Read Us Your Way
Track all the latest updates via RSS, Twitter or Facebook. Or get a daily digest of posts delivered straight to your inbox -- just sign up using the form below.
Contact Us
Got a comment or question? Contact us via Twitter at @thebudgetguy or @CGandG.
RSS Feed
Recent comments
Advertising
Order from Amazon
Copyright
The content of CapitalGainsandGames.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Need permissions beyond the scope of this license? Please submit a request here.
You should not submit yet another deficit reduction plan that absolutely is destined to fail. Nice presentation man, appreciate it. Carry on
I'm not sure that I'd characterize flyers as an elite. Now FREQUENT flyers probably are and since they fly frequently, they constitute a disproportionate percentage of passengers. But in the post airline deregulation world, I'd guess that a majority of American adults have taken a plane trip sometime. And a pretty large percentage fly at least every other year. I suspect a larger percentage than have put their children in head start, or received meals-on-wheels. So even if those most effected are elites, a large percentage of the population imagines themselves to be at least potentially affected, unlike some other programs.
The austerians have been most successful at pitching social security cuts by persuading many young people of the inevitability of it's dissolution, the "SS won't be around when I'll retire," meme. This despite the fact that NONE of the projections have SS unable to pay out less than ~75% of the benefits currently promised, even with an exhausted "trust fund."
The NIH budget is selfishly near and dear to my own heart, since the vast majority of my lab's budget is supported by NIH grants. I assume that the universities and medical schools that receive NIH grants are lobbying like mad to get the NIH budget sequestration reversed.
Stan,
Good points for sure. I am troubled that the decision makers are going to punish our school children, particularly those district that rely heavily on Title VIII(Impact Aid) money. These students do not have the financial clout that many of the business travelers do, nor do these student impact the travel plans of many of our fine Congressional members. It is frustrating for many of us in Federally Impacted School Districts to see money going to foreign countries, most of whom despise us, when these monies could be used to pay the Fed's property tax bill. How many of you would like to do the same thing with your county auditor or treasurer?
It is a pity that the budget cuts will negatively affect the future of this country. It will be both interesting and very frustrating to see how this develops.
John
P.S. For those who read this response and think Impact Aid is a supplemental fund for districts with federal lands, please let me set you straight. The Title VIII program was enacted by Congress when Harry Truman was President. The program supplants, or replaces, lost property tax revenue due to these federal lands. Many of these school districts cannot make up the lost revenue, either by raising property taxes on those who are regular property owners or via cuts, whether those be the elimination of staff or programs.
Following up on my comment, "Per-Student Pre-K Spending Lowest in Decade" http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/29/per-student-pre-k-spending-lowest-i...
Education is a major concern. The best off are immune to changes in public funding, the middle class is not. What has the political system done?
My takeaway is your initial point - flyers are an elite group with a large megaphone.
There have been numerous stories about cuts to public housing, head start and cancer drugs, all of which are very negative for the people affected, yet nothing gets done.
Inconvenience to flyers - immediate action.
There is a lot of political science research that finds the political process very responsive to the best off, somewhat responsive to the middle class and not responsive to the poor. The FAA situation seems just another example.
lets face it. the only reason the clowns in congress found the funds to keep controllers at full compliment is because this was causing our reps delays in getting home. I am glad that all controllers are back in the towers but again we know why this came about. our leaders care nothing about the American people. that is unless you are the top 1 percent. our leaders are pathetic-both parties.
As a small business owner I would much prefer to be influenced by other local business owners to improve our collective business environment then to be consistently taxed by a large federal government that has enough power to dramatically change my lot in life based on their last whim.
For many reasons, Congress makes it illegal for the federal government to accept free services from firms. The Antideficiency Act forbids "accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342." http://www.gao.gov/legal/lawresources/antideficiencybackground.html
A question that immediately comes to mind is how the $170,000 was split among the businesses. How was it determined who would pay how much? Was that process better than the process we now have for determining tax rates?
We ought to keep in mind that at the core of "drown government in the bathtub" thinking is that, by driving government services down, fewer voters will feel they benefit from government, so fewer will be willing to support taxes. It was never expected that a persistent, honest anti-tax argument would win the day. The anti-tax types know full well that government programs with any significant impact on the overall budget are extremely popular. The goal is to screw up popular programs so that they lose support, which makes cutting taxes easier. Ending public snow removal is exactly the sort of thing that Gover has always pushed.
Exactly my thought. And I don't know why business owners, unless they are also tax-debaters, would think "this is a tax increase" when they are paying for a service that government failed to provide. If it were me, I'd think "this is a failure of government service, and it's costing me a bundle."
While the underlying point is a good one, I'm afraid Stan has strained his metaphor quite a bit.
