Tag: Deficit reduction in the United States

The Farm Follies Continue

The latest CBO report shows that the FY2013 deficit will come in at around $642 billion, a dramatic reduction. Naturally, the usual suspects are calling for more “stimulus” spending now that the deficit problem is “solved”. But they should read some critical points raised by Peter Suderman. The “small” deficit is a result of tax hikes, spending cuts and about $200 billion in one-time revenues (Fannie/Freddie dividends and tax adjustments). The “small” deficit will only last a few years before entitlements and Obamacare began to raise it again even under optimistic budget scenarios. And even under optimistic scenarios, interest payments will reach historic highs.

(As an aside: what’s really hilarious is to watch the Left scramble to explain why “austerity” hasn’t crashed the economy. Most of them are simply going the Krugmann route and ignoring everything they’ve been saying for the last five years.)

So now is not the time to open the spending or tax cut floodgates. Now is the time to keep to build on the budget momentum and reign in entitlements. Now is the time to … oh, shit:

House and Senate farm subsidy supporters are pushing to enact the first big farm bill since 2008. Democratic and Republican supporters say that this year’s legislation will be a reform bill that cuts spending. Hogwash.

Last year, House farm subsidy supporters proposed a bill that would spend $950 billion over the next 10 years, while the Senate proposed a bill that would spend $963 billion. By contrast, when the 2008 farm bill passed, it was projected to spend $640 billion over 10 years. Thus, the proposed House bill would represent a 48 percent spending increase over the last farm bill, while the Senate bill would represent a 50 percent increase.

Congress is bizarrely claiming that they have “cut” the farm bill because it’s 3% less than the original proposal. But not only is this their usual “cut spending growth” trick, it runs into the problem that the farm bill is usually much larger than originally budgeted. Next year’s farm bill be almost 50% more than originally proposed.

The spending “discipline” of the last two years is already eroding in the face of temporary unsustainable deficit reduction. And even worse, it’s opening on one of the many places it shouldn’t: the massive pile of corporate welfare euphemistically called the “farm bill”. Now is not the time to be shoveling more money into this hole. Now is the time to follow the advice P.J. O’Rourke gave twenty years ago: “drag the Omnibus Farm Bill out behind the barn and kill it with an axe.”

Fiscal discipline – donkey style.

And like the famous “donkey punch” sex maneuver, it is unpleasant for the recipient. Don’t get fooled by this bullshit NYT propaganda piece and the ludicrous claim that the fucking marxist nanny stater’s budget are doing any sort of cuts. It is all smoke and mirrors. This bullshit piece starts off with the ludicrous statement:

WASHINGTON — President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say.

In a significant shift in fiscal strategy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the usual presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on arrival. Instead it will embody the final compromise offer that he made to Speaker John A. Boehner late last year, before Mr. Boehner abandoned negotiations in opposition to the president’s demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals and some corporations.

I have never seen this many lies and half-truths, packed together, and presented as facts, in a long time.

Let’s look at that claim he is proposing cuts in Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that Social Security & Medicare spending is going to grow under these faux cuts, and the claim is ludicrous and deceptive as usual. From the article:

Several programs, notably Social Security, which the White House said would be “cut” under President Obama’s fiscal 2014 budget which he’s finally unveiling next week would actually grow at close to the currently projected rates, according to experts.

Instead of the “cuts” heralded in headlines today, the president’s budget writers are seizing on a formula that simply tweaks the rate of growth. While it could still significantly reduce the projected 10-year budget deficit, it won’t cut anything from what seniors, veterans, students and others who rely on the programs get.

In fact, one Senate analysis reveals that the Obama “cut” will lower slightly the growth of Social Security benefits over the next 10 years to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent.

Ditto for reports on the “cuts” to Medicare. The plan is to reduce future payments in the program to doctors and hospitals, though wealthier recipients might see higher premiums.

I am tired of collectivist scumbags raising the growth rate on their pet socio-engineering wealth redistribution schemes, to ridiculous numbers, then rolling them back by a fraction, and having the LSM claim they are cutting spending. It’s not just deceptive; it is disgusting. A 0.2% reduction in projected spending increases amounts to more spending, and more spending of money we don’t have so leftists can buy votes, period! It is all accounting gimmicks, designed to fool low information & attention voters, to pretend that the left actually wants to do anything other than the usual tax & spend wealth redistribution scams they rely on to buy votes.

Just in case you are going to be stupid enough to argue that the progressive’s fiscal policy isn’t centered around creating more government dependency, let me point you at this article on how high the disability rolls have climbed to under Team Blue’s fiscal policy of the last 5 years and this post at Zero-hedge about how bad the real employment statistics are in the US. It’s not accidental that their economic policies are based on creating as many people dependent on government as possible, because those people know whom to vote for, while justifying wealth redistribution through confiscatory taxation, targeted at those people they have a beef with primarily, schemes. It’s the formula for power retention. And it is why nothing they do will ever fix the economic disaster we are in right now. It doesn’t serve their purpose to have a good economy, and when they tell you they want that, they are outright lying. If you can get by the bullshit in this Reuters article that claims the problem is Washington’s austerity, you will find a nugget of truth: the tax hikes the donkeys passed in the last go around, and the additional tax hikes they want now, have caused the slow growth. And what this new budget has plenty off, according to the NYT article above, is more taxation:

Congressional Republicans have dug in against any new tax revenues after higher taxes for the affluent were approved at the start of the year. The administration’s hope is to create cracks in Republicans’ antitax resistance, especially in the Senate, as constituents complain about the across-the-board cuts in military and domestic programs that took effect March 1.

