Tag: Deficit Spending

More Than Meets The Eye

It is now official…..we will take the Bush tax cuts in place and yes the wealthy will get wealthier thanx to our president and the Congress…..you have heard all the scuttle-butt…..about the jobs or about the need or about…well whatever the kings of power want you to hear…..but as usual there is more to the story than some would like you to know…..

For instance, the GOP has been yelling about the run away spending of the Obama administration….how he is some sort of drunken sailor when it comes to the government…..and the soon to be speaker of the House called the taxation of the rich as some sort of pile of “chicken crap” (pretty good summation from a real statesman) (sarcasm, BTW)…..

But with all the speeches and all the promises and all the crap….what will it cost to continue  the Bush tax cuts……thanx to CNNMoney for the breakdown…..

Unemployment benefits: $57 billion. The package would also leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits — which go as high as 99 weeks in states hit hardest by job loss. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that a year-long extension would cost $57 billion.

Social Security tax break: $120 billion. The package would also offer workers a 2% payroll tax holiday next year, so that instead of paying 6.2% on their first $106,800 of wages, they will only have to pay 4.2%. The White House estimates the measure would cost $120 billion.

Individual tax credits: $40 billion. The compromise framework would also extend for two years the increased value of a number of tax credits that benefit low- and middle-income tax filers, such as the earned income tax credit, the child credit and a revamped tax credit for college costs. The measure would cost $40 billion, the administration said.

Business tax breaks: Cost unclear. It is still not clear how many business tax breaks are in the package. Some, like an extension of the research and development credit, has drawn bipartisan support and is typically renewed annually. But also included is a new temporary option for businesses to write off 100% of their expenses in 2011. A cost estimate was not immediately available.

Estate tax: $88 billion. The compromise framework also includes a lower estate tax, which barring any changes would return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption level and a top rate of 55%. Instead, under the proposal, the exemption level would be raised to $5 million and the top rate lowered to 35%. The administration said it didn’t have a cost estimate yet, but a review of an estate tax proposal with similar parameters by the Tax Policy Center suggests the cost could be roughly $88 billion over 2 years.

Yep…sports fans they will be expensive!  But I thought we were on this kick of deficit reduction….is that not what the last election showed all the analysts?

The one part that I am suspicious of is the part about the social security payroll taxes decreased by 2%…yes it will give people a bit more money in their pockets…..but it will decrease the amount of money in the fund…..which will make it weaker and will help it go bust sooner….the GOP will most likely get their way on some of their moronic SS proposals…..

This is a win-win for the GOP…..not only do their base, the rich, get lots of cash to play with…but they also will weaken an already weakened SS fund….which will mean that something may have to be done sooner than later….and that is their plan and their desire…..I can hear the yells for cuts in entitlements as I type…..

And one last thing…thgis is now Obama’s tax cuts, no longer will it be laid at the feet of Bush……anything that goes wrong will be the sole possession of Obama and the Dems….makes for a great election season…..

To my friends on the Right…..do you recall all the whining, screaming and crying about a government take over?  This bill had NO committee, had NO CBO score and NO real debate and yet it has become law….now you may start screaming about the government takeover that you were so worried about in the recent past……(insert sound of a cricket here)……

We Are In Debt Now!–Part Deux

The thing to remember is that politicians seldom do as they say…..I have been harping on this point for years and few listen…..it is always about the election never the action with these political types……the last election was all about the size of government and the federal spending frenzy that the Dems are accused of having started…..all that is a steaming pile of chicken crap (to use a term uttered by the GOP statesman, John  Boehner)….

Come on people…politicians have always been liars and thieves…look at the hero of the small government Right, Thomas Jefferson….he had written much about the limited size of government and the ails it would beget if it got too big….but yet once he was elected president…he over saw an increase in the size of the government with the Louisiana Purchase which was to be governed by an extensive system of military governors and their administrations……yes it did increase the size of the country, but it also increased the size of government and government spending…..so if the lies have been uttered since the early 1800’s what makes you think that they will be truthful 200 years later?

There are those amongst us that do not feel that the deficit is the huge problem that the Right wants it to be……read what James Galbraith has to say about the deficit….

The starting point of the deficit contrarians’ argument is that the deficit was caused not by over-spending and under-taxation, as the current debate would have it, but by the collapse in tax revenues that resulted from the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent economic slump.

