home

The Norquist Strategy: The GOP's Opening Offer - $2.5 Trillion In Spending Cuts

It begins:

A number of the House GOP’s leading conservative members on Thursday will announce legislation that would cut $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which will be by far the most ambitious and far-reaching proposal by the new majority to cut federal government spending. [. . . The] “Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, [. . .] the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants [. . .] and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget.

But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts. The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending – which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year – to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.

This is, of course, just a scare document, intended to move the conversation in the Norquist direction. When Boehner comes in with a lower spending cuts number, he'll be "the reasonable one." Boehner will "negotiate" with Demint. Who will Obama negotiate with? Oh BTW, extension of the Bush tax cuts cost more in revenue ($4 trillion) to the government than the amount of the draconian cuts the GOP will propose today ($3.3 trillion.) What is interesting about this proposal though is what it does not touch - defense spending, Social Security or Medicare. How about that?

Speaking for me only

< NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama At 53% Approval | Feds Indict 11 People After NV Medical Marijuana Raids >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Republicans are waiting for (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    Obama to negotiate on Social Security and Medicare much like he did on the tax cuts.

    Yes, their plan is to let (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    President Obama go first.   They are surely awaiting the SOTU where he is likely to place his hand on the third rail--if it goes well, they can put on their rubber suits and join him; if not, well. they were always against cuts to these critical programs.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:10:15 AM EST
    but what the hell do Republicans have against public transportation?

    the public part (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:51:46 PM EST
    Their base support tends not (none / 0) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:13:24 AM EST
    to live in areas where public transportation is a part of their world.  I think that's one part of it.

    The other part may be that they like sitting in massive traffic jams?  lol

    Parent

    I guess you can listen (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    to more insane talk radio that way...

    Parent
    They yearn for the good old days (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    The days of child labor and walking down main street with your six shooter (now 30+ shooter) strapped to your leg.

    Parent
    Something about a high speed train from (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    LA to Las Vegas just doesn't work with the folks down on east LA (lower Alabama).

    Parent
    Something about a high speed train from (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    LA to Las Vegas just doesn't work with the folks down on east LA (lower Alabama).

    Parent
    Meanwhile, Alabama could (none / 0) (#33)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    really benefit from having more public transportation options.

    Parent
    Whose gonna pay?? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:12:51 PM EST
    I loved the bus system to DIA when I lived there and think the train system is great.

    But the issue is population density, available road  beds, etc.

    Heck, most small towns across the US don't even have cab companies.

    Why??

    Check out the Federal regs and insurance costs.

    Parent

    Federal regulations on taxis? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    There's a lot of burdensome federal regulation of taxis?

    Parent
    Troublesome?? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    Burdensome?

    Enough to force companies out of business in small markets and prevent start ups.

    Solution?? Market size rules rather than one size fits all?

    Parent

    Are you trying to make a point? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    Gotta love when people have no idea of the facts (i.e. federal regulation of taxis), they just put question marks behind everything.  That way, when they're proven wrong, they can say they're "just asking a question".

    As if it's not completely transparent.

    Parent

    People from Louisiana don't understand ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    ... the need/public benefits of public transportation?  Or is it that you think they'll object because they won't benefit (directly) from such a line?

    'Cause if it's the latter, the "folks down on East LA" are doing just fine on the federal dole, thanks.

    Parent

    Louisiana was not mentioned (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:08:04 PM EST
    Alabama, then (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    Given that Alabama receives $1.66 for every federal tax dollar paid , there's not much difference.

    Gotta love when pols/people from those "welfare queen" states start complaining about all the federal taxes they (don't) pay.

    Parent

    Exactly. If the red states would renounce (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 08:37:32 PM EST
    the Federal funds that come from their fellow citizens in blue states, that would be "Man bites dog."

    Look up the special comment that Keith Olbermann did after Gov Perry of Texas talked ominously about secession last year, it's to laugh.

    Parent

    Why should (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    Alabama pay for Nevada's high speed train designed solely to transport people from a market source (LA basin) and an entertainment complex designed ti help the people of Las Vegas??

    How far does "common good/welfare" go?

    BTW - How many of those federal dollars are going to military and defense??

    Parent

    If AL is getting 1.16$ for every 1$ in federal tta (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    they pay, then they aren't paying for the train out of their own pockets.

    Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: California is a Donor State

    California taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid than the average state. In 2005, California taxpayers received only 78 cents in federal expenditures for every dollar in federal taxes. In 1995, by contrast, California taxpayers were receiving 94 cents in federal expenditures for each tax dollar.

