Budget Deal

Obama's 2011 budget proposal asked for a spending increase of $40 billion. He signed off on cuts of $38.5 billion. That's a net change of $78.5 billion.

Reid called cuts of $33 billion "draconian" and "unworkable". He's now calling the $38.5 billion "historic". Having caved in he's seen the light. He's now a warrior for budget cutting.

This is a game-changing deal. The elected leaders of two thirds of the government are now touting their success as budget cutters only days after insisting any cuts would harm the economy and kill tens of thousands of hapless citizens. If I never hear the euphemism "women's health" again it will be too soon.

I remember the rush to pass earmarks and logjam the pork to take home. Republicans may yet redeem themselves if they can pass Ryan's budget...

With regard to the question in another thread: "Is America's decline reversible?", I call your attention to a couple graphs from a blog post by one Yuval Levin:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263941/republican-budget-yuval-levin?sms_ss=blogger&at_xt=4d9bab684244b3fa%2C0






Per Levin, these graphs are based on Paul Ryan's proposed "Path to Prosperity", Obama's proposed budget for 2011, and CBO estimates based on those proposals going forward. The legend "GOP Budget" is Ryan's PTP.

Levin's post makes a great deal out of the proposed return of the Federal budget to 20% of the economy as opposed to 24% to which Obama has inflated it. Imagine if this figure were reduced even further: freeing the economy from the shackles of the heavy hand of government would result in years of prosperity and full employment.

I've been sick and rather busy lately, but if I'm not mistaken Ryan's budget does not cut military spending, does it?

It simply does not go far enough.

I would agree with Stephanie on this one Jimmy. While I favor a strong national defense, it is the primary reason the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, we are spending far too much money nation building in area's we have no business being.

Before we can reverse our decline, we must get off the same path to destruction that Rome and Greece rode to 3rd world status.

True that. Why do we build bridges overseas when we need new ones here? I think nation building in particular is a bad honking idea.

I like that budget cutting has been declared "good"--that is indeed a rhetorical victory, which these days is probably as good or better than an immediate actual one.

I was watching a piece on Clinton yesterday and the point was made that while Clinton did indeed play a role in shutting down the budget, he at least offered up his version of cuts so he was excused in much of the blame for both 95 and 96.

That's the one thing that Obama has not done. Had he came out and offered up a budget that eliminated 40 billion in spending on defense and other area's near and dear to conservatives, he could have least shown some leadership. As it is, he caved and as usual shown no leadership. If Republicans will run a candidate who will champion spending cuts not insist on pushing their moral agenda, I do believe the Mr. Obama will be a one term President.

What they cannot do is run someone who is so far right that they turn off the independent voters or the President will get his 2nd term. The thing si, if Republicans could gain control of the Senate while maintaining the House, that might not be such a bad trade off.

I don't know about defense but I agree it should be on the table. I saw a criticism this morning from an anonymous commenter that Ryan's proposal does nothing to reduce the deficit. I was under the impression in did although I do not believe it is in balance...

I was under the impression in did although I do not believe it is in balance..

In the "grand scheme of things" it really doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

The partisan "mimickers" will now be claiming "It doesn't reduce the deficit" ....... and there is no way to shut them up or convince them otherwise.