NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to engage in bilateral activities with China.

Defense Funding: The Department of Defense is funded at $513 billion in the CR – approximately $5 billion above last year – providing the necessary resources for the safety of our troops and the success of our nation’s military actions. The bill also includes an additional $157.8 billion for overseas contingency operations (emergency funding) to advance our missions abroad.

The Defense section of this legislation includes $126.7 billion for military personnel, providing for 1,432,400 active duty and 846,200 reserve troops. In addition, the bill contains a total of $165.6 billion for operations and maintenance, $102.1 billion for procurement, $75 billion for research and development, and $31.4 billion for Defense health programs. This legislation eliminates all Defense earmark account funding, a cut of $4.2 billion from last year’s level.

The CR also includes language preventing Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred into the United States for any purpose, prevents the construction or modification of detention facilities within the U.S. for the housing of detainees, and requires the Secretary of Defense to provide a certification to Congress that a transfer of any detainee to any foreign country or entity will not jeopardize the safety of the U.S. or its citizens. This language is virtually identical to existing law that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Energy and Water: The Energy and Water section is funded at $31.8 billion in the CR. This is a 10% reduction – or $3.6 billion – from the President’s fiscal year 2011 request, and a 5% reduction – or $1.7 billion – from fiscal year 2010 levels. These significant cuts further the House Republican commitment to deficit reduction and reining in the size of government, while at the same time protecting American security, providing support for private sector growth, and promoting a balanced national energy supply.

The bill funds the Army Corps of Engineers at the President’s request level of $4.9 billion, supports existing applications for renewable energy loan guarantees at the Department of Energy, and provides a $697 million (7%) increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration to ensure adequate funding for critical components of our national defense.

Financial Services: The Financial Services and General Government section of the CR contains a total of $22 billion, a $2.4 billion, or 10%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $3.4 billion, or 14%, from the President’s fiscal year 2011 request.

The CR reduces most Treasury and Executive Office of the President accounts and reduces funding for construction of new federal buildings by more than $800 million. The bill provides a $13 million increase over last year for the Inspector General of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide strong oversight of the billions of dollars remaining in TARP assets and continues current funding for drug task forces and programs to assist small businesses.

The CR restores a long-standing provision against the use of federal and local funds for abortions in the District of Columbia. The bill also includes the reauthorization of the DC Opportunity Scholarships, along with a $2.3 million funding increase, to stop the termination of the program and allow new students to participate. The legislation also eliminates four Administration “Czars,” including the “Health Care Czar,” the “Climate Change Czar,” the “Car Czar,” and the “Urban Affairs Czar.”

Homeland Security: A total of $41.8 billion in discretionary funding is provided for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2011. This is $784 million, or 2%, below FY 2010, and $1.9 billion, or 4%, below the President’s fiscal year 2011 request.

All critical frontline operations for DHS – including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service are sufficiently funded to meet mission requirements and sustain staffing levels. This includes funding for 21,370 Border Patrol agents, 33,400 ICE detention beds, and military pay and allowances for the U.S. Coast Guard. The bill reduces CBP’s Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology (BSFIT) account to the President’s request, reduces FEMA first responder grants by $786 million, eliminates $264 million in funding that was previously targeted to earmarks, and rescinds $557 million in unobligated and lapsed balances from prior year funds. The bill also caps the amount of TSA screener personnel at 46,000.

The bill also includes $1.05 billion in additional discretionary funding (for a total of $2.65 billion, including current funds) for the costs of existing and expected disasters for fiscal year 2011.

Interior: The CR includes $29.6 billion in discretionary funding in the Interior and Environment section of the bill, which is 8.1%, or $2.62 billion, below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 8.5%, or $2.8 billion, below the President’s request.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reduced by $1.6 billion, a 16% decrease from last year’s level. The cuts to the EPA alone represent 61% of the bill’s reduction compared to last year’s level. Funding levels for Land and Water Conservation Fund (land acquisition) programs are reduced $149 million (-33%), climate change funding bill-wide is cut by $49 million (-13%), and funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced by a combined $25 million from last year’s levels.