In prepared testimony before the presidential debt commission this summer, James Galbraith, a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, argued that this means the only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce unemployment, not to cut spending or raise taxes. Galbraith (pictured above) argued that the only way to reduce unemployment without adding to the deficit through more government spending is to get banks lending again, by fixing the root problems in the financial sector that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Galbraith — a former director of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee, and the son of the renowned liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith — went on to address the idea that cutting Social Security benefits can help close the deficit. That’s been a mainstay of the debate, and it’s a notion that the commission’s co-chairs appear to subscribe to, judging from their recent proposal, which recommends significant cuts to the program. But Social Security, Galbraith noted, isn’t  a spending program at all. It simply transfers wealth from today’s taxpayers to low-income elderly people in the future. “One can favor or oppose [cutting benefits] on its own merits as social policy,” Galbraith said. “But one cannot argue that it would save real resources that are otherwise being ‘consumed’ by the government sector.”

Next, Galbraith took on the argument that deficits will produce higher long-term interest rates, making it prohibitively expensive for the government to borrow in the future.  That’s not true, he countered, because the government doesn’t spend in the same way that private individuals or companies do. “So long as U.S. banks are required to accept U.S. government checks — which is to say so long as the Republic exists — then the government can and does spend without borrowing, if it chooses to do so,” he declared.

All in all, Galbraith said, the current mania for deficit reduction is disastrously misplaced. “The right economic objectives are to meet real problems, not those conjured from thin air by economists,” he concluded. “Bringing about a rapid end to unemployment, caring properly for an aging population, cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico, coping with our energy insecurity and with climate change are all far more important objectives than reducing a projection of future budget deficits.”

This is all smoke and mirrors….and remember nothing being said about future deficits is written in stone….they are ALL projections….they are NOT gospel…and to try and sell them as such is just another trick of the political parasites…..

About the only thing that these people are serious about is to make the Middle Class pay for the crimes and misjudgments of the upper class….and you still do NOT believe there is a class war?  (tune in tomorrow for the post on that very subject)

We Are In Debt Now!–Part One

So you think that this is a problem for the next generation, do you?

This could very well be a post on the problems that average Americans are facing because of their addiction to deficit spending known as CREDIT….but ….Not now……this is about something that every politician has on his lips these days…..both Dem as well as repub….it is the National Debt…..the bane of the country…..

The Federal deficit is NOT necessarily the same thing as the National debt……I know…I know…according to the windbags on the tube and radio…it is the same thing……if you believe that…YOU ARE WRONG!

That is another post…..let us talk about the debt……and we all know what the Repubs think about the debt and who put us in the shape we are in….it is those despicable Dems that are at fault…..right?

This phenom is NOT something new…as a matter of fact it began with Alexander Hamilton from the very beginning of the country and it has NOT slowed down since…just an occasional hiccup now and then….

To answer that question let us look at a little history of the US debt……..this from the cedarcomm.com website…….

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36.  Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%.  In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%.  In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year.  Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably.  Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year.  The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio.  Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy.  They both worked together to minimize it.  However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency.  The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents.  The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year.  The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year.  That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52.  Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs.  His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year.  The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined.  From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year.  While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase.  The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war.  Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich.  The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies.  Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

So now you see where the yelling and screaming about the deficit came from and where it has gone and who is more responsible for the problems than others……but they have seen the light….they will work hard to bring done the deficit and control spending….and you believe these notorious liars?  Why would you…this has all been said before and look what they have accomplished after promising different….Why would you believe them again and again and again…..and re-elect them again and again…..and have their promises broken again and again?

Where have we gone wrong?

You first mistake is putting your trust in a group of people that could care less about your future or your family….regardless of the smoke they blow up your ass…..second…you are just plain lazy, if not stupid, and cannot be bothered with issues….and thirdly…nothing will get better or different as long as you walk around with your head shoved up your ass……

To Be Continued………

Wassup With The Deficit?

The Deficit?   Yes we need to keep talking on this issue….it is too important to ignore and revert back to watching Dancing With The Stars……

The Deficit?  You know that monetary problem that every politician has an opinion about?  It is too high….or it is going to effect your children (and if you think your children are of any concern to politicians, then you are dumber than I originally thought)……or that it will subdue any and all economic prosperity…..on and on…and the song stays the same…..need to do something but NOBODY has a workable plan…..

