s/o Gov't budget stuff question

[DragonFaerie]

I do not remotely pretend to understand our government or why they do the things they do. I do, however, have a question. I know the national budget is a mess and we owe tons of money. So why does the government go straight to making cuts that so deeply affect the American people? Why in the world don't we cut foreign aid and overseas spending first? I don't understand. It seems like a no-brainer to me that we should stop sending money to all these other countries until we can fix our problems at home. Do I just not understand the complexities of it?

[Mama Geek]

It is political, they want to get people the most upset so that they will beg for more spending and raising taxes.

[Crafty Mathy Mom]

Short answer: they want the cuts to be as visible as possible.

[DragonFaerie]

But why?

How much do you think the foreign aid budget is?

[DragonFaerie]

I have no idea, but there has to be something we can get rid of, isn't there?

[Arcadia]

blunt answer: it is all an opera show to get themselves re-elected by blaming someone else.

And I am tired of the scare tactics. Crying wolf too many times is so boring.

 

"Mr Kerry said the US would provide direct support to rebel forces in the form of medical and food supplies.

He also promised an additional $60m (£40m) in aid to the opposition to help it deliver basic governance and other services in rebel-controlled areas." (BBC, 28th Feb,2013, bolded mine)

[Mommyof4ks]

This is such a huge, complicated topic. There is NATO and our obligations as part of that, we need to make nice with other countries because they let us borrow money when we need it and promise not to bother us, other countries have resources we want, so we make nice with them. Of course I will get a slap on the wrist for my thoughts regarding cutting the pay of those who work hard daily in this country vs the opposite, so I will keep those to myself. :)

[Arcadia]

How much do you think the foreign aid budget is?

 

 

Unlikely that this is the full amount but this is what I can find

 

"This year, the Department of State and USAID budget request totals $51.6 billion." http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/183755.pdf

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

My beef is that there was no concern for the debt when we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. We did not rescind the tax cuts enacted under President Bush when we went to war and now it seems that some want to pay for the war and tax cuts by gutting social security and medicare. There was no concern about the 4 trillion in bills we were racking up for the war as well as other debt during President Bush's presidency. I think the cuts should definitely be balanced with tax increase especially since our tax levels are not even at where they where under President Clinton.

 

Unlikely that this is the full amount but this is what I can find

 

"This year, the Department of State and USAID budget request totals $51.6 billion." http://www.state.gov...tion/183755.pdf

 

 

OK, that's a start. That's all the economic aid, and doesn't count the military aid, but let's use that number as a much better than "I have no idea".

 

Now, how much is the annual US budget deficit?

How much is the US debt?

How much is the sequester cutting?

[Amira]

The sequester is $85 billion in cuts.

[Arcadia]

OK, that's a start. That's all the economic aid, and doesn't count the military aid, but let's use that number as a much better than "I have no idea".

 

Now, how much is the annual US budget deficit?

How much is the US debt?

How much is the sequester cutting?

 

US Debt = $16,687,289,180,215.37 http://www.treasuryd...?application=np

[Amira]

International affairs funding (Department of State, USAID, and a few other things) makes up about 1.5% of the annual budget. And that funding includes a lot more than money given to other governments or international programs. Defense spending is ten times that.

[Lisa in Jax]

The sequester is $85 billion in cuts.

 

 

"Cuts," or decreases in planned increases?

[Amira]

 

 

"Cuts," or decreases in planned increases?

 

I don't know the answer to all of that, but I know that civilian DoD employees are expecting a 20% pay cut for the rest of the fiscal year because of furloughs, and they're replacing very few employees who leave or retire. DoS is hiring 1 person for every 2 people who quit or retire. That sounds like cuts to me. My budget certainly thinks so.

[Paige]

"Cuts," or decreases in planned increases?

 

On a whole, it adds up to a decrease in planned increase, but a lot of things being cut are not things that were increasing and so the effect is a real cut to them. The people who are getting pay cuts weren't going to see a 20% increase and end up getting the same as they got last year. They are getting a real decrease in pay compared to last year.