    Click or Descore Me

    For 2005, Alabama residents received 1.66$ for every 1.00$ of US Federal tax they paid.

    Same year, CA residents received .78 for every 1.00$ of US Federal tax they paid.

    TN didn't do as well as AL, 1.27 for every 1.00$ paid.

    I guess your politicians aren't as greedy as their AL brethern, PPJ.

    Be glad for small favors.


    Click or Deploy Me.

    But PPJ wants us to feel the pain of the AL taxpayers, forced to see federal funds not spent on them spent in a state which usually gets shortchanged on the Federal end of things.

    As a CA resident, I would say that when AL residents quit behaving like medicants on the Federal side of things, perhaps they'll get to have a valid opinion about this issue.


    Parent

    Since you are a CA (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:45:44 PM EST
    resident I would say you shouldn't anger the rest of the country.... bankruptcy is just around the corner.... and your gonna need us...

    ;-)

    I would also say that the numbers are meaningless. Small rural population, large Fed money spent on defense and you get the $1.66...... Look at AK as another example.

    Factor out defense spending and come back.


    Parent

    Perhaps the red states could (none / 0) (#47)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:08:08 PM EST
    help by giving up their Federal subsidy instead of depending on the blue states that make up the difference for them.  

    I would also say that the numbers are meaningless. Small rural population, large Fed money spent on defense and you get the $1.66...... Look at AK as another example

    AK is 1.84, which makes less sense when you consider there should be revenue from the federal taxes on all the crude that gets pumped out of the ground there.

    What are we defending AL from, a possible attack launched from the Bahamas?

    Of course you don't like numbers that don't go your way, PPJ, what else is new?

    Factor out defense spending and come back.

    During fiscal years in which the federal government runs deficits, some spending is financed through borrowing. This creates implicit tax liabilities for states that must be repaid eventually. To incorporate these implicit tax liabilities into the analysis, the following adjustment was made to state tax burdens: First, the total federal tax burden is increased by the size of the federal deficit. Next, this total burden is allocated among states based on each state's proportion of the actual federal tax burden. Finally, adjusted spending per dollar of tax ratios are calculated by dividing actual expenditures by the adjusted tax figure, effectively making figures deficit neutral

    Except there are defense bases here in CA as well, and we end up as a net donor state anyway.

    Thanks for demonstrating your lack of clarity when it comes to fiscal consistency, PPJ.  

    You remind me of the farmer settling up with his  sharecropping tenant:

    "According to the figures for this year, I owe you money."

    "That can't be right! I better go over those figures again................."

    Parent

    My point remains (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    Small states with large defense spending by the Feds will show large returns. i.e. AK and AL and others.

    If you want to have a rational discussion first you have to factor out the defense spending, which is for the "common good."

    And the way to do that is just subtract the total spent per state without all the prorating and huckabucking. Plainer. I don't believe their numbers prove anything.

    Now you can have the last 2000 words and three links.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Are you trying to make a point? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    Because it seems like you're trying to, but you're only asking a series of questions, rather than state any facts.

    Alabama pay for Nevada's high speed train designed solely to transport people from a market source (LA basin) and an entertainment complex designed ti help the people of Las Vegas??

    Easy.  Because the government has an interest in promoting the use of public transportation, regardless of the reason people are using the transportation.

    How many of those federal dollars are going to military and defense??

    No idea - Google is your friend if you think it's relevant.  Personally, I don't - federal spending is federal spending.  It's funny how the reddest of the reddest states are always the ones crying about federal taxes, despite the fact that they're living off the tax dollars of the blue states.

    Parent

    Uh, a pork bill train (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    promoted by a Nevada Senator to carry people from LA to Las Vegas is something the country should be interested in? Please.....

    Tell me you never uttered a word about the bridge to no where.

    Taxes? I have no idea either and my note was just to give a commonsense thought about these numbers. Why do some states get more??? Well, Alabama has Mobile and a army bases. Alaska has a whole host of military installations designed to watch China and Russia and N Korea. etc., etc.

    Why are they were they are? Well, as they say in real estate... Location, location, location.

    Parent

    Re: High Speed Train (none / 0) (#52)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 10:37:30 AM EST

    Uh, a pork bill train (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 10:15:21 AM EST
    promoted by a Nevada Senator to carry people from LA to Las Vegas is something the country should be interested in? Please.....

    Because it increases interstate commerce, and so benefits the country, not just CA and NV.

