Moderate Democratic lawmakers are pushing to tie a vote on raising the government’s debt-ceiling to the creation of deficit-reduction commission. The commission, which would be similar to military base-closing commissions, would make proposals that Congress would have to accept or reject as a package with no amendments. Columnist David Broder supports the commission, though he thinks the odds are against its creation. “Because such a commission is likely to propose both cuts in popular entitlement programs and tax increases whenever the country comes out of the current recession,” he wrote, “those members on the ballot next November, including Reid and Pelosi, would much rather avoid any discussion of such steps.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
37 Comments
Even if they built such a commission it would be worthless. It would have no power to cut spending. At this point I think only a series of 10th ammendment lawsuits could hope to curtail the spending and power concentrated in D.C.
Frankly there is no incentive for any elected U.S. President or Congressman to work to reduce the deficit even though it’s the unspoken top priority of this country. But I suspect any legislation to that effect will only be minimal, pandering to American voters.
This should have been done twenty years ago. Foriegn countries already own most of enough American debt to “call” for most of this country’s infrastructure, government buildings, turnpikes, toll bridges, etc.
It’s a case of “Nero played, while Rome burned.”
Hiding behind a Commission seems to be the chicken sh it approach to avoid dealing with the responsibilities of being a US Congressmen.
Like Obama voting “Present” in the IL Legislature, the Democrat US Congress is wanting to avoid DEBATING IN A PUBLIC FORUM and fulfilling their responsibilities in making tough decisions involving Billions of Dollars in Spending and Taxing the Peoples’ money.
Transparency and Accountability in Government? Forget about it!
Deficit Commission – It appears to be another ploy to take powers out of the Legislative branch of government.
Besides, there already is a ‘Deficit Commission’, it’s called the Congressional Budget Office and they give advice to Congress who are supposed to make the decisions.
Leave the debate open to the public, not behind closed door of some bureaucrat.
How quickly the “conservatives” forget.
Clinton inherited Bush the First’s deficit. By time Bush the Lesser pushed his way into the White House, there was a surplus.
This has been done already, folks. Saying “it should have been done 20 years ago” sounds nice, but George H.W. Bush didn’t do anything about deficit reduction, leaving it to be done 16 years ago instead.
(Nice try though, JWink)
thomaswitt-
so, get on board with doing something about it. Fact is, that the Democrats were in charge of both the House and the Senate in the last two years of the BUSH administration, and the Democrats have held all three elected houses since January. And the whining and crying about the Bush deficit, as bad as it was, has now transformed into the lifting up at the best, and ignoring at the least, as the current Democrat controlled goverment, in 7 months, has a deficit 3 times as large as the Bush deficit.
And before you can throw stones, I frequently berated te Bush administration for spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, and was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, You can bone dig all you want.
Obama and the compliant congress is simply spending us quickly into the poor house. The dollar continues to slide, and the entire world is concerned about the monetary policy of our goverment. The liberals thought that Bush should listen to the world about Iraq, why do they not think that Presdident Obama should listen to the world about our monetary policy?
why do they not think that Presdident Obama should listen to the world about our monetary policy?
The Europeans want the U.S. to adopt the Euro as the international money.
Perhaps Star Trek had a curious idea of currency and trade.
Don’t tell me: they don’t have money in the 23rd Century?
Well, we don’t.
-Conversation between Dr. Gillian Taylor and Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek IV
The Federation Allocation System
The generation of prices and the submittal of work and consumer desires is an iterative process. In the first round, (ending Nov 14) Individual consumers and workers submit the number of hours they with to work in the next year, as well as the amount of goods and services they wish to consume, from simplified lists of available products. At the same time, neighborhood, regional, national, planetary and interplanetary consumer councils form and submit consumption proposals (For things like swimming pools, more ships for starfleet, terraformation of new planets, etc.). Worker’s councils also submit proposals for how much they wish to work, what improvements they would like to make in the workplace, how many of a particular good they wish to produce. All these proposals are then summed up by computer and indicative prices are generated.
Thus prices are set for a year in a democratic and participatory manner, that reflects accurately the consumption and work desires of the populace. Since it is important not to make the plan “too accurate” and allow for unforeseen changes in the coming year, the plan also incorporates “slack planning” where many goods are overproduced and stored in case of a natural disaster or similar crisis.
In the past there were more iterations of the planning process to ensure better convergence, sometimes as many as six, with a smaller deviation allowed each time. However, since the plan of 2292, there have only been three needed, due to the stunning technological achievements of the United Federation of planets, where nearly everything that citizens desire can be produced at low social opportunity cost.