Funding levels for operational accounts bill-wide are largely sustained to prevent layoffs and the closure of national parks and forests, wildlife refuges, Smithsonian museums and other sites. In addition, the legislation contains language reinstating the Fish and Wildlife Service’s original determination to delist wolves in states with approved management plans in place. It returns management of wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah to the states. The bill also includes a limitation on the use of funds to implement the Bureau of Land Management’s “Wild Lands” policy.

Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies

The Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies section of the CR contains a total of $157.7 billion, roughly a $5.5 billion, or 3.36%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels. The bill is also nearly $13 billion, or 7.6 percent, below the President’s fiscal year 2011 request.

The CR preserves funding for large education programs that fund elementary and secondary schools as well as special education and provides a modest increase for Head Start to ensure that all children currently enrolled will continue to receive services, while making prudent reductions in lower priority areas. In addition, the bill continues the Pell Grant Program at the current maximum award level of $4,860.

The CR terminates funding for more than 55 programs, for a total savings of well over $1 billion. In addition, the bill terminates two programs funded in ObamaCare (the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) and the Free Choice Voucher programs). The bill makes reforms to the Pell Grant Program that are estimated to save more than $35 billion over the next 10 years by eliminating the ability of students to draw down two Pell Grant awards at the same time. Finally, the CR will return Title X funding to fiscal year 2008 levels.

Legislative Branch: Legislative Branch is reduced by $103 million from last year’s levels. Of this amount, funding for the U.S. House is reduced by $55 million from last year – or 53% of the total cut – and reflects a 5% cut in Member, Committee, and Leadership office expenses except for the Appropriations Committee, which offered a larger cut of 9%.

Military Construction/Veterans Affairs: Military Construction/Veterans Affairs programs will receive $76.6 billion in discretionary funding – an increase of $3.4 billion over the President’s fiscal year 2011 request and an increase of $600 million over last year’s level. Within this funding, the bill provides critical and necessary resources for veterans’ health and benefits, including an increase of $13.8 billion for the Department of Veterans affairs over last year’s level. Military Construction accounts are reduced by approximately $10 billion below last year’s level.

State and Foreign Operations: The funding level for the State Department and Foreign Operations in the CR is a total of $48.3 billion – a $504 million reduction from last year’s level and an $8.4 billion reduction from the President’s fiscal year 2011 request.

This section of the legislation includes a prohibition on pay raises for foreign services officers, a $377 million cut to U.S. contributions to the United Nations and international organizations, and a $130 million cut to international banks and financial institutions. In addition, the bill reduces family planning activities by $73 million – and includes a reduction in the UN Population Fund to fiscal year 2008 levels. The bill also maintains pro-life policy provisions carried in fiscal year 2010.

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: The Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Related Agencies section of the CR contains a total of $55.5 billion, a $12.3 billion, or 18%, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, and a reduction of $13.2 billion, or 20%, from the President’s fiscal year 2011 request.

For the Department of Transportation, the bill eliminates new funding for High Speed Rail and rescinds $400 million in previous year funds, for a total reduction of $2.9 billion from fiscal year 2010 levels. The bill reduces funding for transit by a total of $991 million and includes a total of $528 million in new funding for the “TIGER” grant program. While the majority of programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund remain at fiscal year 2010 levels, the bill contains total contract authority rescissions of $3.2 billion, of which $630 million is comprised of old earmarks.

For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Community Development Fund program was reduced $942 million, for a fiscal year 2011 funding level of $3.5 billion. The Section 8 program is funded at a level of $18.4 billion with $16.7 billion for voucher renewals, $1.45 billion for administrative fees, $35 million for Section 811 mainstream voucher renewals, and $50 million for HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers.