 

So, say I had a budget of $100 for my 4 kids' allowances last year. (I don't). Each kid got $25. I had planned on giving everyone a $10 increase, but I end up having to cut $20 out of my planned budget. My expenditures for the year will still exceed last year- $120 vs $140, but instead of giving everyone a $5 raise, I decide to give 3 kids the extra 10 as planned and one kid will only get $15 this year.

 

That's why it is going to hurt. It's not as simple as a reduction in planned increases. These cuts were targeted to hurt and are not completely discretionary which would have allowed people in charge to minimize the impact.

[*Michelle*]

This is having a $3500 monthly budget, cutting out $85, and deciding to take it all out of your grocery money. General incompetence at its finest.

[Dandelion]

So why does the government go straight to making cuts that so deeply affect the American people? Why in the world don't we cut foreign aid and overseas spending first?

 

Sequestration was essentially a *negotiation tool*. The following paragraph from this Atlantic article sums it up well:

 

"Sequestration -- automatic cuts to defense and discretionary spending -- was to be the punishment if the supercommittee could not come up with a plan. The cuts were designed to be as clumsy and inflexible as possible, in order to motivate lawmakers to come up with a better approach. That's why agency heads have very little discretion on which programs are hit by the cuts: They were designed to inflict maximum suffering on both parties' priorities, with little wiggle room to mitigate the pain. Republicans would be motivated to compromise to keep defense spending from being axed, while Democrats would come to the table to protect domestic programs."

 

That's why these cuts don't make sense to the average person. They weren't designed to be meaningful deficit reductions. They were designed as deterrents - hitting each political party where it hurts them the most with their constituents and political base. It's political posturing at its most absurd.

 

The cuts resulting from sequestration barely make a dent in our national debt. Per the Treasury Department's website, the U.S. national debt as of yesterday was almost $16.7 trillion. Sequestration will cut $1.2 trillion total, evenly divided over the course of the next 9 years (2013-2021). But according to the White House's own budget projections, our deficits are projected to be close to $1 trillion every year for the next 4 years (the currently released budget projections go through 2017). And sequestration only addresses very specific expenditures - it does nothing to curb expenditures outside of the specific defense and discretionary budgets it affects.

 

Unless we have comprehensive budget reform, it seems very likely that this whole sequestration exercise isn't going to make any real difference as the cuts each year will just be swallowed up by the continuing massive annual deficits.

 

And in the meantime, thousands of people's lives will be impacted for the worse. :cursing:

[BakersDozen]

nm...

[Parrothead]

 

 

Sequestration was essentially a *negotiation tool*. The following paragraph from this Atlantic article sums it up well:

 

"Sequestration -- automatic cuts to defense and discretionary spending -- was to be the punishment if the supercommittee could not come up with a plan. The cuts were designed to be as clumsy and inflexible as possible, in order to motivate lawmakers to come up with a better approach. That's why agency heads have very little discretion on which programs are hit by the cuts: They were designed to inflict maximum suffering on both parties' priorities, with little wiggle room to mitigate the pain. Republicans would be motivated to compromise to keep defense spending from being axed, while Democrats would come to the table to protect domestic programs."

 

That's why these cuts don't make sense to the average person. They weren't designed to be meaningful deficit reductions. They were designed as deterrents - hitting each political party where it hurts them the most with their constituents and political base. It's political posturing at its most absurd.

 

The cuts resulting from sequestration barely make a dent in our national debt. Per the Treasury Department's website, the U.S. national debt as of yesterday was almost $16.7 trillion. Sequestration will cut $1.2 trillion total, evenly divided over the course of the next 9 years (2013-2021). But according to the White House's own budget projections, our deficit is projected to increase by close to $1 trillion every year for the next 4 years (the currently released budget projections go through 2017). And sequestration only addresses very specific expenditures - it does nothing to curb expenditures outside of the specific defense and discretionary budgets it affects.

