... you thought wrong.
House Republicans and Democrats both have some interesting little tricks in their political bags.
The Republican trick is to propose a "moderate/reasonable" budget-balancing path, then count on all the Democrats to vote against it, so that only a few Republicans have to pretend to jump ship to kill it (after which, they blame the Democrats for its failure to pass).
The Democrat trick is to get most Democrats to just vote "present," in the hope that the Republicans will pass said "moderate/reasonable" budget-balancing path (which Democrats consider "extreme"), after which it will die in the Senate or under the president's veto stamp (and the Democrats will campaign on how "extreme" Republicans are).
This time, both plans backfired.
The Republican Study Committee proposed a "moderate/reasonable" bill to balance the budget in four years. That's four years longer than it should take, of course, but a lot less time than other plans (Paul Ryan's budget supposedly balances in ten years, and none of the Democratic plans balance at all, ever, period).
Most Democrats voted "present" in hopes of forcing the Republicans to pass the "moderate/reasonable" -- er, "extreme" -- bill. That didn't work; the bill didn't pass.
The Republicans, not having enough cover from Democrats to blame them for killing it, decided they'd rather kill it themselves than risk the slim possibility that it might ever get through the Senate and past the president.
104 Republicans voted to balance the budget in four years. 118 Republicans voted not to. QED, at least 53% of Republican US Representatives oppose balancing the budget any time in the near future, so much so that even if they can't shift the blame for not balancing the budget onto the Democrats, they'll still vote against balancing the budget.
And that 53% is a best-case scenario -- some who voted for the bill may have actually opposed it, but knew that it could be killed without a nay vote their constituents might notice.
Even counting the Democrats who did vote, only 15 more Republican votes would have passed the bill.
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Today's Inquiry into English Usage and Basic Mathematics ...
This one's from the New York Times ...
... but you can probably find it in just about any newspaper article discussing the upcoming "budget cuts."
So, just how deep are these horrendous, army-killing cuts?
Well, if "sequestration" goes as forecast, the federal government's non-war military spending will only increase by 10% instead of by 18% between 2013 and 2021.
No, that is not a typo. The "cuts" are not cuts in actual spending, they're cuts in the previously projected growth rate of that spending.
Most federal government spending proceeds on rails due to something called "baseline budgeting." The "baseline" is the previous year's spending. Under "baseline budgeting," that previous year's "baseline," plus an increase based on a formula, happens automatically unless Congress decides to tinker with it.
This "sequestration" thing -- triggered by Congress's inability to agree on "deficit reduction" targets last year -- imposes across-the-board reductions in that rate of automatic growth of spending, not in spending as such.
Neat trick, huh? Your congressman can brag to you that he's cutting spending at this morning's town hall, then -- this afternoon, over cognac and cigars -- brag to your local defense contractor or other corporate welfarist that he's increasing that same spending.
Hint: He's lying to one of you. And it's not the guy pouring the cognac and lighting the cigars.
And as the Pentagon confronts the prospect of cutting its budget by about 10 percent over the next decade ...
... but you can probably find it in just about any newspaper article discussing the upcoming "budget cuts."
So, just how deep are these horrendous, army-killing cuts?
Well, if "sequestration" goes as forecast, the federal government's non-war military spending will only increase by 10% instead of by 18% between 2013 and 2021.
No, that is not a typo. The "cuts" are not cuts in actual spending, they're cuts in the previously projected growth rate of that spending.
Most federal government spending proceeds on rails due to something called "baseline budgeting." The "baseline" is the previous year's spending. Under "baseline budgeting," that previous year's "baseline," plus an increase based on a formula, happens automatically unless Congress decides to tinker with it.
This "sequestration" thing -- triggered by Congress's inability to agree on "deficit reduction" targets last year -- imposes across-the-board reductions in that rate of automatic growth of spending, not in spending as such.
Neat trick, huh? Your congressman can brag to you that he's cutting spending at this morning's town hall, then -- this afternoon, over cognac and cigars -- brag to your local defense contractor or other corporate welfarist that he's increasing that same spending.
Hint: He's lying to one of you. And it's not the guy pouring the cognac and lighting the cigars.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Congressional pay: A modest proposal
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
I've been kicking around a constitutional amendment proposal for many years. I drag it out now and again and tweak it a little. Not that it's important, since it would have to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and that's never going to happen. Anyway, here it is.
Members of Congress are getting a 2.5 percent pay raise this year, according to Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register. Lawmakers will receive salaries of $169,300, a boost of $4,100. Their last raise was in January 2006.
I've been kicking around a constitutional amendment proposal for many years. I drag it out now and again and tweak it a little. Not that it's important, since it would have to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and that's never going to happen. Anyway, here it is.
Section 1. The salary of members of the Senate and House of Representatives, prior to the taking of any federal taxes, shall henceforth be fixed for each each year in the amount of the average per capita income of citizens of the United States for the prior year, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less the average of total per capita federal taxes charged against said average income.
Section 2. No additional allowances or reimbursements shall be made for personal living expenses beyond the salary set pursuant to this article; however, military barracks space of the variety and in the per-person space allotment used for light infantry enlisted personnel, convenient to and within walking distance of Congress's meeting place, shall be set aside and maintained to accomodate such members as may decline to procure lodging in the capital at their own expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)