For a list of highlighted program cuts, please visit**: http://republicans.appropriations.house.gov/_files/41211ProgramCutsListFinalFY2011CR.pdf

For the text of the legislation, please visit: http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/Floor_Text/FINAL2011_xml.pdf


*All non-defense funding levels within this summary DO NOT include a 0.2% across the board reduction included in the legislation that applies to all non-defense programs, projects, and accounts.

**This list contains highlighted program cuts. This list is not comprehensive of all program funding levels in the legislation. In addition, the totals DO NOT reflect the overall across the board cut of 0.2% to all non-defense programs.

.

Deal Reached, No Government Shutdown: GOP Gets More Than Originally Asked For

There will be $38.5 billion in spending cuts, less than the GOP wanted as of late ($61 billion) but more than their original number back in February which was $32 billion. The battle over defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR will be fought in the next budget battle which is right around the corner since this one should have been passed while the last Congress was in session but Democrats kicked the can down the road.

KEY FACTS: Bipartisan Agreement on Spending Cuts to Support American Job Creation

After a long drawn out battle, two stop-gap measures passed while Congress battled out the details, Speaker of the House John Boehner(R) has been quoted as stating "This is the best deal we could get out of them."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(R)was more blunt:

We decided to make history by implementing in the middle of this fiscal year a substantial reduction in spending," McConnell said. "Once we get through this process, by the end of next week we will move on to a much larger discussion about how we save trillions."

On the debt ceiling -- which could prove to be a knock-down, drag-out fight when the federal government hits its borrowing limit next month -- McConnell was blunt:

"The president has asked us to raise the debt ceiling, and Senate Republicans and House Republicans, and I hope many Democrats as well, are going to say, ‘Mr. President, in order to raise the debt ceiling, we need to do something significant about the debt.' My definition of significant, Mr. President, is the markets view it as significant, the American people view it as significant, and foreign countries view it as significant. So for tonight, again I congratulate the Majority Leader and the Speaker; this is an important first step, but just the beginning of what we need to do to get our house, our fiscal house, in order."

Because the government shutdown was due to start at midnight, the Senate by unanimous consent passed another stop-gap measure to keep everything funded until Thursday so that Congress had the time to get the bill written, voted on and signed to fund the government for the remaining six months.

This is a major win for the American people.

Here is why.

71 percent of Americans say they worry about the economy a great deal and 64 percent worry about federal spending and the budget deficit a great deal. (Gallup)

As a country, we spend too much, we spend more than we take in. Government spending is out of control and during Nancy Pelosi's reign as Speaker our spending rose at unprecedented levels, under Obama's rule our debt has rose unimaginatively. So winning the spending cuts fight and getting Harry Reid and Barack Obama to tout these spending cuts as "historic" brings the out-of-control spending issue right to the forefront for the upcoming Debt Ceiling battle and the next next fiscal year's budget battle.

Conservative Republicans, Moderate Republicans, Speaker Boehner, Senate minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Tea Party all deserve a round of applause. (Not for the amount they agreed on but for the setting up the field for the larger battle to come)

Forcing Reid and Obama to acknowledge, publicly, that spending cuts are a priority, making the out-of-control spending the top issue of messaging, and getting an agreement on $38.5 billion in spending cuts for the rest of this fiscal year, was nothing short of a miracle. Especially with Democrats kicking and screaming against every single dollar being cut. (Reminder: Democrats control the Senate and White House- Change that in 2012 instead of whining.)

I repeat- it set the playing field and the precedent for the future budget battles to come.

Did Republicans get everything they wanted? No. In negotiations of any type, rarely does anyone get everything they have asked for. But the stage is now set.

The Tea Party deserves kudos for willingly allowing themselves to be the cudgel the Republicans used to beat the message into the heads of Democratic politicians.

The unveiling of Paul Ryan's GOP Path To Prosperity in the midst of the showdown was nothing short of genius, allowing hardcore conservatives to see the future battle over trillions is more important than shutting down the government over billions. Ryan's plan even earned grudging praise from liberal leaning outlets.