    Taxes? I have no idea either and my note was just to give a commonsense thought about these numbers. Why do some states get more??? Well, Alabama has Mobile and a army bases. Alaska has a whole host of military installations designed to watch China and Russia and N Korea. etc., etc.

    And CA has bases as well, but you don't want to talk about bases in blue states, why is that?

    The numbers have been crunched and they are what they are.

    You don't like the numbers when they don't 'prove' your conclusions, and can't be bothered to demonstrate what they should look like.

    Okay.

    Why are they were they are? Well, as they say in real estate... Location, location, location.

    Yes, Vandenberg Air Force Base is placed precisely to offset any aerial attack from Nevada or Mexico, as is true of Lemoore Naval Air Station also.

    Thanks for demonstrating what arm-waving looks like, bring some facts to the game or don't bother to comment in the first place unless your covert aim is to discredit Social Liberalism ;-)

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 02:36:18 PM EST
    Dark... uh I mean Harry....

    I did not say ONLY red states... I said subtract the defense spending and then come back.

    I thought it obvious that to make a comparison you would have to do it to all states.

    Reading problems?

    ;-)

    And of course not all bases are located for the physical defense of the CONUS. Didn't you know that?


    Parent

    In other words (none / 0) (#54)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    I did not say ONLY red states... I said subtract the defense spending and then come back.

    California is already a donor state, so that if you subtract the military spending, they move more into the red, subsidizing the rest of the country.

    If you do so for the red recipient states, then, yes, they tend to move towards the black, and their figure goes down.

    But the end result is the same:

    1.  CA and other blue states subsidize the rest of the red states even more so than before

    2. Subtracting the defense spending in the red states means that they become less parasitical

    3. Whether that actually moves them into the range where they get to bitch about Federal spending in donor states I'll leave as an exercise for the peanut gallery.

    Please save your snark for someone who deserves it.

    Parent
    Snark? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:18:45 PM EST
    I said subtract the defense spending and then come back.

    You haven't done that.

    Let me know when you do.

    Parent

    You really are dense today (none / 0) (#56)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    1.  California is a donor state, .85 cents in federal spending to every 1.00 dollar that goes to the feds.

    2.  Subtract the defense spending in CA, that lowers the amount of Fed spending in CA, so then there is more of a donor effect.  Instead of .85 in/1.00$ out, you get perhaps .75 to .70 in/1.00$ out.

    3.  Subtract the defense spending in AL(for example), that lowers the amount for Fed Spending there, so that instead of 1.66$ in/1.00$ out, you get, say, 1.44 in/1.00$ out, better, but still mendicant, not self-sustaining.

    4.  Why subtract the Defense spending in the first place?

    You are hopelessly confused, and therefore, lamentably, a typical member of the Tea Party.

    TTFN

    Parent

    You're the one who wants ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    ... to subtract defense spending.  If YOU think that's significant (and will prove some point), you should "subtract the defense spending and then come back".

    I know it's harder than just making stuff up, and it would destroy your perfect record of fact-free assertions, but you'd be at least a little more convincing.

    Parent

    I don't want to do anything (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 23, 2011 at 09:57:18 PM EST
    Yman - My point was that unless you subtract out the defense spending you don't have an accurate figure.

    So if you want to use inaccurate figures, be my guest.

    You too, DA.

    ;-)

    Good night all!

    Parent

    Here's the data you apparently (none / 0) (#59)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:50:07 AM EST
    couldn't find on your own

    From www.nemw(dot)org:

    Table 4. Defense Department and Other Spending Levels: Fiscal 2008


    Click or Smore Me

    Here's a visual aid from infoplease(dot)com:

    Federal Expenditures by State per Dollar Sent

    Click or Tax Me

    Now

    quit handwaving about defense spending, deal with the facts you have here and tell us whether it supports or denied your hypothesis.

    Parent

    It's entirely accurate (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:41:10 AM EST
    We're discussing the amount of federal spending compared to federal tax revenue by state.  You're the one who thinks defense spending shouldn't count - for whatever reason.  If you want to omit defense spending from federal spending (gee, I wonder why that is), you need to dig up the figures, rather than demanding it be done for you.

    Just like a typical, red-state conservative - always wants someone else to do their work for them.

    Parent

    I'm not saying it should not count (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    You guys are snarking that the Red States get more federal money than they pay in and that the blue states do not.

    All I have said is that the Red States get more DEFENSE money and that skews the results as defense dollars are about the common good, not specific to the state good.