Money and Ownership in the Federation
Though one can buy and own food, transportation, living space, etc. in the federation, the ownership of the means of production is not allowed. Thus farms, ships, industrial plants, etc. are collectively owned by all, and in a another sense, by no-one.
Though one might think that the facilitation boards involved in the planning process would be a likely candidate for corruption, the lack of tradable money, transparency of facilitation meetings and rules such as facilitation workers cannot handle data from their own region have made this close to impossible, with very few such instances in the entire history of the federation.
http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/#allocation
Just say NO!!!
Congress has got to stop trying to please all the people all the time.
Certainly the deficit and deficit spending are serious threats to our way of life.
American_Way
Posted October 23, 2009 at 11:13 am | Permalink
Just say NO!!!
Congress has got to stop trying to please all the people all the time.
Certainly the deficit and deficit spending are serious threats to our way of life.
========================================
Libs want their Free Cheese, and they expect to get it by Obama!
They don’t care if the next 50 generations of Americans have to pay for today’s greed and American consumption.
Free Cheese!
Free Cheese!
Hip, hip hoo ray!
Free at last!
Free at last!
Thank Obama Almighty, Free Cheese at last!
American_Way
Posted October 23, 2009 at 11:13 am | Permalink
Just say NO!!!
Congress has got to stop trying to please all the people all the time.
Certainly the deficit and deficit spending are serious threats to our way of life.
_____________________________
Dick Cheney says that deficits don’t matter. Funny how deficits started to matter on Jan 20.
Yeah, funny as a crutch.
Several future generations of Americans will be laughing their heads off at the deficit spending of the 20th and 21st centuries.
“Dick Cheney says that deficits don’t matter”
Dick Cheney is not in office.
he was 9 months ago, or do you need a link to prove that
littlejohn
Posted October 23, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink
“Dick Cheney says that deficits don’t matter”
Dick Cheney is not in office.
_____________________________
Show me where I said he was.
Dick Cheney is the gift that keeps on giving.
Absolutely incredible.
The sheer self contradicting silliness of some of the so-called fiscal conservatives here is just jaw dropping.
Let’s take a rational look at this.
1) If Congress creates a deficit commission similar to a military base commission, then Congress is exercising its power to create such a commission. Congress would also have the ability to abolish such a commission. To therefore say that it is “a ploy for taking power” from its own branch is ludicrous.
2) The reason why the military base commission was created was that something was desperately needed to make sure that the closures were actually done on objective criteria rather than according to which bases had the most influential congresscritter protecting them. For the most part, it worked. Like military base closures, in fact even moreso, meaningful deficit reduction requires making unpopular decisions that even as proposals can end a congresscritter’s career. And contrary to the idiot rumblings from some of the self described conservatives here, as well as basic history, Republicans have their deadly myths with regards to dealing responsibly with deficits just as Democrats do. Forcing Congress to deal with recommendations from a deficit commission is a way for members to achieve cover, which is actually why such a commission might work. Because if anyone thinks that meaningful and long term deficit reduction, which will require both spending cuts and tax increases, is going to be achieved without that sort of cover, they need to get their brain retooled.
Re: Littlejohn
Nice post at 10:25. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but well argued.
The ‘jawless fish’ slaps on his Red Star sweater and pounds the blog podium in a Khrushchev like manner.
“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.”
Nikita Khrushchev
Agnatha,
You brought up Brac. What was the net savings to the Government?
“Because if anyone thinks that meaningful and long term deficit reduction, which will require both spending cuts and tax increases, is going to be achieved without that sort of cover, they need to get their brain retooled.”
Dead on correct. people want spending cuts, but not for their programs. People want taxes raised, but not their income bracket. Congress listens to both, so they increase spending and reduce taxes. Sometimes one at a time, sometimes together. Incoherently. In order to please their “masters”
It’s a shell game. And we are all the suckers.
I bet BRAC is a BUST.
$2 Billion in BRAC Costs just in San Antonio.
Billions are being spent all over the US as a result of BRAC moves.
Is this cost being offset by the savings?
What’s the net gain?
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/10/19/daily1.html
Overall military construction in San Antonio has hit record levels for the second straight year with a big boost from the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) construction programs now under way at Fort Sam Houston and elsewhere.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District and the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment awarded 35 BRAC and other military construction contracts worth a total of $738 million during fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30.
Spending on military construction in San Antonio typically averages between $65 million and $100 million per year. The $738 million total in fiscal year 2009 is in addition to $1.2 billion in contract awards in fiscal year 2008.
In fiscal year 2010, 24 projects valued at more than $300 million will be awarded.