 

Unless we have comprehensive budget reform, it seems very likely that this whole sequestration exercise isn't going to make any real difference as the cuts each year will just be swallowed up by the continuing massive annual deficits.

 

And in the meantime, thousands of people's lives will be impacted for the worse. :cursing:

 

dumba$$e$.

 

It has not hurt the politicians or the parties. It has hurt the people. And before it is over it will hurt millions.

 

What needs to be axed it their pay and health care.

 

It is a game to them and they don't care. At all.

[BakersDozen]

dumba$$e$.

 

It has not hurt the politicians or the parties. It has hurt the people. And before it is over it will hurt millions.

 

What needs to be axed it their pay and health care.

 

It is a game to them and they don't care. At all.

LOL! I deleted my post that expressed the exact same thing yet I wasn't sure how to word it just right. You nailed it, though. :)

[molon labe]

gutting social security and medicare.

 

 

According to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Section 255), Social Security benefits are exempt from sequestration. Certain parts of Medicare are also exempt, and Medicare beneficiaries would not see a change in coverage. Hospital and physican services under parts A and B could be cut, but beneficiaries would not have to make up the difference by paying an additional co-pay.

[Arcadia]

 

 

dumba$$e$.

 

It has not hurt the politicians or the parties. It has hurt the people. And before it is over it will hurt millions.

 

What needs to be axed it their pay and health care.

 

It is a game to them and they don't care. At all.

 

I won't be surprise if they pass something by Mar 27 to snowball the budget problem further down the road.

 

Too bad the politicians pay cannot be withheld until a sensible budget is passed. California's controller threatened that for California in 2011. (http://m.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424052702304070104576399973797850288)

[thebacabunch]

It is political, they want to get people the most upset so that they will beg for more spending and raising taxes.

 

 

 

Yes. This is absolutely true. It happened in California. We practically begged for more taxes because furloughing state employees was bleeding businesses dry. No money, no spendy. I doubt they have any intentions of stopping the furloughs.

[QueenCat]

Sequestration was essentially a *negotiation tool*. The following paragraph from this Atlantic article sums it up well:

 

"Sequestration -- automatic cuts to defense and discretionary spending -- was to be the punishment if the supercommittee could not come up with a plan. The cuts were designed to be as clumsy and inflexible as possible, in order to motivate lawmakers to come up with a better approach. That's why agency heads have very little discretion on which programs are hit by the cuts: They were designed to inflict maximum suffering on both parties' priorities, with little wiggle room to mitigate the pain. Republicans would be motivated to compromise to keep defense spending from being axed, while Democrats would come to the table to protect domestic programs."

 

That's why these cuts don't make sense to the average person. They weren't designed to be meaningful deficit reductions. They were designed as deterrents - hitting each political party where it hurts them the most with their constituents and political base. It's political posturing at its most absurd.

 

The cuts resulting from sequestration barely make a dent in our national debt. Per the Treasury Department's website, the U.S. national debt as of yesterday was almost $16.7 trillion. Sequestration will cut $1.2 trillion total, evenly divided over the course of the next 9 years (2013-2021). But according to the White House's own budget projections, our deficits are projected to be close to $1 trillion every year for the next 4 years (the currently released budget projections go through 2017). And sequestration only addresses very specific expenditures - it does nothing to curb expenditures outside of the specific defense and discretionary budgets it affects.

 

Unless we have comprehensive budget reform, it seems very likely that this whole sequestration exercise isn't going to make any real difference as the cuts each year will just be swallowed up by the continuing massive annual deficits.

 

And in the meantime, thousands of people's lives will be impacted for the worse. :cursing:

 

 

This explains the technicalities of what is happening very well....

[thebacabunch]

This will cause pain to more than employees. It will bleed money from the economy like a severed artery. Think of all the businesses that will be losing money. The ripple effect will be enormous. The economy is not going to benefit from this move.