    So get rid of the defense spending and we will have results that are more representative of who gets what. And I really don't know what the results would be.

    Parent

    It "skews" nothing (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    Many/most federal spending is about  "the common good, not specific to the state good".  Spending on interstate highways benefit transportation, commerce and "the common good", regardless of whether a highway passes through a particular state.  Same for NASA, the EPA, VA hospitals, DOE, federally funded scientific research, etc., etc., etc.  You wingers always want to treat defense spending differently because you like defense spending and consider it to be a legitimate government purpose, whereas many of the others, well ... not so much.

    Sorry, Jimbob ... if you want to exempt defense spending from the figures, you can come up with the data and see if it supports your convoluted theory (hint - it doesn't).  But that would involve doing your own work - something you "welfare state" wingers aren't real fond of.

    BTW - I know you don't know what the results would be.  That would involve actually using data and facts, rather than guessing - a rather difficult concept...

    ... for some.

    Parent

    My name is not Jimbob (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:16:11 PM EST
    I was wondering how long it would take you to do the personal attack bit.

    My point was simple. I made it.

    Parent

    You seem to enjoy ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:23:31 PM EST
    ... calling people names other than there screen names - suddenly, it's not okay?

    Go figure.

    Parent

    When I call you (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    something different you have a reason to complain.

    Parent
    Ohhhh, so it's okay ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:38:02 PM EST
    ... when you do it to others, but when someone does it to you it's suddenly a "personal attack".

    Heh, heh ... typical winger hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Harry (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    and I were having a conversation. He understood what I was saying is that I think he is actually Dark Avenger.

    That is no insulting play on words.

    Parent

    You feel insulted? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    Well, now ...

    ... that's a shame.

    Parent

    I see that (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    all you want to do is attack.

    We have been through this before.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    BTW - You "made your point" (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:24:34 PM EST
    ... as you always do - no logic, no facts to back it up, ...

    ... no dice.

    Parent

    You're deny (none / 0) (#62)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    You guys are snarking that the Red States get more federal money than they pay in and that the blue states do not.

    Uh, no, we're relying on the Tax Foundations data, which you haven't directly attacked or demonstrated aren't factual AFAIK.

    All I have said is that the Red States get more DEFENSE money and that skews the results as defense dollars are about the common good, not specific to the state good.

    According to the data I linked to earlier, per capita Defense Department spending in the South is 2028$, for the West, the figure is 1540$.

    That's almost a 400$/per capita difference between the two regions, excuse it how you will.

    So get rid of the defense spending and we will have results that are more representative of who gets what. And I really don't know what the results would be.

    I think the answer is pretty plain, and is left to the student as an exercise.

    Parent

    Your definition is meaningless (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:34:12 PM EST
    i.e.Per Capita defense spending for MA is $1913 but Other Agency spending is $9185.

    AL has $2488 defense but only $7841 other.

    So the very blue state of MA is getting $769 per capita from the Feds than the red state of AL.

    Parent

    Run the same figures with CA and AL (none / 0) (#70)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 09:21:17 PM EST
    and you get a different result.

    Of course, the differences between the cost of living in a relatively dense, urbanzied state vs. the cost of living in a large, rural, agricultural state wasn't figured into your analysis as well.

    But the surprising thing is that the figure you seek to batter me over the head with, the OA spending, is much higher for the South as a region than any other region of the country, with the West leading a close second.

    So all figures seem to point to the South being a drain even with defense spending taken into account.

    Thanks for helping me out on this, PPJ, let's do it again sometime soon.

    Parent

    The fact that Blue States (none / 0) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    benefit.  Funds for public transport, army/navy bases, etc. all cut in Northeast under Bush.

    Parent
    The reason for (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:22:35 AM EST
    Mass transit not taking off is for the same reason we "punished" the Bankster criminals with forcing them to receive countless billions of taxpayer dollars in bonuses......Moolah!

    The automobile lobbyists have gobs of it; the public, zilch.

    The thought of tens of millions of suburban commuters riding to work in warm, comfortable high speed trains, coffee in one hand, newspaper in the other, while the same tens of millions of autos are tucked away in their suburban garages is what gives auto execs sleepless nights.


    Parent

    This isn't good news for the (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    state and local governments, either, which are already cutting programs and services to deal with their own current budget deficits; more reduction in money flowing to the states is going to mean that "austere" will no longer adequately describe what remains.

