Spending Cuts

Before the compromise that pushed the sequestration out 3 months, I was in favor of allowing the cuts to take place.  I know that the result would have been recession but it would have been short and only technically accurate.  In reality the cuts would strengthen the economy and we would find ourselves better off.

However, the compromise isn’t such a bad thing.  On the one hand it forces the senate to actually take up a budget AND we still can let the cuts take place.

But are we serious?

“I think the sequester is going to happen,” Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House budget panel and the party’s 2012 vice presidential nominee, told the NBC program “Meet The Press.”

House Republicans, most of whom had strongly opposed any tax rate increases in the “fiscal cliff” debate, have now started to shift their focus away the issue of tax increases and toward the spending cuts.

“We think these sequesters will happen because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they’ve offered no alternative,” Ryan said.

I hope that this means the republicans are serious.  It’s very clear that, whether Obama really has capital or not, he THINKS he does, and isn’t going to negotiate.


Time to take our medicine.

8 responses to “Spending Cuts

  1. Obama’s plan is a mix of cuts and tax increases (closing loopholes), 50/50. The GOP wants only cuts. I think Obama would go to a mix that’s 75% cuts and 25% revenue increases. Would the GOP go along with that as a compromise? If so, that’s a good result. If not, then it’s not Obama being the hardliner.

    • Obama’s plan is a mix of cuts

      I’m not sure he’s willing to cut spending.

      75% cuts and 25%

      I thought that the republicans were crazy to reject a 10 to 1 cut to tax ratio. Is 3-1 enough? Not sure. But it is a good start.

    • What’s the difference between a tax loophole and a perfectly honorable tax avoidance technique? Most folks would say that the interest deduction on home mortgages is NOT a loophole; however, if we stand back a ways and look at it with an open mind, be may have to acknowledge that it is indeed a loophole.

      How do we decide what is a fair and reasonable deduction and what is a sleazy loophole?

  2. Obama is dishonest about what he wants . He pretends to compromise, he never does . Peggy Noonan had a piece in last Saturday’s WSJ about Obama . The man is politically as ruthless as FDR was . Republicans should just reconcile themselves to dealing with a lying power mad ideologue who is only out to destroy them . If the country goes down too, that is a very small price to get absolute power .

    The leftist Obama supporters are putting on a full court press to destroy anyone opposing him . Many of them are openly trashing the Constitution, because it is the main protection of political minorities against the tyranny of the majority . Of course whenever the battlefield flips and they become the minority they will flee to that shredded piece of paper .

    • Except Obama has a track record of compromises. It’s the tea party Republicans that refused to accept ANY tax increase as part of the package. It took the fact the Bush tax cuts automatically expired that forced them to accept a small increase on the wealthiest. Otherwise, that would have never happened. Now they say no revenue increases, just cuts. That can only be their opening position, if they don’t move, they can’t whine about Obama.

      Trashing the constitution? Come on, who’s doing that? Be specific. Destroy anyone opposing him? Give me a break, that’s silliness. I think the right is starting to realize that Obama is like a Democratic Reagan, shifting the political winds towards a different path, and changing the discourse. That explains the hyperbolic response. And given the vicious attacks that have been heaped on Obama, I’d say complaining about his supporters is a bit myopic.

  3. Obama does not have a track record of compromises . The Tea Party is a philosophy of limited government and limiting government spending . When you are dealing with an out of control spender like Obama, there can be no middle ground . He jacks up the spending to Galactic levels, offers to give up a small fraction of that, and then calls anyone who disagrees an extremist . Good work if you can get it .

    • You’ve got it backwards, Alan. The “tea party” – at popularity levels of around 10% – openly says they will not compromise, they want cuts only. Obama says he wants a balanced approach. But the decision is not Obama’s, so to blame him is objectively wrong. The Senate will pass something, then the House. Then it goes to Conference committee. Only then does Obama get involved either signing or veto’ing it. If they get a compromise and he vetoes it, then you can blame Obama. At this point, though, it’s in the legislative branch – they pass bills that tax and spend, they have a process. So hopefully each side will pass something they think right, and there will be work in the conference committee.

Leave a Reply