Indeed, you could argue that this is a "market solution," even if the recipient of the money is a government agency. And, you could argue it's more efficient, since the businesses have (presumably) done the calculation: how much is it worth to us (collectively) to make sure the park is open? Apparently, at least $170,000. Which suggests that having the government pay for plowing is effectively a form of subsidy to those businesses--we pay, they profit.
You say that GOP complaints about the sequester are (1) completely disingenuous, (2) incredibly naive, or (3) totally uninformed. But there's a fourth possibility: Completely malicious. That's where I put my money.
I don't know Grover, but I imagine he would be happy with this result. The business owners who receive the benefit are paying the cost. There is no state subsidy. Business owners/citizens who don't receive the benefit aren't paying the cost.
If you get beneath the service the stupidity of saying that the administration could have done anything different becomes even clearer. To begin with, while we're talking about a 5.1% cut on an annual basis, the date that the sequester became effective, together with the 30-day notice required for any furlough requires that the cut be spread over only 6 months. This means that the effective cut is over 10%. Second, there are a lot of agency expenditures that cannot be cut: rent on rented office space, health insurance and other employee benefits, etc. So, when you take those off the table, the cuts that have to be made to the remaining, variable accounts are even bigger. Then, when you consider that 15,000 of the 40,000 FAA employees are air traffic controllers, the idea that FAA could exempt them from furloughs becomes even more implausible, because it would mean nearly doubling the furlough days for all the other employees (including the thousands of safety inspectors).
Seriously, the 'sequester' was not manufactured by either party, but was chosen by both as too heinous an outcome to actually allow such that the parties would surely negotiate a solution. Well, THAT didn't happen. If you want it to be Obama who manufactured it, then you have to assume he negotiated in bad faith and the absolute anti-tax orthodoxy of the other side had nothing to do with it. Of course, this IS pretty clearly what you believe, so then your statement is true, to you. Objectively, not so much...
A.C., this is nonsense. It was agreed by both parties when their negotiation was at an impasse, on the belief that sequestration would prove so unpalatable that it would force an agreement. Obama hoped that this would be a "grand bargain" to restore certainty and allow a pivot to other issues. And please, don't forget why the negotiations were at an impasse: because the House R's said they would not raise the debt ceiling until they had spending cuts equal to 100 percent of the rise. 100 percent. A 10 to 1 ratio of spending to revenues (as all the R prez candidates agreed at their debate) was not acceptable. 100 percent. So stop blaming the President, start blaming the people who threatened to burn down the house with all of us still in it.
It's completely disingenuous to put the sequester on Obama. There is one party that was totally dedicated to the idea of massive cuts. That party would rather shut down the government than come to a true meeting in the middle on spending and revenue as they've proved time and again. They forced this sequester on us by their sudden obsession (notice they never seem to be concerned with a deficit when they control the White House and we only get into shut down mode when a Democrat holds that post) with bringing down the budget deficit. That wasn't an Obama creation.....the hilarity of so called conservatives who bash the mans spending to turn around and try to pin the blame of the sequester on him is rare even in our current political climate. How can you determine that one man is both the biggest out of control spender in our history and then turn around and blame brutal government cutbacks on him? That's astounding.
I have plenty of issues with our President and his handling of our economy, but only a partisan hack who refused to look at facts can put the sequester on the left. They never would have come down this road of spending cuts if not for massive GOP/Tea Party obstructionism of any deal that would avoid it. They never even would consider cutting this kind of spending on their own. To pin it on them is a full fledged deceit based on nothing other than party and politics over common sense.
We'll never get any better off if we can't have honest conversations about what's going on instead of twisting logic and reason to fit our political narratives.
Pop quiz to the commenter above
1. The sequester was presented and approved by Congress as an alternative to what? Which would have resulted in what?
Maybe for you FORGETFUL is a fourth option, although I personally think the first one fully covers it.
... why would that be relevant? Those who want austerity have no right to complain when austerity hits their pet programs. You got what you wanted, now grow up and quit your whining.
In fact, there is no conspiracy. Everybody knew, or should have known, that the cuts were across the board. If you can't grasp the meaning of across the board, you must be stupid. Again, grow up and quit your whining.
You have done a great job of describing the problem The fact that the same people who preach austerity are the same ones who now want exceptions. Be careful what you wish for business travelers
Stan you as well seem completely disingenuous, incredibly naive or totally uninformed
One could well say that this is an Obama manufactured crisis starting with him presenting the sequester back in the not to distant past!
I am getting old and I am not sure if the following quote is attributed to Ben Franklin:
All are born stupid but one has to work really hard to stay stupid
We are living in a shameless world where blood flows like normal water. Here the capitalists countries can do anything for money and power.
Bowles and Simpson are an endless, unfunny, nasty joke. Unfortunately, with the reverence paid them by the Very Serious People and the sequester, the joke's on the American people.