StanCollender'sCapitalGainsandGames Washington, Wall Street and Everything in Between



deficit politics

Posted by Stan Collender

Question 6 of this latest poll from Ipsos Public Affairs tells you all you need to know: No matter which political party the respondents identify with, there's no majority for cutting any of the major areas of federal spending among these registered voters. In fact, there wasn't even a majority for cutting the generic "other."

Q.6. As you may know, the US federal budget has a significant deficit. Here are the main view, which of the following areas can we afford to cut back on? (Select all that apply)

All voters/Democrats/Republicans/Independents

Posted by Stan Collender

The ever-vigilant CG&G alum Bruce Bartlett sent this poll done for the National Treasury Employees Union that demonstrates yet again why cutting federal spending is always...and always will be..so politically difficult. The NTEU poll shows:

69 percent of respondents believe the federal government should commit more resources and manpower to food safety.
• 72 percent believe the federal government should commit more resources and manpower to border security.
• 86 percent believe the federal government should commit more resources and manpower to veterans’ assistance.
• 66 percent believe the federal government should commit more resources and manpower to ensuring the safety of medical devices.
• 58 percent believe the federal government should commit more resources and manpower to nuclear safety.

Posted by Stan Collender

According to this Roll Call story by Kate Ackley, a substantial, bipartisan majority of voters want more taxpayer money spent on medical research. The money quote is from pollster John Zogby:

“In this poll, what I’m struck by are what I call border crossings,” he said. Democrats, Republicans and those in agreement with the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street found broad areas of agreement on medical research funding by the government, he said.

 

Posted by Stan Collender

It was just three weeks ago that I said in a post:

This has to be said as directly as possible...If you care about the federal deficit and national debt, Romney isn't your guy.

That's even more true now that Romney has selected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to be his vice president running mate.

Don't take my word for it.

Matt Miller is a straight down the middle analyst and columnist; a Democrat who left OMB during the Clinton administration because he didn't think it was serious enough about the budget.

So, as he did on Sunday, when Matt writes an online column in The Washington Post saying that, contrary to the GOP spin, Ryan isn't a real fiscal conservative, you have to take it seriously.

Here's the money quote from Matt's piece:

Posted by Stan Collender

The question I've been getting most often since House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sort of announced an agreement on a six-month continuing resolution for fiscal 2013 is whether that CR can be used to stop the sequester from occurring on January 2.

The answer is yes, and it's happened before.

First, some quick background for anyone who isn't a complete budget process geek and doesn't repeat this hourly.

1. The sequester is the across-the-board spending cut that was triggered when the anything-but-super committee failed to come up with a deficit reduction plan last November.

2. The sequester will occur on January 2, 2013, unless Congress and the president legislatively agree to a change in the Budget Control Act, the law that created the anything-but-super committee and the fall back automatic spending cut if it failed.



Recent comments


Advertising


Order from Amazon


Copyright

Creative Commons LicenseThe 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.