Let us take a bit of time and look at the deficit through glasses that let us see into reality…..First of all Political wire has a very good piece on the deficit……

President Obama and many lawmakers say they will work to cut the federal deficit, but a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey underscores the challenges they may face in taking specific steps that could help reduce the red ink.

Key findings: 57% said they were uncomfortable with gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 over the next 60 years, 70% were uncomfortable with making cuts to Medicare, Social Security and defense in order to reduce the deficit, 60% said they were uncomfortable with increasing tax revenue through measures such as raising the gasoline tax, limiting tax deductions on many home mortgages and altering corporate taxation.

Said pollster Peter Hart: “Everybody wants to cut the deficit and cut the spending. But at the end of the day, everybody wants a choice that doesn’t affect their well-being.”

But as I have said …not everyone sees the deficit in the same light…..Yahoo news blog, The Lookout has a pretty good look at the deficit….

Ever since concerns over the deficit took center-stage in Washington earlier this year, several prominent economists — all progressives — have been pushing back, claiming not simply that proposed spending cuts are too deep, or that the rich should be asked to sacrifice more. Rather, they’ve challenged the entire premise of the debate: that a budget shortfall caused by over-spending and under-taxation stands to put an undue burden on future generations, and that cuts to government programs, including Social Security, can help fix the problem. That view, they say, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s driving the deficit and how government spending works. In fact, they argue, as one recently put it, that “the current deficit is a positive.

“The starting point of the deficit contrarians’ argument is that the deficit was caused not by over-spending and under-taxation, as the current debate would have it, but by the collapse in tax revenues that resulted from the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent economic slump.

I guess I would be a deficit contrarian….I do not see where tweaking SS or earmarks or any of the proposals flying around Washington will do anything to make it better……things will get better when business returns to making things and selling things…..buying up other companies is not going to help the deficit….the stockholders maybe…but that has little to do with the deficit…..now does it?

Alternative Deficit Reduction Plan

Just a week or so ago there was a draft of a plan by the Deficit Reduction Commission…. (or something like that)…..and with the release came the oh craps from Repubs as well as Dem…they hate this issue or that cut…..most notably it was the cuts and tweaks of the Social Security system that got the most attention…personally, I found parts of the draft very doable and well thought out….but that aside there has been a wealth of bitching and finally we have an alternative to the draft……

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill.  Schakowsky’s plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $426.95 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class.

The Schakowsky plan is based on five key elements:

1) Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term

· Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure. 

· Adopt the President’s proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing

2) Smart, targeted spending cuts

· Non-Defense Discretionary – $7.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don’t need assistance.

· Defense Discretionary – $110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don’t need, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.

3) Mandatory spending cuts

  • Health Care – at least $17.2 billion in savings by implementing measures to bring down the cost of health care to the federal government and lower health care inflation overall.
  • Other – $7.7 billion in savings by cutting agriculture subsidies in half, and redistributing federal support to offer greater benefits to small family farms reduce subsidies to large corporate agribusiness.

4) Reductions in tax expenditures

  • Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

5) Increases in revenues

  • Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap and trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.
  • Enact President Obama’s budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.
  • Non-tax revenue – raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently under-paying.

The Schakowsky alternative does not contain any cuts to Social Security.

  • It ensures long-term solvency to Social Security by eliminating the wage cap on the employer side and raising it to 90% on the employee side, applying FICA to all wage income below the cap, and establishing a modest legacy tax on wealthier Americans.
  • Surplus funding that can be used to improve the extremely-modest benefits that are now provided.

All the above from the Representative’s website….

There you have it…an alternative and the sanctity of Social Security is preserved…..Is there any thoughts on this proposal….will it help make the liberals happy….if it does then the conservs will be pissed…..but again it is a start and could be a starting place for compromise…..IMO, not as good as the draft released last week….a little to non-specific……

We Have A Problem!

All the lip flapping coming out of Washington is about the budget, the debt and the deficit…..every new guy has his/her opinion on the proper way to handle each issue…..some are NOT so good or even rational……for one…..

Paul Ryan the new head of the House budget committee when interviewed on MSNBC said…when asked what he and the GOP would be doing come next January…he replied…..”well, we cannot just sit around and do nothing for two years can we?”……I was amused!  Why?  That is exactly what they have done for the last two years and they won the House….sounds like a good plan to me….