[Pawz4me]

we need to make nice with other countries because they let us borrow money when we need it

 

That's not exactly the way it works. When the U.S. government needs to borrow money it doesn't go to Country X and say "Hey, howzabout helping us out here?" The government, through the Treasury Department, issues Treasury marketable securities. Things like T-bills, bonds (remember good old savings bonds, which I bet many of us have stashed away somewhere?) and other types of securities. Those are available for purchase by just about anybody who happens to believe they're a good investment -- U.S. citizens and businesses, state and local governments and by the people, businesses and governments of other countries.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

According to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Section 255), Social Security benefits are exempt from sequestration. Certain parts of Medicare are also exempt, and Medicare beneficiaries would not see a change in coverage. Hospital and physican services under parts A and B could be cut, but beneficiaries would not have to make up the difference by paying an additional co-pay.

 

I am fully aware of that sequestration does not touch medicare or social security, but some on the right keep saying they want a deal to end sequestration that involves cutting entitlements.

[Runningmom80]

 

 

I won't be surprise if they pass something by Mar 27 to snowball the budget problem further down the road.

 

Too bad the politicians pay cannot be withheld until a sensible budget is passed. California's controller threatened that for California in 2011. (http://m.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424052702304070104576399973797850288)

 

They are doing this, "no budget, no pay" they must have a budget by April 15. Thats the only thing keeping me a little sane about this sequestration. Although its not the same at all to the people being furloughed. these a*s hats will get their money eventually. People who are getting their hours or pay cut wont. :( http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=18294735

[molon labe]

 

but some on the right keep saying they want a deal to end sequestration that involves cutting entitlements.

 

The current spending is unsustainable. Entitlement reform will have to happen at some point, simply raising additional revenue through taxation will not fix the problem. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

[Arcadia]

They are doing this, "no budget, no pay" they must have a budget by April 15. Thats the only thing keeping me a little sane about this sequestration. Although its not the same at all to the people being furloughed. these a*s hats will get their money eventually. People who are getting their hours or pay cut wont. :( http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=18294735

 

 

I read that news when it came out but I am confused by the March 27 and April 15 deadline. What is suppose to be done when?

[DragonFaerie]

Thanks for the explanations, guys. I don't follow politics as much as I probably should because it just doesn't make any sense. It's infuriating and frustrating and I don't understand why the powers that be can't see what's so obvious to everybody else. Or maybe they can and they just don't care, which is even more infuriating and frustrating.

[Dandelion]

Or maybe they can and they just don't care, which is even more infuriating and frustrating.

 

 

That's what is happening here. They're playing massive games of "chicken" with each other. And they're well aware of the stakes, but they're doing it anyway.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The current spending is unsustainable. Entitlement reform will have to happen at some point, simply raising additional revenue through taxation will not fix the problem. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

 

We still have historically low income and capital gain taxes which are still lower than the rates under President Clinton and previous Presidents. As long as we have a deficit problem revenue must be part of the solution as well as cuts. However, cutting social security and medicare is not the answer when there are simple solutions such as raising the the cap on social security taxes and fixing medicare part D by allowing the government to have more bargaining power with prescription drug cost and to raise medicare taxes slightly to actually help fund part D which was unfunded.

[chicagoshannon]

The sequester is $85 billion in cuts.

 

 

Which isn't much.

 

They could have made cuts in other places but they wanted to make it look like it was the other sides fault.

[Annabel Lee]

Which isn't much.

 

They could have made cuts in other places but they wanted to make it look like it was the other sides fault.

 

This brings up a good point. It's easier to conceal things when they're able to keep the public engaged in finger-pointing at the "other side".

[Annabel Lee]

I don't know the answer to all of that, but I know that civilian DoD employees are expecting a 20% pay cut for the rest of the fiscal year because of furloughs, and they're replacing very few employees who leave or retire. DoS is hiring 1 person for every 2 people who quit or retire. That sounds like cuts to me. My budget certainly thinks so.

 

My budget agrees. The pay freeze of the past 4 yrs. has been hard, with inflation ("quantitative easing") and ever-increasing costs. This 20% pay cut has left me speechless. For a family of 5 living on $65,000 (for example), 20% is significant.

[molon labe]

Which isn't much.

