I hope they mean it: Republicans still firmly against raising debt ceiling without big cuts.
GOP Senators to the White House: Better start planning for no debt ceiling increase and making do on a $2.6 trillion budget.
Budget deficits signal a decline in spending for astronomy telescopes, both on the ground and in space, for the next decade.
Obama’s budget request for 2012 received zero votes today when it came up for a vote in the Democratic controlled Senate. Meanwhile, the House budget, proposed by Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) was also rejected, but by the much closer vote of 40-57.
I’m not sure if this is good or bad. It suggests that there is increasing recognition in the Senate that cuts must happen, and that Obama’s budget failed in this regard. It also suggests that the Senate is also not ready to make those cuts.
Rep. Ryan agreed today that his budget plan played a role in Democrats’ special-election win in New York yesterday.
If Ryan is right, we are in big trouble. His plan might not be the solution, but the Democrats refuse to offer any alternatives. And if it is this Democratic non-plan that the public is choosing, it means that the public remains unwilling to deal with the debt in any way at all.
Now Tim Pawlenty has called for Medicare and Social Security reform — in Florida.
Once again, I don’t know how sincere Pawlenty really is, but he certainly has started his Presidential campaign challenging the voters to face hard realities.
NASA announces that the Orion program will continue, though under a different name.
This is a non-announcement, made to appease those in Congress who are requiring NASA to build the program-formerly-called-Constellation. NASA will do as Congress demands, and in the process will build nothing while spending a lot of money for a rocket and space capsule that can’t be built for the amount budgeted.
The next budget negotiations have started, and so has the squealing: Republicans propose cutting 12 percent of FDA’s budget.
Note that this would give the FDA a budget of $2.2 billion in 2012, about the same as its 2008 budget. Hardly painful if you ask me.
Republican Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty today called for phasing out ethanol subsidies — in Iowa.
We need more candidates like this, willing to say these kinds of things face-to-face with the very people who benefit from the funding.
The court jester speaks: Harry Reid said Thursday it would be “foolish” for the Democrats to offer their own budget plan.
Dear Congress: Your credit application has been turned down.
You may also wish to contact a consumer credit counseling agency. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling can help you locate a reputable counseling agency in your area. You may also wish to visit the NFCC’s website for helpful tips on such subjects as
•drawing up a budget
•living within your means
•saving during tough economic times
•steps to take when your finances get out of control
On Thursday Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) rejected House Speaker John Boehner’s call for “trillions” in spending cuts.
Once again, I must note that while we can be rightly skeptical of the Republicans expressed desire to cut the budget, we can have no doubt that the Democrats are against it entirely, and will resist spending cuts on all fronts.
Boehner meets with tea party activists from his district. “The mood was less than cordial.”
Surely, there are Tea Party activists with unreasonable expectations of what Republicans can accomplish with control of the House. However, the major beef Tea Partiers have with Republicans is not their lack of accomplishment. It’s their unwillingness to stand and fight, their apparent lack of principle, and the resulting impotence toward shifting the narrative in Washington.
More thrilling budgetary news: The Social Security deficit is now “permanent.”
Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund is now slated to run out of money in 2024, or five years earlier than last year’s projection, while Social Security’s trust fund will be exhausted by 2036, a year earlier than the prior projection.
Private citizen has just donated $25 million for the construction of the Giant Magellan Telescope.
This is how it used to be done all the time: All the early giant telescopes built in the United States before World War II were financed by individuals or private foundations, with no or little government investment.
Time is running out: Government reaches debt limit, borrows against federal pension funds to pay obligations.
Senate Democrats: Where is your budget?
With the statutory committee deadline having been missed by six weeks, and with 744 days gone by since the Democrat-led Senate passed a budget, it was reported that this week Senate Democrats would finally produce a budget and hold a markup. But no budget was produced and the markup was delayed yet again.
The Republicans might not be very serious about spending cuts, but the Democrats are a downright joke. At least the Republicans have made some effort to deal with the problem, tepid as that effort is. The Democrats not only oppose any suggestion, they can’t even do their job.
Surprise surprise! Social Security and Medicare are running out of funds sooner than expected.
From Jeff Foust: Another sign of tight budgets ahead.
The possibility that NASA’s budget might cut by several billion doesn’t bother me a bit. Unlike it seems everyone else, I ain’t gonna be one of those who says “We need to cut the federal budget, but just don’t cut MY favorite program.” NASA shouldn’t be immune to cuts. In fact, NASA could easily lose the several billion dollars per year that’s going to be wasted on the program-formerly-called-Constellation.
And if Congress decided to cut the subsidies to the new commercial space companies as well, I probably wouldn’t cry that much over that either. I think these companies can make it on their own. I think there is a market for their product. By taking NASA’s money up front, they are then forced to take NASA supervision, something I think will be very damaging in the long run.
The House budget for the TSA has deleted funding for more body scanners.
Though I think denying the TSA this money is a good thing, this paragraph from the article stood out to me:
The measure includes $7.8 billion for the TSA, which Republicans said was a $125 million increase from current levels but $293 million less than the administration’s budget request.
In 2008 the TSA’s budget was approximately $6.99 billion. Considering how the Republicans wanted to bring spending back to 2008 levels, how can we take them seriously about getting control of the deficit if they agree to an overall budget increase for the TSA?
More debt ceiling negotiations: GOP senators focused on entitlement cuts in a meeting with Obama on Thursday. I found this quote quite intriguing and a refreshing change from previous such meetings:
Obama was careful not to dominate the meeting, according to Republican senators who attended. The president opened the session with brief remarks and spent most of the session listening to lawmakers’ concerns and responding to their arguments.
According to a new Gallup poll, Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling by 47% to 19%.
But are those same Americans willing to accept the spending cuts that will be required at the same time? I wonder.
Not good: The House GOP has apparently abandoned its pledge to force agency-by-agency budgeting.
Want more evidence that government spending is out of control? In one California city lifeguards earn $100K to $200K per year. They also retire with 90 percent of their salary, after only 30 years of work at as early as the age of 50.
No surprise here: The White House takes a dim view of Boehner’s speech yesterday.
So my question here is there: Who is more serious about controlling spending, Obama and the Democrats or the Republicans in the House? Though it is very easy to find lots of reasons to criticize the various Republican proposals, at the moment they are the only proposals that are willing, even on a tiny level, to consider entitlement reform.
I like the sound of this: “Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt-limit increase.”
Also this: “We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions. They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future.”
And this: “And to those who contend that the economy is too weak to take on the challenge of entitlement reform — I would simply say, you’ve got it backwards. The truth is that making fundamental reforms to these programs would be good for the economy — and good for the next generation.”
According to a new Rasmussen poll, the Ryan Plan is losing support nationally.
If this is so, we are really in trouble, especially since there presently is no other realistic option on the table.
More reasons to repeal it: ObamaCare’s subsidies will not keep up with costs.
A precursor for 2012? Canada’s Conservatives scored a massive election win yesterday.