And then there is the new Rep. from Maryland…as reported by Political Wire….

Rep.-elect Andy Harris (R-MD), a physician who ran to repeal the new health care reform law, “surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan takes a month to kick in,” Politico reports.

Harris “reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 — 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.”

Said Harris: “This is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed.”

God!  I love these mental midgets!

All that humor aside…..let us return to the budget……okay dipsticks……if you do not balance the budget the economy will remain sluggish and unresponsive….BUT!  If you do succeed a balance the budget in the next two years….the economy will collapse…….MAY I SAY THAT AGAIN….the economy will collapse!  You will have a lot of the people in Congress say that government has to be run like a business….that it must live within its means just like a business…..well people this is just bullsh*t!  Why?  It is not the same thing and it can be disastrous for the country to think that way…basically it is just another cutsey slogan to dumb-found the voter…..and of course we have the states that have to work on a balanced budget every year…..good idea…the problem is…they do not and if they say they do it is because of creative accounting not anything that the politicians have done……Washington…we have a problem!

Why?  Very simple….at this point in the economic crisis the government is about the only thing that is producing any economic activity…oh yea…and the biggest CON job…tax cuts will generate economic activity……yep…and it has generated so much since the tax cuts went into effect 8 years ago…..if does generate the jobs…then business was lying and it was a plan to embarrass and beat Obama….they have NOTHING for the country or the people….

It Is Always Supply Side Economics

The College of Political Knowledge

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Economics

Federal Budget Deficit Series

Paper #5

Tax cuts pay for themselves……tax cuts are budget neutral…..tax revenues will go up with tax cuts……Repubs have been selling this snake oil for decades.  First of all….tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves!

Since the days of Reagan and his “voodoo” economics, that is what Bush called his proposals, the GOP has been living and dying by the theories of supply side economics.  Today is NO different.  Just look at the GOP’s new “Road Map for America’s Future” and if you read it and understand it you will find it full of supply side issues.

But first what is supply side economics?  Glad you asked and I will try to be a simple as possible for this theory.  For decades the Repubs have been living and dying by the supply side theory….the problem is that it does NOT work the way they promise it will and yet the people buy it hook, line and sinker every time it is offered as an alternative.

I know….what the Hell is supply side economics?

It is fairly simple……government gives aid to business through reduced regs, tax write offs, subsidies and more government contracts…now to pay for these benefits the government will make higher taxes on the working poor, lower social security benefits, less job training, lower welfare benefits and less aid to education….the theory being that this will somehow “trickle down” to Main Street as better working conditions, higher pay and better benefits…….it has been supposedly trickling down since Reagan and so far it has NOT made it to Main Street that is still waiting with open arms.

RE-READ the above paragraph!

Now look at the Repubs new “Road Map” it is choke full of supply side rhetoric….and there you have it….the Repubs are still living and dying by the BS that is supply side economics…..

Lastly, Repubs keep saying jobs, jobs, jobs and that the extension of tax cuts will help small business create more and more jobs…..(thinking)……..we have tax cuts now and small business is NOT creating jobs……why would an extension help them do so?

It’s Those Damn Give-a-ways!

Daily Agitator

That would be what we call “entitlements” some see them as the government giving away the treasury to those who do nothing more than sponge off the government.  Entitlements like unemployment, welfare, Medicare, Social Security, et al……you know those things that are the bitch that is killing the economy and the country….well that is what some would have you believe.

The two biggest “entitlements” are Social Security and Medicare….but I have a problem with the conservative argument against entitlement programs….first, I will agree that some of the programs are give aways….I could argue that these programs are the price the state has to pay for the privilege of ruling over the people…..but that would be yet another post that few will read and even fewer would understand……

Sorry…I digress…..

I am weary of the flap trap of conservs that keep calling SS and Medicare as entitlements….that term denotes something that is given to the people…..and given denotes something for nothing…..which is total bullsh*t!

Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlements…they are however contributions into a pool for later action….and yes it will go broke in a couple years….not because people are getting stuff free but rather because the pricks in Washington have been robbing the pool blind to fund all sorts of garbage like wars and other such notable programs…in other words…it is NOT the people that are killing the system but rather the assh*les that run our lovely country…the same a/holes that YOU vote for every 2 or 4 or 6 years.

