Federal Budget
April 26, 2013 — John Hinderaker
The Democrats proposed sequestration as part of a package to secure an increase in the debt ceiling, but they never expected it to go into effect. When it did, they felt double-crossed, apparently because they thought Republicans owed it to them to fold like a cheap suit, as usual. When the Republicans figured out that sticking with the sequester was a pretty good outcome–it represented a modest, but real, restraint
»
April 11, 2013 — John Hinderaker
One of these days I will get around to writing about President Obama’s proposed budget; Paul has already done so here. In the meantime, here is a humorous video produced by the Free Enterprise Alliance titled “You May Already Be a Loser.” I think that if people really understood what the federal government is doing to them, there would be a run on tar and feathers: Now for the unintentional
»
March 21, 2013 — John Hinderaker
The Senate continues to debate the Democrats’ budget, which features massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Tonight Jeff Sessions moved to recommit the budget in order to produce a budget that balances sometime in the next ten years. This is the language of Sessions’ motion: Mr. Sessions moves to commit S. Con. Res. 8 back to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report back no
»
March 20, 2013 — John Hinderaker
Today the Senate passed a mammoth spending bill that will fund the federal government until September, and that locks in the Republicans’ sequestration victory. The Senate also debated the Democrats’ budget–the first they have proposed after four long years. We have written extensively about the Democrats’ budget proposal. It would increase taxes by $1.5 trillion, accelerate federal spending and add $7 trillion to the federal deficit. It is, in other
»
March 15, 2013 — John Hinderaker
We have written several times about the extravagant budget offered by Patty Murray and Senate Democrats, and will return to that topic in the days to come. For the moment, one significant point that has received hardly any publicity relates to welfare. With welfare now the biggest item in the federal budget, one would think that any sane budget would look for ways to control burgeoning welfare costs. But no:
»
March 14, 2013 — John Hinderaker
After four years, Congressional Democrats have finally produced a budget. The process has proved revealing: the Democrats’ budget never balances, increases spending by 62% over ten years, and adds $7 trillion to the national debt despite raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. So Senate Democrats must agree with President Obama that the nation does not face a debt crisis. In an interview yesterday on ABC, Obama repeatedly expressed this conviction: [W]e
»
March 13, 2013 — John Hinderaker
After four long years, the Senate Democrats finally produced a budget this afternoon. They put it off as long as possible, but finally had to make the document public. What is striking about the budget is that it contains absolutely nothing that is new. It calls for more spending, higher taxes, more debt. It never comes close to balancing. It reforms nothing and changes nothing. It simply demands more money
»
March 11, 2013 — John Hinderaker
There are a couple of topics on which I still intend to do substantial posts, but the one just below on the Second Amendment and sugary drinks burned up much of my evening. Not only that, the second episode of Vikings awaits on my iPad. The first episode wasn’t great, in my opinion, maybe 55 on a 100-point scale, but the Vikings are my forebears so I’m not giving up
»
March 9, 2013 — John Hinderaker
Civil War officers used to say that you can’t lead from the rear. Thousands of them gave their lives, leading their men the only way they knew how. No one asks Barack Obama to give up more than an occasional game of golf, but he still can’t bring himself to lead. In one of his administration’s many low moments, a White House aide explained Obama’s style as “leading from behind,”
»
March 6, 2013 — Paul Mirengoff
So now, with his approval rating tumbling, President Obama suddenly wants to “engage with the Republicans,” or at least with selected Republican Senators, with the goal of striking a deal on budgetary/debt issues. How should Republicans react? Anticipating this scenario, I have expressed my view. Most recently, in early February, I wrote: [I]n the unlikely event that Obama shows a willingness to discuss entitlement reform in a serious way, Republicans
»
February 28, 2013 — Paul Mirengoff
The Hill reports that key House Republicans seem to be on board with their leadership’s plan to pass a six-month government-funding measure that would reflect the budget cuts from the sequester. The absence of such a measure would cause the government to shut down after March 27 when the current stopgap funding bill runs out. House Democrats are expected to oppose the resolution as a protest against the reduced level
»
February 26, 2013 — John Hinderaker
The idea that the sequester cuts, which actually amount to more like $44 billion than the $85 billion that is often bandied about, are somehow draconian, is ridiculous. Out of a $3.55 trillion federal budget–well, no, the federal government doesn’t have a budget, that is just an estimate of FY 2013 spending–$44 billion is a pittance. So it is time to bring back my Big Mac analogy. In March 2011,
»
February 24, 2013 — John Hinderaker
Hysteria is rampant inside the Beltway, as politicians and their media fanboys contemplate the unheard-of possibility that federal spending may not rise very much this year. The horror! I’m guessing that outside the confines of America’s last boom town, the idea of cutting federal spending sounds pretty good. Most voters are probably skeptical that it will really happen, given the federal government’s iron grip on our wallets, and they may
»
February 23, 2013 — Steven Hayward
So we know, courtesy of that Washington oracle Bob Woodward, that Obama and the White House have simply lied about the origin of the sequester that the Establishment is saying will result in the loosing of the Seven Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I guess we shouldn’t be amazed at the cynicism of the White House in predicting doom and gloom about a $42 billion (the real cut will only be
»
February 22, 2013 — Paul Mirengoff
Much is being made of a Pew poll in which 49 percent say they will blame congressional Republicans if the sequester occurs, compared to only 31 percent who say they will blame President Obama. 11 percent say they will blame both sides, while 8 percent don’t know which side they will blame. I suspect that if the sequester occurs the percentage that blames both sides will increase (in a sense,
»
February 21, 2013 — Paul Mirengoff
I have it on excellent authority that, with the sequester looming, House Republicans will pass a bill to provide the various federal departments and agencies with the power to prioritize where cuts go in each organization. The total amount of cuts within a department or agency would be the same, but the cuts could be made on a more rational basis. I’ve been advocating this sort of legislation for some
»
February 20, 2013 — Paul Mirengoff
The Washington Post reports that, as the sequester approaches, our politicians are focused not on dealing with it, but on attempting to blame ther opponents. No suprise there. In analyzing the politics of sequestration, it might be useful to separate two sets of consequences for which blame may attach. In the short term, politicians from one or both parties may be blamed for the inconveniences associated with cuts in government
»
