A detailed look at how the budget deal effects the NASA budget.
As Messier notes, the budget is generally flat, with little significant change either up or down.
A House investigation has found that the Obama administration acted to make the sequestration cuts as “painful as possible” for rural schools.
I have made no excuses for Chris Christie and the abuse his underlings heaped out in New Jersey against innocent citizens. It was wrong, and it makes me much less likely to support Christie in future campaigns. At the same time, it is also important to note that this one event pales in comparison to the number of similar abuse-of-power stories I’ve noted coming from the Obama administration. When it comes to improperly using the power of government to hurt innocent citizens, Obama and his underlings make Christie look like an amateur.
This sums it up: The House is about to vote on a trillion dollar spending bill that no one has really read.
It might include some specific cuts, but in general this budget plan is a surrender to more spending.
The only real solution to this madness, however, really rests with the voters. The spenders in both parties have to be fired, and the only way to do that is to fire them. Sadly, I see no sign of that happening in the hardcore Democratic states such as New York, California, and Illinois, to name just a few. There, the voters are so partisan that they’d rather die than vote for a Republican. And die they will.
Among Republican voters at least there is pressure from the right to spend less. To make it effective, however, the voters still have to do some firing, as far too many Republicans elected officials are willing to go along to get along.
Nearly two thirds of the fraud and waste lost by the federal government in 2013 was spent by HHS, the agency running Obamacare.
The total amount lost by either fraud, waste, or error equaled $106 billion, slightly down from 2012’s $108 billion figure. Of that, about $65 billion occurred in Health and Human Services.
But hey, what’s a few billion dollars here and there. It’s not like the federal government has a debt problem, does it?
I am shocked, shocked! The 30 counties with the highest medium income just happen to be where most people work for the federal government.
The only county among the Top 5 for median household income not located near Washington, D.C., was No. 3 Los Alamos County, N.M.—which is the smallest county in that state, and which is also home to the U.S. Energy Department’s Los Alamos National Laboratory. The median household income in Los Alamos County in 2012, according to the Census Bureau, was $112,115.
The media’s ten worst predictions for 2013.
Most of these predictions involved major issues — Obamacare, climate change, the federal budget. In every case, the media either was either starkly wrong, badly misinformed about stuff they should be experts at, or participated in political lies to prop up their partners on the left. Thus, this list of news sources is a good guide for the news sources no one should rely on for information.
Not surprisingly, the list includes bad reporting from the news divisions of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Interestingly, the one media cable news outlet not mentioned at all in this list is Fox. It appears that this news outlet avoided making any of these foolish predictions, and thus avoided looking like a fool.
Update: Just to confirm the above conclusions: CNN’s top five credibility catastrophes in 2013.
Thirteen insane projects funded by our federal government.
I especially like #5: “NASA spends $3 million looking for signs of intelligent life…in Congress.”
These idiotic programs, which certainly only scratch the surface of the wasteful and corrupt spending in Washington, prove once again that the most recent budget deal is a fraud, that there is no reason to support any increase in federal spending, that we probably could cut the budget in half and not notice anything.
Sadly, that budget deal appears about to pass the Senate.
We shall see: Paul Ryan says House Republicans are going to demand something in exchange for raising the debt ceiling again in February.
Though I’m glad he’s saying this, forgive me if I am skeptical. The Republican leadership in the House has proven itself weak and willing to back down all too often. For example, they have allowed the lie that they alone caused the government shutdown to become accepted as truth, merely by acting as if it were true. The result: they were unwilling to demand any concessions in the just completed budget negotiations, even though they had a strong hand and could have easily obtained concessions, especially on Obamacare.
Then there’s this: Ten quotes that explain why conservatives do not trust the Republican Party.
His conclusion is most pertinent:
Incidentally, the solution to all of this is not to leave the Republican Party. To the contrary, it’s to treat the Republican Party like a puppy that’s having difficulty with house training. When Republicans do the right thing, praise them, support them and do what you can to help them out. When they do the wrong thing, rub their noses in it. Attack Republicans who betray their principles relentlessly, primary them at every opportunity and take over the Republican Party so we can shove the politicians who won’t listen to us to the side. While we will never be able to build an entire party full of men like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, we can make it miserable enough for bad actors that the go-along-to-get-along Republicans will conclude it’s better to work with us than face primaries and incessant attacks from their own side in the new media. Most people don’t realize it, but we have already started moving the Republican Party to the Right and the time will come when Republicans are just as afraid of their base as Democrats are of Planned Parenthood and the unions. It’s not going to happen overnight, but if we keep going after Republicans who sell us out, even the ones that are as hostile as John McCain, Peter King and Lindsey Graham will eventually have to get on board if they want to keep their jobs.