Reactions are mixed throughout the blogosphere with hardcore conservatives wishing there had been more spending cuts and hardcore liberals wishing there had been less agreed on.


Liberal Reactions

David Weigel over at Slate: Headline "The No-Shutdown Wrap: Boehner Wins, Austerity Wins, and the Social Conservatives Go Home With A "Participant" Trophy."

Let’s go back to the raw politics. Can we say that Republicans got the better of the no-shutdown deal? Yes, because if there had been a shutdown, Republicans would have been blamed for it. The record was all cued up. Democrats spent months predicting that Boehner would have trouble controlling his new Tea Party members. They spent this week saying he had to put the Tea Party “horse back in the barn,” as Dick Durbin said. Well, there’s a deal – the implication is that he put the horse back in the barn. If the Republicans would have been blamed for a shutdown, it follows that they get credit for a shutdown being avoided.

David Dayen over at Firedogake: Headline "The Ugly, the Ugly, and the Ugly: A Look at the 2011 Funding Deal."

In the end, the deal to a avert a government shutdown and keep funding going for the rest of the fiscal year amounted to a $38.5 billion cut in appropriations from the 2010 baseline (although WaPo puts it at $37.8 billion, the joint Boehner/Reid announcement used the $38.5 billion number, so that’s what I’m going with). There was a time last December, with the McCaskill-Sessions compromise, promoted by the very conservative Republican ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, when Republicans agreed to a 2011 budget appropriation $20 billion ABOVE the 2010 baseline. If mixed in with the tax cut deal, that level could have been put in place. Therefore, this deal inked late last night cut $58.5 billion from the level of McCaskill-Sessions. This equals all of the tax advantages that didn’t extend current law, outside of the business expensing provisions, in the December 2010 tax cut deal. The entire stimulus is gone.

Steve Benen over at Washington Monthly calls it "A RAW DEAL".

What's more, the $32 billion offered by the GOP leadership two months ago was their opening bid. They expected to compromise from there, and their plan included no policy riders at all.

It seems ridiculous now, but if Democrats had, on that very day, accepted the House Republican leadership's spending cuts right there on the spot, it would have been a better deal than the one we ended up with last night.

Ezra Klein over at Washington Post: Headline "2011 is not 1995"

The substance of this deal is bad. But the way Democrats are selling it makes it much, much worse.

The final compromise was $38.5 billion below 2010’s funding levels. That’s $78.5 billion below President Obama’s original budget proposal, which would’ve added $40 billion to 2010’s funding levels, and $6.5 billion below John Boehner’s original counteroffer, which would’ve subtracted $32 billion from 2010’s budget totals. In the end, the real negotiation was not between the Republicans and the Democrats, or even the Republicans and the White House. It was between John Boehner and the conservative wing of his party. And once that became clear, it turned out that Boehner’s original offer wasn’t even in the middle. It was slightly center-left.

But you would’ve never known it from President Obama’s encomium to the agreement. Obama bragged about “making the largest annual spending cut in our history.” Harry Reid joined him, repeatedly calling the cuts “historic.” It fell to Boehner to give a clipped, businesslike statement on the deal. If you were just tuning in, you might’ve thought Boehner had been arguing for moderation, while both Obama and Reid sought to cut deeper. You would never have known that Democrats had spent months resisting these “historic” cuts, warning that they’d cost jobs and slow the recovery.

Boehner, of course, could afford to speak plainly. He’d not just won the negotiation but had proven himself in his first major test as speaker of the House. He managed to get more from the Democrats than anyone had expected, sell his members on voting for a deal that wasn’t what many of them wanted and avert a shutdown. There is good reason to think that Boehner will be a much more formidable opponent for Obama than Gingrich was for Clinton.

So why were Reid and Obama so eager to celebrate Boehner’s compromise with his conservative members? The Democrats believe it’s good to look like a winner, even if you’ve lost. But they’re sacrificing more than they let on. By celebrating spending cuts, they’ve opened the door to further austerity measures at a moment when the recovery remains fragile. Claiming political victory now opens the door to further policy defeats later.

Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville: Headline "So the deal was struck" sub-header "and it's garbage"

To understand how thoroughly the Dems caved to the GOP on this deal, it was struck with "historic" cuts about which that nincompoop Reid is actually bragging, as if misogyny, Social Darwinism, and allowing infrastructure to fester until people die on collapsing bridges are radically brave progressive ideas.

Obama's a fucking disaster. We needed FDR; instead we got FML.

Last but not least, Steve Kornacki over at Salon asking if Boehner "was bluffing the whole time?"

This was enough to convince several prominent conservatives to speak up on Friday, with the deadline just hours away, and to urge that a deal be cut. In a RedState post, Rep. Michele Bachmann argued that the stakes of this week's fight just weren't "big enough," suggesting that it would be better to wait for the debate over Ryan's budget to make a grand stand. Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican whose pet issue is abortion, indicated that he didn't believe the government should shut down over the Planned Parenthood rider. Mike Huckabee, who holds no office but remains influential on the right, made a similar argument.

Suddenly, Boehner didn't need to beg his colleagues to go along with a compromise. They were deciding for themselves that it was the best thing to do right now. Only then was Boehner able to extract a few billion more in concessions from the White House, take the poisonous riders off the table, and return to his fellow Republicans to declare -- 90 minutes before the shutdown was to begin -- that he'd struck a deal. There was no mutiny.

[Updated reaction]- TeacherKen over at Daily Kos: Headline "Ignore this Mr. President. You already ignore me." (Temper tantrum or a supporter that will truly abandon Obama in 2012? You decide)

This is a screed, I admit. I am sitting here just letting it hang out.

I claim no wisdom. I claim no original insight. None of my arguments are original.

That is something that should concern you. I am borrowing from what I hear and 4ead from others. That includes members of your own party who hold federal elective office. It includes party officials in states and local organizations. It includes key voices in the progressive wing of the Democratic party. You know, those nasty types who remember that it was unions and progressives who have helped create the social safety net that built the American middle class, the social safety net the that Republicans are now dismantling a piece at a time, as they simultaneously impose a vision of this nation that should horrify you.

So go ahead Mr. President. Ignore me. Ignore all the voices that have been trying to explain to you, trying to help you help this country.

You might as well.

It seems as if you have been ignoring us all along.

But just one question, Mr. President. One that perhaps you need to consider.

What happens if we decide we have had enough? What if we return the favor?

What if we decide we will ignore you?

Conservative Reactions

Andrew Stiles over at NRO's The Corner: Headline "Boehner Wins Big"

Boehner might need a few Democratic votes to pass the deal — that was always a likely outcome. But the narrative constantly pushed by Democrats and the media — that “extreme” Tea Party members would force him to shut down the government — never materialized. As a result, not only does it look like Boehner got the best deal in terms of spending cuts, but he also comes off as the most reasonable actor in the debate, the one who worked the hardest to reach a compromise.

Republicans should feel plenty confident heading into the upcoming debates over the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget, Paul Ryan’s daring proposal to cut the deficit by $6 trillion. This deal, thanks to Boehner’s robust leadership, was a good start — much less for the size of the spending cuts it yielded than for the political dynamic it revealed. They will need all the political capitol they can muster going forward, because it’s only the beginning.

Scared Monkeys: Headline "An 11th Hour Budget Deal Struck … There Will be no Government Shutdown>"

GOP House Speaker John Boehner has done what previous Democrat controlled House Speaker Pelosi, Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Democrat President Barack Obama could not do last year. Boehner managed to get a budget passed in spite of Democrats. Sadly, Democrats last year thought it not in their interest to pass a budget when they controlled both the House Senate and Presidency

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air: Headline "Who won the budget fight?"

We’ll see who won in September, but Republicans have achieved one major accomplishment. Not only did they force the first actual reductions in government spending in ages, but they have changed the political paradigm from whether to cut to how much and where to cut. That’s a pretty impressive victory for a party that only controls one chamber of Congress.

