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.
Gee, you’d think he would have noticed this a long time ago: The Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke went on record today to warn that the US deficit “is not sustainable.”
Astronomers are considering the merger two space missions to create a new optical/ultraviolet space telescope. The mission would be designed to do both deep cosmology and exoplanet observations.
The two communities would both like to see a 4–8-metre telescope in space that would cost in excess of $5 billion. “Our interests are basically aligned,” says [Jim Kasting, a planetary scientist at Pennsylvania State University]. Such a mission would compete for top billing in the next decadal survey of astronomy by the US National Academy of Sciences, due in 2020.
This story is big news, as it indicates two things. First, the 2010 Decadal Survey, released in August 2010, is almost certainly a bust. The budget problems at NASA as well as a general lack of enthusiasm among astronomers and the public for its recommendations mean that the big space missions it proposed will almost certainly not be built.
» Read more
Out of funds, SETI has suspended operations while it looks for new investors.
Eric Berger at the Houston Chronicle asks: Will fewer humans in space lead to more robot explorers?
In a word, no. In the past fifty years, every time the budget of the manned space program has been cut, the unmanned program shrank as well. And every time the budget of manned space grew, so did the budget for unmanned missions.