Maybe not so stupid: It appears that Senate Republicans will filibuster the Ryan budget deal.
If the Republicans in the Senate can force some changes, to both the reduction in the sequester cuts over the next two years as well as the procedural change that ends the minority’s ability to block tax increases, then they will have accomplished something.
What I like about this is that they appear to be willing to fight, something Republicans all too often fail to do.
Yup, this sums it up nicely.
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan has now accomplished the astonishing task of pushing House Republicans substantially to the left of the Senate GOP. His budget deal, announced Tuesday night, was achieved by shutting conservative Senate Republicans out of negotiations, by resorting to the old trick of spending now while claiming savings later, by ignoring a symbolically important budgetary red line, and by treating as Democratic “concessions” things to which even Democratic budgeteers already had agreed.
The chess equivalent of Ryan’s deal would be trading a castle for a mere pawn. No wonder conservatives are feeling rooked.
The absurdity of this deal is highlighted especially by the ongoing disaster of Obamacare. The Republicans have a very strong negotiating hand right now. They could have actually demanded a repeal of Obamacare in budget talks and thus pushed the Democrats into a corner for which there really is no escape. What would the Democrats do, shut the government down again so that more people could lose their health insurance?
Instead, Ryan behaved as if the Democrats have a Royal Flush and he only had a pair of twos. The stupid party strikes again!
The stupid party: The Ryan budget deal includes a provision that limits the ability of the Senate minority to block tax increases.
The bill includes language from the Senate Democrats’ budget that voids senators’ ability to raise a budget “point of order” against replacing the sequester cuts with tax increases. The process is quite complicated, but in practice it grants Harry Reid the authority to send tax increases to the House with a bare majority, rather than the 60-vote threshold that would be required under a point of order.
In other words, another example of a Republican getting hosed in negotiations.
Though I have read several conservative reports about this deal that outline some of its positive benefits, on the whole it appears to be another defeat for the right.
This detailed look at the budget deal suggests it isn’t as much of a surrender as first implied.
I have to admit this analysis leaves me more hopeful, especially with this point:
That the Democrats would accept a deal like this is a pretty striking indication of how the Republican House has changed the conversation on the spending front since 2010. Think of it this way: In their first budget after re-taking the majority—the FY 2012 Ryan budget, passed in 2011—the House Republicans wanted discretionary spending to be $1.039 trillion in 2014 and $1.047 trillion in 2015. These budgets were of course described by the Democrats and the political press (but I repeat myself) as some reversion to humanity’s barbaric past. Yet this proposed deal with the Democrats would put discretionary spending at $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 trillion in 2015—in both cases below that first House Republican budget.
Check out the graph at the link. It does illustrate bluntly that the Republicans are beginning to force the budget curve downward, if slowly. It also suggests that should they win big majorities in both Houses of Congress next November they will be posed to finally push for some real reductions in the size of the federal government, as they will have the votes in Congress and will be doing it with the strong endorsement of the voters.
The budget deal: “It’s hard to see how conservatives support it,” he said. “The question is, how angry will they get?”
As is usual, the Republicans negotiated away something they didn’t have to for a promise of something that they will never get. The stupid party loses again.
Why Republicans should reject the surrender budget deal rumors say Paul Ryan is negotiating with Democrats.
Expect more articles like this. There are a lot of conservatives in the Republican House caucus who are no longer willing to lick the feet of Democrats, even if the Republican leadership is. And any deal that gives up sequestration is going to face their wrath.
Also, these kinds of articles serve to pressure Ryan so that he does not agree to a surrender.
Another news report suggests that Republicans are preparing to surrender in budget talks.
Senior aides familiar with the talks say the emerging agreement aims to partially repeal the sequester and raise agency spending to roughly $1.015 trillion in fiscal 2014 and 2015. That would bring agency budgets up to the target already in place for fiscal 2016. To cover the cost, Ryan and Murray are haggling over roughly $65 billion in alternative policies, including cuts to federal worker pensions and higher security fees for the nation’s airline passengers.
Republican leaders are also seeking additional savings to knock a small dent in deficits projected to exceed $6 trillion over the next decade. But the deal would do nothing to trim the debt, which is now larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any point in U.S. history except during World War II. [emphasis mine]
To me, the biggest disappointment of this surrender is that Paul Ryan is negotiating it, proof that he too is no fiscal conservative and worse is far more stupid than I had thought.
The stupid party strikes again! Rumors suggest that Republicans are moving to accept a budget deal that would end sequestration.