Update: One last point along these lines. Democrats have spent the last four months arguing that Republicans were too radical to govern and wanted to destroy government. Instead, Republicans fashioned a deal on their own terms and passed a budget deal — something Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t do when they had all the power in DC. This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

William Teach over at Right Wing News: Headline "Apparently, After Budget Battle Washington Is Still Broken" (This guy always manages to crack me up!! I like his style.)

That’s the conclusion of the Washington Post’s Dan Baltz

As the midnight Friday deadline loomed for a possible government shutdown, and politicians continued their rhetorical war of words, a larger message went out to the rest of the country: Washington is still broken.

Unfortunately, Dan never quite says “why” Washington is still “broken.” But, is it really broken, or is it just a matter of business as usual? I’d posit that it is just business as usual. Washington is still mostly about helping each elected officials special interests, which is why the election of so many TEA Party candidates was so important, because many of them are fighting to do the hard business, namely, reducing the absurd spending levels that we have seen from Democrats since 2007, and Republicans during the Bush years (and, yes, Liberals, those of us on the right did complain incessantly about the ridiculous and ever-increasing spending levels.)

Obama and the Democrats have themselves to blame for being in this predicament. Had they done their jobs last year, when Democrats had ample majorities in the House and Senate, the government would have been funded for the current fiscal year before Republicans assumed control of the House.

Whoa! How’d that slip in to the story?

[Updated reaction]- AJ Strata over at The Strata-Sphere: Headline "Boehner’s Amazing Negotiation Wins"

If you are only fixated on the budget reduction number ($38.5B) that the GOP won over the next 6 months as part of the deal to avert a shutdown, then you probably don’t know the federal government as well as you think. My hat is off to Speaker Boehner – that was one hell of a negotiating feat he pulled off! He wrung more out of Reid and Obama than I ever thought possible. And he exposed how weak a negotiator our young and inexperienced President truly is.

Donald Douglas over at American Power: Headline "'The Biggest Annual Spending Cut in History'? — President Obama on Budget Compromise." (Video at that link- Go watch)

"I'll try to do a fact-check later, but the biggest annual spending cut in real terms, as a percent of the deficit, as a percent of GDP, or what? I don't trust Obama. He lies. So I'll update with more on this later."

Ross Douthat over at NYT: Headline "The Shutdown That Wasn’t"

I would like to thank John Boehner, Harry Reid and President Obama for vindicating my decision not to write about the budget negotiations this week, on the assumption that the talk of a shutdown was mostly sound and fury, and then when the deadline hit a deal of some sort would be struck. I based that assumption primarily on my reading of the Speaker of the House, who made it abundantly clear — in word, deed, and especially body language — that he wanted the government shut down about as much as Indiana Jones wants to be locked in a room full of cobras. Given that the two sides weren’t that far apart in the closing days, in Boehner I trusted, and he didn’t let me down.

Also, he came away with a pretty impressive deal, for a party that only controls half the legislative branch...

Jill over at Pundit & Pundette: Headline "In budget deal, Obama and Reid lose"

They came to an agreement with Boehner that can't make them happy. The deal itself is better than I expected: $38.5 billion in cuts, no federally funded abortions for DC, and separate votes on Planned Parenthood funding and Obamacare repeal.* Andrew Stiles calls it a big win for Boehner, and makes a pretty convincing case that it's so

After spending all morning going through reactions (H/T Memeorandum), I have found not all conservatives are thrilled with this deal but the majority of them consider it a good start and setting for bigger battles to come.

On the flip side of the political spectrum I have found that not all liberals see it as a horrible deal although the majority seem to be pretty pissed off about it, then again, anger over there is perpetual so it is harder to tell if they are "angrier" than usual or not.

(This post has been updated and might be again as more reactions come out. Those reactions will be slid into the appropriate Liberal/Conservative reactions spots)

.