    I absolutely think the GOP is positioning itself to be the party that saved entitlement programs from the Democrats - shoot, they can read polls, they can see that, according to some recent polling, people now trust Republicans on Social Security and Medicare more than they trust Dems.

    So, what tough choices will Obama offer up?  Does anyone really think that after all the time and energy invested in the Deficit Commission, Obama's going to all of a sudden do his best Emily Litella impression and say, "nevermind?"

    I sure don't.  I think that, regardless of what polling says about the electoral consequences of Dems messing with entitlements, Obama will continue to believe that he's the only president who could "take on" and push for "reform" of these programs.  I mean, golly, he did such a good job on the health and financial systems, what could we possibly have to fear?


    Here is what I think. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    By going first, they get to anchor the debate in favor of huge cuts without touching taxes, SS, defense, or medicare.  To "meet them halfway," Obama will have to offer up tax increases and cuts to defense, SS, and medicare.  The repubs could then "grudgingly" go along with the cuts as long as he pulls the tax increases.  Some cuts to medicare and SS will be done, as well as some window dressing cuts to defense, BIG cuts in government everywhere else, no tax increases.

    The Kleins of the world will then rave about how Obama got something done in a bipartisan way.  What really will happen is getting us closer to what the republicans ultimately want - a 21st century government on defense and a 19th century government on everything else.

    How about that? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    Well, the GOP once again shows Obama what real hardball negotiation starts out with -- everything YOU want.

    Now, will Obama call out this "proposal" for what it is?  A recipe for destroying America's ability to invest in its future?  Will he lambaste it as the product of folks who think it's their right to thieve from average folks who have to actually labor for a living?

    Or will he, yet again, legitimize destructive nonsense?

    Take a guess.

    Again, hope I'm wrong, but...

    I also agree with Anne (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    That the GOP is trying to position itself as a hero on entitlements. Obama and Dems are so daft they'll probably allow it to happen.

    Parent
    I think the repubs want to make cuts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    to these things in a way to not take the blame for it.

    Parent
    i think they'd love to do that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    and they've already won the first round.

    but they can't really accomplish that goal now without dems moving first.  which they probably will.  but a dude can always hope.

    Parent

    Last rumor I heard was that Obama was going (none / 0) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    to put SS cuts on the table in SOTU address.  Is that still the word on the street?  If so, Norquist...here we come.

    I can already hear the repubs saying something like: "well, boy we really do not want to do that, but as the President said, we are quickly getting to a point where we may not have a choice.  We need to be sure we do it in a way that does not cripple those currently on it while ensuring we make the reforms necessary to save our economy from economic disaster.  Our minds are open and we welcome whatever ideas Obama has for the necessary steps."

    Parent

    Jeebus, if Obama proposes cuts NOW... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    ...after the repubs offered to leave these untouched in their first "proposal," instead of saying something like "at least we agree that we can't possibly cut the SS and medicare safety net, that we will not become a third world country," then he will be the most indescribably stupid politician to EVER flap their yapper.  For every political reason imaginable -- practical, moral, logical, rational, etc. to infinity.

    I can hardly bear the thought of watching it.

    Parent

    Americans trust Republicans more on Social Securit (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    y than Obama


    A post-election poll by Celinda Lake's Lake Research Partners found that, by a margin of 3 percentage points, Americans now trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security -- surely the first time since the program became a signature issue for the Democratic Party in the 1930s.

    The pollsters had no doubt that the turnaround stems from statements by Obama and other Democratic leaders expressing their openness to cuts in Social Security.

    Not that this poll is going to change one whit what Obama's going to do.

    I don't get the math (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts. The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending - which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year - to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.

    So...330 billion + (670 billion-497billion) =  503 billion. No where near 2.5 trillion. I don't believe they have really not counted on entitlement cuts to get the 2 trillian more required.

    Oh, I get it....through 2021, not in one year (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    never mind.

    Parent
    Anyone want to be that Obama (none / 0) (#19)
    by observed on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    won't offer even more spending cuts, preemptively?

    wanna bet he's a good politician... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    ...when he hates politics?  i could not possibly put money on obama tonight. that would mean i think he was nimble enough as a politician to react with the clear and rational response to this obvious opening move by the repubs. i really hope i eat my words, i hope obama stuns me with his unwavering poltical acumen, but, um, well...never mind.

    Parent
    I can pretty much hear it already, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    in my head:

    Tonight, I am greatly heartened to look out across this chamber and see, for what may be the first time, Democrats and Republicans sitting side-by-side, a clear and unambiguous indication to me that we have all taken to heart the need to listen to each other, work together and do so in good faith and with dedication to the American people for whom we all strive daily to do the best job possible.