At issue are efforts to craft a compromise that would ease across-the-board spending cuts due to take effect in January, known as the sequester, and replace them with a mix of increased fees and cuts in mandatory spending programs.
As de Rugy notes:
The sequester, no matter how imperfect a policy, is arguably the only victory for fiscal conservatives in a very long time. Their victory is also president Obama’s biggest defeat (outside of the self-inflicted disastrous Obamacare rollout). It is also another opportunity to remind the American people that the alarmist predictions that we were all subjected to about the devastating impact sequestration would have on our economy didn’t materialize.
She adds:
So let’s sum this up: a massive and unnecessary surrender on the sequester, some tax hikes, and more unemployment benefits. It seems to me that the Republicans are learning their moves from the French army.
Not only do most Democrats have to be replaced, so do a significant number of Republicans. Too many of these politicians have no interest in serving the citizenry being crushed by this out-of-control federal government. Instead they serve that government instead.
Here’s another report on the planetary sciences/NASA dispute this week over funding and grant scheduling.
From this report it appears that the complaints by the planetary science community might have been a bit overstated. It doesn’t appear that NASA is cutting the planetary sciences grant program in any significant way.
I suspect that the reason the planetary scientists are so touchy is because they do not trust the Obama administration, based on its previous efforts to eliminate the planetary program entirely. (It is also possible that they are right.)
The planetary science community is in an uproar over the Obama administration’s proposed restructuring and possible budget cuts to NASA’s planetary research program.
Though the Obama administration has been consistently hostile to the planetary program, attempting to cut it severely several years in a row, and though I generally have found these particular cuts to be short-sighted, in this case the article is not very clear about the cuts NASA is proposing. It appears they are going to eliminate for one year the general research fund. I suspect there is waste in this budget, but I also suspect that this is a meat cleaver approach that has not been thought out well, as suggested in the article.
One quote from the article reinforces the foolishness of these management decisions:
Next year, a high-level NASA review is likely to have to decide between shutting down either the Mars Curiosity rover or the Cassini mission to Saturn. Both are successful missions that cost around $60 million a year, a level that Green has said the division simply cannot afford for the long term.
Talk about penny wise, pound foolish. The cost to get these probes to their destination was in the billion dollar range, each. To shut them down when they are working and cost relatively so little now is beyond stupid.
As I have written repeatedly, we have a big federal deficit. We need to cut, and I think NASA’s budget can be cut. It just makes no sense to cut planetary research, when there are other portions of that budget that are accomplishing little and cost far more.
The competition heats up: In a launch today a Russian Dnepr rocket sent 32 satellites into orbit, breaking the record of 29 set less than a week ago by a Minotaur rocket.
This is the future. Satellites are going to get smaller, and thus cheaper to launch.
The day of reckoning looms: The federal budget deficit for October was “only” $91 billion.
The AP article makes a big deal about how much lower this deficit is compared to past Octobers, but at this level, we would still have an annual deficit over $1 trillion. Even it ends up as half that, the numbers are still terrible.
The budget deal that ended the government shutdown ends on January 15. Be prepared for another shutdown. I expect some Republicans are going to once again tie that shutdown to repealing Obamacare.
Good enough for government work: The Pentagon has for years routinely been doctoring its budget numbers, and has no idea where billions of its money is going.
In its investigation, Reuters has found that the Pentagon is largely incapable of keeping track of its vast stores of weapons, ammunition and other supplies; thus it continues to spend money on new supplies it doesn’t need and on storing others long out of date. It has amassed a backlog of more than half a trillion dollars in unaudited contracts with outside vendors; how much of that money paid for actual goods and services delivered isn’t known. And it repeatedly falls prey to fraud and theft that can go undiscovered for years, often eventually detected by external law enforcement agencies.
To save money, NASA management has shut down a troubled program to build a more efficient plutonium power supply for its deep space missions.
The cancelled ASRGs would have generated electrical power from the expansion of gas warmed by the radioactive decay of plutonium-238. NASA says that the devices have the same power output as its current generation of Multi-Mission Radioactive Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTG) but use four times less plutonium-238, a scarce resource. One MMRTG with 4.8 kilograms of plutonium is currently powering the Curiosity rover on Mars.
The United States has less than 40 kilograms of plutonium-238 left, but the DOE restarted production this year. Green says he is confident that the DOE will be producing plutonium-238 at a rate of 1.5 kilograms per year by 2019. He says that the stockpiled plutonium-238, along with the new supply, will be enough to send another planned rover to Mars in 2020 and to complete other missions in the 2020s – without any need for the extra efficiency of the ASRGs.
The ASRG program had been a year and a half behind schedule and had had its management team replaced at one point.