Since these programs were signed into law…the Repubs have been trying to find a way to eliminate them…they could not vote them out of existence so the siphoned funds away from them until they were insolvent, which will make it easier to find ways to eliminate them.

Wait a godd*mn minute!  The pundits that say we need to make hard choices, that it will hurt and that Americans will have to give up something…..great! , As long as the a/holes making 6 figures do their part in this f*ck job then I say good…but we know that they will NOT be touched by any of these so-called austerity programs…it will fall on the shoulders of people that already live with austerity programs…..I am so tired of the so-called “experts” telling hard working Americans that they are gonna be f*cked….and they do not with a smile…..

So SS and Medicare are NOT some weird little entitlement program….they are obligations the country/government have to the people they play like a cheap flute.  Basically, these cowards are looking for ways to NOT honor the obligations they have to the people.

Keep voting for these guys and you will be a party to the scam these politicians are playing on the country….and by all means…keep listening to the wealthy telling you that YOU have to make the sacrifice…they smile all the way to the bank.  Think about the guys and gals in Washington that live in exclusive neighborhoods, that should comfort you while you dine on rice and cat food…..

From Rep. Paul Ryan: Line Item Veto

Federal Budget Deficit Series

Paper #4

While the GOP seems to have NO concrete ideas on the budget deficit other than cutting spending….regardless what it may do to the economy….but I think they want it that way….why?….because as long as the economy stays in the crapper the better their prospects are for picking more Repubs in the Congress…it is all a political game played with the lives of the American people…..Rep. Ryan has some ideas…while they are pretty vague some are pretty good and others are just out right wrong…

One of the better ideas offered is the line item veto…that every Repub president has been drooling over for more than a decade…but is it a good idea?

On the surface I believe it is a good one…..however (I am tired of using the “but”) this could turn into a partisan piece of crap…….a president could remove things that he is personally, notice I said personally, objects to in the budget.  It could be used to pay off the donors who have given massive amounts to his campaign.  This could effectively kill the notion of political compromise which our teachers tell us is the basis of the Federal system.

All in all, I must disagree with Rep. Ryan….while the idea is a good one….the reality of it will suck and suck bad, especially in the hands of those elitists that care nothing of the rest of the people.  This could be used to punish political opponents, regardless of who it hurts in the long run…….

I say leave the system as it is….and stop all this jerking around over something that is NOT that important in the large scheme of running a good government.

Cut Spending Now!

We all have heard the conservative tag line….”Cut spending NOW!”……..it has been a popular conserv tag line for decades……and today it is more important than ever to the GOP…..it will win them elections and more clout in Washington…..

The whiz kid of the GOP, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, is leading the charge on this issue….I have said many times that I believe that he is sharp and knowledgeable.  And like the dutiful son he echoes the tag lines, slogans and stands of the elders of the Party………

The starting point for tackling this challenge is the federal budget. For families, organizations, and businesses alike, a budget sets priorities and forces tough decisions.Our proposal would create a legally binding federal budget, with enforceable limits on spending and deficits, force Congress to address our entitlement crisis and budget for our long-term liabilities, and allows for budgetary oversight by moving from the frenetic annual calendar to a biennial budget and appropriation process.

Budget process reforms can help limit the excesses of spendthrift lawmakers — but real restraint requires a commitment to get spending and deficits under control.

Among the proposals:- Cancel unused bailout funds. The financial rescue package has morphed into a Washington slush fund for special interests. To prevent its continued abuses, we should terminate the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

– Cancel unspent “stimulus” funds. We need more jobs, not more debt.

– Reduce government employment and freeze government pay. We need to grow the economy, not government.

– Cut and cap discretionary spending. After an 84 percent increase in discretionary spending, Washington has added trillions of dollars to our debt, yet failed to produce the jobs promised. We should return spending to pre-Obama levels and establish discretionary spending caps.

– Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We need to phase out the federal control of these mortgage giants, limit taxpayer exposure and combat crony capitalism.

I have been commenting on the proposals that they are offering as a way to lessen the impact of the budget deficit….and I agree with the original statement….to cut taxes now!  But I would do it in other ways……like ending two wars and most readers know how I feel about the taxes thing…in case you are unaware……EVERYBODY pays the taxes on ALL their income and all their FICA payments on ALL their income……those three would go a long way to tackling the deficit….this mamby-pamby approach helps NO one but those that are NOT paying the fair share.
But I guess they would not be Repubs if it were not that way.