    Last week, the Republicans delivered their proposal for getting the government's spending under control.  But this will not be the Republicans' burden alone: we all share that burden and are committed to easing it as fairly and, we hope, as painlessly as possible.  You all may remember that last year, I signed an Executive Order establishing a commission whose specific purpose was to find ways for us to address the out-of-control spending that has been ravaging our economy and threatening to delay or stop altogether the slow progress we have been making to get the economy back on track.

    The Deficit Commission was also a bipartisan undertaking, which is really the only way we can reasonably address the problems that face all Americans, not just Democrats and not just Republicans.  I have been pleased to note that the ideas of the commission were positively embraced on both sides of the aisle, and that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have been working since the commission disbanded to see about implementing some of the ideas in the co-chairs' report.

    My economic team is studying the Republican proposals, and I will shortly have a comprehensive response to share with them and with the American people.  I noted that the proposal has not addressed the need to strengthen programs such as Medicare and Social Security, so that when future generations retire, they can be assured that these programs will be there for them.  As the wave of baby-boom retirements begins, I believe we must begin to address these programs now, and can do so in a responsible way.

    To the current seniors of America, do not panic; nothing is changing for you.  To those within 10 years of retirement, do not panic; we do not intend to make changes for you, either.  But for those of you more than 10 years from retirement age, I will propose some modest changes that could affect you.  If, by the time you retire, you have other income, from pensions or IRAs or 401(k)s, it is possible your Social Security could be reduced; if Social Security is all the income you will have, your benefits could be increased.

    While it is tempting to leave the older generation out of the equation in terms of becoming a fiscally sound nation, I believe that all of us must be a part of the changes that need to be made.

    And so on...not enough detail to really take it apart, but enough to make clear that he's serious about "fixing" these programs.

    Parent

    He would never (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    use the words, "benefits reduced." He would "improve" your golden years (by slashing your benefits, giving them to Wall St. and since we all know "market based solutions" are always best) you will need  a heavy duty, huge umbrella to hide under from all the benefits that will be "trickling down" on you, and your retirement years will be so, so, soooo much better.


    Parent
    You are so right! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 03:48:56 PM EST
    What was I thinking?

    We'd just be able to add "Enhanced Retirement" to the rest of the not-what-their-titles-suggest policies/legislation that started to sprout like mushrooms in the Bush years...

    Parent

    Howzabout... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by StephenAG on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    Enhanced Retirement Provisional Protection and Reacharound Act. Yeah... that's the ticket.

    Problem solved. Now where's that pony I was promised...

    Parent

    "Enhanced Retirement" (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    LOL!

    Like George Bush's

    "Clear Skies Act"

    ["In its latest attack on the Clean Air Act, the Bush administration has moved to eviscerate NSR and allow these plants to expand and pollute even more. On December 30 last year, the EPA issued revisions to the NSR rules, permitting thousands of aging coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites to upgrade without having to install new anti-pollution devices. Slated to go into effect in March, the new rules make all but the most flagrant polluters virtually immune from government legal action. Companies will also be given greater latitude in calculating pollution, reducing the likelihood that new pollution controls will be required."]

    Parent

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    an ad for Viagra.....

    Parent
    I'm remind of a Star Wars movie, when a fish-faced (none / 0) (#36)
    by kmblue on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    general yelled, "It's a trap!"  As BTD pointed out, the cuts don't even make up for the revenue for the rich provided by "The Deal".

    Fasten your seat belts, everybody.  It's going to be a bumpy SOTU.  One that no doubt will feature bipartisan chaining of Dems and Repubs to seats near each other.

    Kumbaya, anyone?

    Parent

    You will be able to (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    "Take on that second career you've always dreamed of!" (read: you will need to keep working until you drop dead)

    Parent
    This paragraph needs work (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    While it is tempting to leave the older generation out of the equation in terms of becoming a fiscally sound nation, I believe that all of us must be a part of the changes that need to be made.

    Something to the effect that he knows that the older generation will be more than willing to make the sacrifices necessary to leave the nation in a fiscally sound position for their children and grandchildren.

    Gotta have the part where they are doing this for the "children" otherwise, he can't portray them as selfish people who hate children if they demand to receive what they paid for.

    Parent

    And that would elect anyone (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    running against him.

    Parent
    And that would elect anyone (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 04:43:28 PM EST
    running against him.

    Parent