 

They could have made cuts in other places but they wanted to make it look like it was the other sides fault.

 

 

There is also one other purpose, IMO. This doomsday scenario only conditions us to be fearful of budget cuts and reinforces the idea that government is the end all be all. If every time a politican proposes a cut or a candidate runs on a platform of reducing the size of government, we'll get reminded of just how awful things get when there isn't "enough" money--prisoners being released from jail, military personnel receiving pink slips, the long, long lines at TSA checkpoints, and on and on. Of course we know that there are many others places that could (and should) be cut.

[molon labe]

We still have historically low income and capital gain taxes which are still lower than the rates under President Clinton and previous Presidents. As long as we have a deficit problem revenue must be part of the solution as well as cuts. However, cutting social security and medicare is not the answer when there are simple solutions such as raising the the cap on social security taxes and fixing medicare part D by allowing the government to have more bargaining power with prescription drug cost and to raise medicare taxes slightly to actually help fund part D which was unfunded.

 

 

We also have lots of people who pay no income taxes at all. How about everybody having to pay taxes? Shouldn't everyone have "skin in the game"? Rather than class warfare why not a fair tax?

[Mrs Mungo]

We also have lots of people who pay no income taxes at all. How about everybody having to pay taxes? Shouldn't everyone have "skin in the game"? Rather than class warfare why not a fair tax?

 

 

Nobody agrees what a fair tax looks like. Or are you talking about the proposed Fair Tax? Here is a good article on that: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

[Mrs Mungo]

We also have lots of people who pay no income taxes at all. How about everybody having to pay taxes?

 

 

By the way, your first statement is true. But, the implication in your question is false. Everybody pays taxes. Not all taxes are income taxes. The working poor *do* pay taxes, just not federal income tax.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/

 

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/may/09/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

[Lisbeth]

Factcheck is an offshoot of Annenberg. Def a biased source.

[Lisbeth]

Politifact has likewise blown so many stories that they should give themselves a "p ants on fire" award and change the name to Politifiction.

[Mrs Mungo]

Factcheck is an offshoot of Annenberg. Def a biased source.

 

 

Are you suggesting that the billionaire Annenbergs with close ties to the Reagans have a left leaning bias? Even Karl Rove has used FactCheck as a source.

[Pawz4me]

Are you suggesting that the billionaire Annenbergs with close ties to the Reagans have a left leaning bias? Even Karl Rove has used FactCheck as a source.

 

 

A couple of years ago I had to educate my uber conservative BIL on who the Annenbergs were/are. Never heard another whimper out of him on that score.

[charcat13]

 

 

Are you suggesting that the billionaire Annenbergs with close ties to the Reagans have a left leaning bias? Even Karl Rove has used FactCheck as a source.

 

 

Some of us on the right don't consider Carl Rove a valid source.

[molon labe]

Some of us on the right don't consider Carl Rove a valid source.

 

 

If I could like your quote a million times I would!

 

I don't know of anyone who is conservative who believes Karl Rove is conservative. I cannot comprehend how anyone hasn't yet figured out that all the Establishment "inside the Beltway" types are all on the same side and their beliefs don't really differ all that much.

[Frances]

We also have lots of people who pay no income taxes at all. How about everybody having to pay taxes? Shouldn't everyone have "skin in the game"? Rather than class warfare why not a fair tax?

 

 

While it's true that not everyone pays federal tax, when you include all types of taxes (state,local,sales,property,etc.) the vast majority of people in this country face a regressive tax system. That is, the poor and middle class pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy. Here's one study done by state:

 

www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

 

I work as a tax economist and have never seen an academic study done that doesn't conclude that overall, in the US, taxes are generally regressive. So if we were to take the current progressive federal income tax system and make it less progressive, then overall, people would face an even more regressive tax structure in this country.

[Mrs Mungo]

Some of us on the right don't consider Carl Rove a valid source.

 

My point was that even some of the most right-leaning (which has an entirely different definiton from conservative, IMO) politicians recognize it as a valid source.