http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/us/politics/senate-along-party-lines-passes-cost-cutting-budget-blueprint.html
what eye thynk: The GOP wants to balance the budget on the backs of the 99 percent. Nothing new here.
(Any underlines are mine.)"The Senate gave final approval Tuesday to the first joint congressional budget plan in six years, ratifying a 10-year blueprint that would cut spending by $5.3 trillion, overhaul programs for the poor, repeal President Obama's health care law and ostensibly produce a balanced budget in less than a decade.
Along party lines, the Senate passed the nonbinding blueprint 51-48, with only two Republicans voting no, Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas. Both are candidates for the Republican presidential nomination who say the budget plan does not go far enough to shrink the government and cut spending.
Despite the broad aspirations of this budget plan, it appeared moribund even before its final passage. For the plan to take effect, Republican committee chairmen would have to draft legislation that would impose the prescribed cuts. But they have made little effort to do so, and committee leaders in both parties are already calling for new negotiations on a more bipartisan approach."
Which raises the question, why not try a bipartisan approach in the first place instead of wasting time on this non-starter plan? But then, wasting time is a Republican strong point as we have seen over the past six years, especially if it gives them an opportunity to toss a couple of ounces of red meat to the one percenters."...Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (said) 'We'll see what comes of it.' His committee is now supposed to draft legislation to repeal the health care law, turn Medicaid into block grants to the states and begin converting Medicare into a program that offers the elderly assistance to buy private health insurance...
...(Lawmakers expect many of the appropriation bills) to fail...forcing budget talks to resume again, this time with Mr. Obama at the table.
'With the numbers we're having to appropriate to, I'm not sure we can pass these bills.' said Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the House Appropriations Committee chairman."
So what congressional Republicans are saying is, "We've spent a lot of time and money putting together a budget proposal that we know we can't actually get passed and we acknowledge that we're going to have to start over; but look how hard we're working!""The budget calls for $4.2 trillion in cuts to benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps over 10 years. Domestic programs at Congress' annual discretion would be cut by $496 billion below the already tight limits imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011...
...Even with the plan's cuts, the deficit disappears only because of faster economic growth that Republicans assume would be produced by the austerity."
Here we go again with that same ol' GOP pipe dream: Giving people less money to spend will make them spend more and grow the economy! Really, reducing a family's food stamp allowance is not going to make them spend more at the grocery store; and raising the cost of Medicare for seniors already living on fixed incomes is not going to result in a grey-haired rush at the mall.
My "recent memory" must be a lot better than Mitch's because I not only remember Bill Clinton's balanced budget, I remember the budget excess he left for W to squander."Democrats called attention to the cost reductions required to get to a balanced budget without raising taxes. They include cutting Pell Grant scholarships, (because who needs an education?); cutting off health insurance to as many as 27 million people covered by either the president's health care law or Medicaid, (because we still hate "Obamacare" and only poor people are on Medicaid and poor people don't count); and slicing $600 billion from 'income security' programs like school lunches, food stamps, tax credits for the working poor and nutritional assistance to poor mothers, (because people who use those programs are poor and obviously lazy).
Democrats dared the new Republican majority to pass the bills that would put those policies into effect.
'Bring it to the floor, let's vote on it,' said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber. 'Let's see if the 23, 24 Republican senators up for re-election this time really want to run on this platform.'
Unlike Mr. Durbin, I fear those Senators up for re-election just might be looking to follow the examples of Mr. Cruz and Mr. Paul who believe this platform is not austere enough."Mr. Obama has already promised to veto spending bills that stick to the spending caps in the 2011 budget legislation. And in the coming weeks, leaders of the appropriations committees plan to push spending bills that pay for health care, education, criminal justice and housing programs to show that they cannot muster the votes to even get those bills to the president's desk."
Thus wasting even more time; though some good may come of this:"By forcing a spending stalemate well before the end of the fiscal year in October, appropriators hope to compel Republican leaders and the White House to enter negotiations that could head off another funding crisis...
...'I'm always open to bipartisan approaches and fresh ideas, but these ideas are way out of the mainstream,' said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a frequent collaborator with Republicans on health care and tax proposals. 'I just find it hard to see how you would move forward with them."
What I see is a Republican Party that likes campaign slogans like "We Care About Income Inequality" and "We Heart the Poor;" but loves programs that do nothing for either.
If the GOP were bound by truth in advertising laws, all their 2016 bumper stickers would say "If You're Not Rich, We're Not Interested."
Ya wanna see a damn cost cutting budget? Let them, all of them, take a 25% pay cut. By doing so their annual income (bribes not included) nay dip as low as a quarter of a million.
ReplyDeleteLet them, all of them, surrender health care. By doing this they can join the ranks of their constituents when it comes to meeting this expense.
Let them .... hmnnn..... running out of "let them's". Oh I got it. Let them got screw themselves instead of us.