Lockheed Martin announced today that it is closing down five facilities and laying off 4,000 employees.
This is actually good news for the company (reflected in a rise in its stock price today) as well as the taxpayer. Faced with less easy money from the federal government, the company is trimming some of its waste and unneeded fat. I am confident these cuts will have zero impact on their ability to operate and compete. If anything, they will improve the company’s abilities.
The cuts are also a recognition that the federal cuts from sequestration are not going away, even though those cuts have resulted in literally no visible problems in any federal program. To me, this is another demonstration that there was (and continues to be) plenty of fat in the federal government that can be trimmed away, without serious harm to any federal program.
Broken record: In his weekly radio address today, President Obama called for new taxes and increased spending.
It is always the same. No matter what happens, Obama calls for more spending and higher taxes. It seems quite unimaginative on his part to never propose some other ideas for solving the federal deficit and the government’s other problems.
A new poll, taken by a liberal poll company, finds that Democratic incumbents took a much bigger hit than Republican incumbents after the government shutdown.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the shutdown was a team effort of both parties, that occurred because of their disagreement over Obamacare. The spin has said the Republicans lost big. The evidences says otherwise.
Also, this poll was taken before the most recent disasters relating to Obamacare became public knowledge. I suspect the numbers will worsen for Democrats in subsequent polls.
Owning it: In 2010 the Democrats unanimously voted in support of the regulations that are now forcing the cancellation of millions of health insurance plans.
The Democrats voted for Obamacare. They then voted for the regulations that are wiping out health plans nationwide. And they voted to shut the government down to support Obamacare only one month ago.
I would say this indicates pretty strongly that they are responsible for this law.
Finding out what’s in it: One expert estimates that 129 million people, 68% of those who buy health insurance, will lose their plan by the end of 2014 because of Obamacare.
I am sure all those people will be grateful to Obama and the Democrats for standing strong and shutting down the government rather than allow any changes to this law.
Note: I keep repeating this point about the government shutdown because it is important to remember the real cause of that shutdown: The Republicans objected to Obamacare and the Democrats endorsed it. We mustn’t forget this very fundamental fact as we watch Obamacare roll over the country like a bulldozer.
Poll: 70% of Americans want to delay the Obamacare individual mandate.
One, I suspect that many of those polled really think they are asking for a delay of Obamacare entirely, and do not understand that delaying the mandate will do nothing to save their present insurance plan. If Obamacare requires that plan to die, it will die, regardless of when the mandate goes into effect.
Two, this is strong evidence that, when the next budget deadline arrives in a few months, the Republicans should once again demand to either delay, defund, or repeal Obamacare. They should force the Democrats to once again vote for this law. If the Republicans do this, they might actually be in a position to force Democrats to agree to a repeal.
“The president and the Democrats lied us into a bad law.”
The Right opposed the law on principle. A single party — the Democrats — own this law in a way that no party has had complete ownership of any major social legislation in a century. They bought this legislation with deceit and the GOP said so. Now that it is going into effect, the facts on the ground are confirming that deceit. Moreover, the same haughty condescending bureaucrats and politicians who told us they were smart enough and tech-savvy enough to do just about anything are being exposed as incompetent political hacks.
And remember: This same President and those same Democrats re-affirmed their support of Obamacare less than one month ago by insisting on shutting the government down rather than agree to even the slightest revision of this disaster of a law.
Why the shutdown was a total victory for conservatives, both in the short and long runs.
The shutdown/debt limit imbroglio wasn’t a defeat. Defeats leave the losers feeling defeated. But the designated losers, the conservative base of the GOP – which, more accurately, now is the GOP – is more eager and excited than it has been in a long time.
Why? Someone fought. Finally.
Sure, we didn’t win the repeal of Obamacare. The only people talking about actually repealing Obamacare as a direct result of the tactical moves of recent weeks were the doddering dinosaurs and their media accomplices trying to put out the notion that Ted Cruz and his band of merry marauders had suckered us numbskull conservatives with promises of total victory right here and right now.
Being very familiar with the Constitution, we realize that it’s kind of difficult to pass a law when we only hold the House. We’re clear on that. We were always clear on that. What Ted Cruz did – and what the go-along, get-along gang of Republican stegosauruses hate – is that he fought. He fought. There’s a huge value to drawing a line, to taking a stand, to rallying the troops.
Real leaders – which the GOP establishment lacks – know that. We’ve had two presidential elections in a row with a demoralized base. That’s bad. Just ask Presidents McCain and Romney. [emphasis in original]
The key for determining which side is winning this battle is to look at the positions that new politicians are taking. That tells you the trend. And what I see is that the challengers all want to be Ted Cruz, not John McCain.