Construction work is scheduled to take place across San Antonio at Fort Sam Houston, Camp Bullis, Lackland Air Force Base and Randolph Air Force Base through September 2011. The program involves building and renovating as many as 78 major facilities that amount to more than 6 million square feet of space.
The total cost of BRAC and BRAC-related construction is projected to exceed $2 billion in San Antonio.
Jim Johnson epitomizes the fiscal illiteracy of simplistic faux fiscal conservatives.
The “total cost of BRAC and BRAC-related construction” does not figure in…
1) State and federal revenue generated from the construction jobs.
2) State and federal revenue generated from the consumer service related jobs that support base construction.
3) State and federal revenue generated from the expanded base supported economy overall in terms of construction around the base, etc.
4) No perspective is given on the cost contrasted with the federal savings that come from not maintaining closed bases. One of reasons for base closures was reducing needless duplicate costs that come from keeping unneeded bases open. Even if that results in initial increased upfront construction costs, such savings almost certainly more than make up for the initial costs.
And all this misses your sidestepping of my original point: Closing and consolidating bases was a political hot potato, where congresscritters fought to the death to preserve “their” bases regardless of the actual merits of keeping said bases open. The fact that Congress was unable to move forward with base closing and consolidation is the reason why the military base-closing commissions were created in the first place. The creation of the commissions reduced the influence of regional politics on base closures and consolidations, just as they were supposed to do.
There is no reason, none, to assume that similar commissions focused on the deficit would fail to take the worst elements of regionalism and pandering from that right now hamper a responsible implementation of the budget process.
As littlejohn said so well:
“…people want spending cuts, but not for their programs. People want taxes raised, but not their income bracket. Congress listens to both, so they increase spending and reduce taxes. Sometimes one at a time, sometimes together. Incoherently. In order to please their ‘masters’ It’s a shell game. And we are all the suckers.”
Pogo was right. Whether it is “lefties” who confuse “should do” with “can do”, or righties who claim that all taxation is “theft” for “redistribution of wealth”, or the “California moderates” (who are found everywhere) who think they are moderates because they support both government services and tax cuts, the enemy is us.
Insulating the budget from meddling based on the political whims of “us” and “our” direct representatives may be our last and best hope.
“The ‘jawless fish’ slaps on his Red Star sweater and pounds the blog podium in a Khrushchev like manner.”
Translation: “I implied you are a commie. Hee hee.”
Re: Regular
DNFTT
Re: Regular
DNFTT
———–
You’re late!
Before the BRAC model is followed and the Deficit Commission is launched, it would be prudent to review the success of the BRAC model.
The BRAC process has been used since the 1960’s, so there is much data out there to review before reaching a definitive conclusion.
I’ve yet to find a comprehensive report for all of the BRAC’s, but will look later. Initial searches did not find any news organization that actually researched and reported the facts. (surprise!)
Here are a couple of recent reports that are far from conclusive as to the bottom line.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-703
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09703.pdf
This report actually shows how Incompetent Big Government is, since the recommendation is that accurate accounting information be obtained, before a conclusive assessment of the success of this latest BRAC can be determined.
Sloppy accounting in Business leads to failed corporations. Government has the luxury of just raising taxes and/or borrowing more money.
Lotsa hot air there Agnatha, you got any facts showing the Net Savings from all the BRACs?
Nope.
But then, you Libs don’t need to let facts get in your way in proposing the Chicken Sh it BRAC Approach for deficit reduction.
Agnatha
Posted October 23, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
And all this misses your sidestepping of my original point: Closing and consolidating bases was a political hot potato, where congresscritters fought to the death to preserve “their” bases regardless of the actual merits of keeping said bases open. The fact that Congress was unable to move forward with base closing and consolidation is the reason why the military base-closing commissions were created in the first place. The creation of the commissions reduced the influence of regional politics on base closures and consolidations, just as they were supposed to do.
=========================================
Agnatha misses the point in not examing whether the BRAC approached actually resulted in Net Cost Reductions “as they were supposed to do”.
Did they do what they were supposed to do?
Sorry Agnatha, not taking YOUR word for it. Show me the bottom line from an authoritative source.
Change?
Hope?
Nope.
The BRAC approach promises to bring more of the same:
-Years of foot dragging
-No public debate in Congress
-Hiding Government actions from The People
Congress is simply dodging its responsibilities.
Agnatha I do get your point on BRAC – as an example of using congressional rules to ensure neither party gets to influence the best decision on cuts.
Unfortunately, I am very much aware of BRAC. JimJohnson is correct in that not always does BRAC result in savings. These last BRAC round (and it was the last scheuled) was to save 20 billion dollars over 10 tens. This savings was the result of closing many bases and 28 some DFAS locations nationwide. The result was pulling thousands of good paying government jobs out of many communities (not ending the jobs – relocating them). The cost and logistics of the BRAC moves (paying total relocation costs – including buying government employees homes that couldn’t be sold) was and is still costing us all billions. The result, on paper is streamlined organizations which are more efficient and at fewer spreadout locations. A theory, I completely agree with. However, Missouri lost some 600-900 job positions, including many Kansas residents who worked in MO. These jobs all went to big NE states. These high paying jobs have had an impact on both KS and MO regarding the trickle down effects.
Now, BRAC “is” and “was” political. The decisions made were NOT always in keeping in the best business practice and savings for taxpayers. Admittedly so. The BRAC kept open a base in extreme NE remote Maine.
Limestone Maine. Check it out. It was kept open even though it will be more costly for taxpayers. It was kept open because it would kill the local community if they closed the base.
That is political – not ROI.
Hence, the idea of BRAC as a true best business practice free of political influence is false. There are many other examples.
Bottom line is: I appreciate you are searching for a method to remove politics from legislation. I even support it.
But is is impossible.
Ultimately, our elected representatives are RESPONSIBLE for the legislation they support.
We have to HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!!!
Open for any suggestions on how to do that. But BRAC in theory is correct but in practice also doesn’t do it.
Let me give you ONE MORE example of BRAC being political. This is getting a little too hot for me, but I will attempt to keep me out of it, but need to use it to support my position – because I want everyone to see how idiotic our government (both sides) are.
Albany, GA is a little truly southern town. Boiled peanuts are sold in every gas station. Chewing tobacco is king and alligator is not an unusual fair at eating establishments.
It is also landlocked. It is not on an ocean, sea, or even a major river.
But the amphibious orientated United States Marine Corps maintains a huge logistical base there. They keep miles and rows of military equipment and vehicles in neat and secure aisles amidst huge buildings where repairs are made.
Marines have a love & hate relationship with water. We reluctantly let the navy rule us on the ships they provide us passage on. We have amphibious ducks, vehicles, and equipment to invade any beach head anywhere in the world – on a moments notice.
So why do we pay billions of dollars to ship broken down AMTRAKS from Camp Lejuene NC inland hundreds of miles for repair, and regular maintenance servicing$?
At least THREE BRAC Commissions have recommended closing Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany GA and moving the facilities to a coastal community NEAR where the vehicles and equipment is needed.
Made great economic sense. But never happened.
Why?
Richard Brevard Russell
Sam Nunn
Newt Gingrich
Powerful politicians.
I forgot to mention. Shortly after the last BRAC Commission announced the base closing (I believe around late 2005),
Bush announced he was dedicating 20 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa.
Not arguing the merits of that decision. But in the blink of an eye, another politician spent just as much money as BRAC was supposedly going to save over twenty years…..
Congress wastes money faster than any savings can be made.
Hence, the idea of BRAC as a true best business practice free of political influence is false.
Ultimately, our elected representatives are RESPONSIBLE for the legislation they support.
We have to HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!!!
===============================================
Great posts AmWay, illustrating the failures of BRAC.
Even IF the BRAC approach could save some taxpayer dollars, like AmWay said in the 5:01 post, Government is going to continue to spend even more, with or without cost savings.
Government cannot control itself, and it appears the people cannot control Government either.
Anticipating another snarky response from Agnatha. Bet it will be a real GEM.
AmWay, I won’t be able to respond for a bit, but I did want to say this.
I have been very critical of you in the past, and I almost certainly will again in the future.
But, your responses to my posts on BRAC were nicely done, and I wanted that to be said.
BRAC is filled to the brim with stupid political tricks.
I remember the ribbon cutting ceremony of a spanking new cruise missile base in Europe. Within six months, it was on the chopping block of BRAC in exchange for another base’s survival in the U.S.A.
But, as AmWay pointed out and I don’t recall the figure, but the savings of the base’s closure, was almost identical to the amount of some pork projects scattered amongst some key politician’s states. There were some articles about it in the newspapers. I’ll try to find it, but it’s been many years.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul was the big joke in BRAC closures. The only realignment going on was in the form of political pork.
It won’t be created, its findings wouldn’t be approved, and it’s yet another example of Congress unable to do its job properly. Actually the proposal is a fig leaf for the so-called moderate Democrats to take to voters disgusted by the rampantly out of control deficit spending that makes all previous US Congresses look miserly by comparison.