Mr. Obama’s proposed deficit reduction would replace those cuts. And if Republicans continue to resist the president, the White House believes that most Americans will blame them for the fiscal paralysis.

Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama’s left, and they have already mobilized in opposition.

As I pointed out, the game for the donkeys isn’t about fixing the economy: it’s about increasing dependency on them and thus their power. And as you can see from the NYT article, the bad people are those that don’t want to allow the productive to be fleeced even harder, and not the crooks robbing Peter to buy Paul’s vote with some wealth redistribution scheme. These leftists do play a mean game though. And they will tell any damned lie they believe the idiots will gobble up. After all, the LSM isn’t going to call them on it. Heck, they carry water for these crooks.

Here are the facts: the new Obama budget cuts nothing and wants to steal even more productive. It is more of the same idiotic shit that have kept this recession going for 5 years now, with no end in sight, packaged as fiscal discipline, and only intended to fool the stupid sheep. This is not going to end well, and it will come as a surprise to so many when it does too. We are so screwed. Fuck I hate collectivists.

The State of the Campaign

Here’s the thing that struck me as I read Obama’s State of the Union address: very little of this is going to happen. There is no way he will get even 10% of his agenda through a Republican House. Most of it would not even go through a Democratic House. This read less like a SOTU speech and more like a rally for liberals.

That would be fine except that … there are some things that kind of need to happen. Entitlements need to be reigned in. Our tax and regulatory structure are desperate for an overhaul. We need to cut spending and in a smarter way than the sequester does. So, in the end, this is fiddling while Rome burns. Or, more accurately, making MSNBC fawn over themselves while the country stumbles and bumbles.

Let’s go through a few talking points.

Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion – mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.

Technically, this is true. In reality, almost all of these “cuts” are in future budgets, not current ones. Spending has been flat over the last couple of years (after the 2009 runup) and it is now likely our deficit will fall under $1 trillion this year. If we can maintain that semi-discipline, the deficit will be a little less disastrous. But that budget control has come over the frothing opposition of the President’s party and every liberal commentator out there. And it’s still more like a few hundred billion, at most. You can’t really claim budget cuts that haven’t happened yet, especially when the rest of your agenda amounts to MOAR SPENDING!

Obama comes out against the sequester, which is indeed a crude and likely destructive tool compared to more targeted cuts (of course, he happily ignores his role in creating the sequester). It also doesn’t address, as he notes, entitlements. Oh, but on that subject:

On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs. The reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep – but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.

Let’s get this straight: Obama’s healthcare reforms have not slowed the cost of healthcare costs. That slowing began before Obamacare was passed and was likely related to the Great Recession. Furthermore, his healthcare reforms have completely screwed young people, saving money by restricting what insurance companies can charge older people and therefore jacking up insurance rates on young people. (Yeah, how do you feel about voting for Obama by 24 points now, young people?)

He then talks about tax reform. But unless the mortgage interest deduction is on the table, such talk in unserious. That is not only one of the largest deductions (and one that heavily benefits the wealthy; for most middle class people, the mortgage interest deduction is less than their standard deduction), the unwillingness to challenge it is a sign of fecklessness. If you’re not willing to at least have it one the table at some point, you’re not serious about tax reform. Obama isn’t.

Obama then pivots to the economy for about the eighth time this week.

After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.

Almost all of those jobs were created by 2012. It’s nice they are coming back. But that has nothing to do with government policy and everything to do with smart business. Many businesses have realized that outsourcing wasn’t such a hot idea. They are bringing back some of their manufacturing. But most of it will remain overseas. And those trends have nothing to do with Obama’s policies.

Obama then talks up science and technology — fair enough. But then we get this whopper:

We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.

Good Lord, there’s a lot of BS in here. First of all, we have not doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas. That’s a goal in the law, but it is not reality. We encounter this over and over with Obama. He thinks that just passing a law calling for something to be done is the same as actually doing it. He fundamentally believes that law has the ability to change reality, alter the laws of physics and create the future. So, in his mind, we have doubled the mileage of cars. We passed a law, didn’t we? So.. done! QED. It’s the same logic by which he claims we have cut spending by $2.5 trillion because we passed a law calling on future Congresses to do so.

Second, jobs are being created in renewables but government investment is hurting that trend by funneling money to politically connected dead ends. Third, production of oil and gas have boomed over liberal protestations. Fourth, energy bills are not down (even with subsidies, renewables cost more per kwH than fossil fuels). And fifth, our emissions are down, in large part, because we have moved energy production from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas. None of this, none of it, is because of Obama’s policies. It is all because of innovation in the private sector.

He then talks of supporting McCain’s cap-and-trade scheme — the one that would put strings in every corner of industry and create hundreds of billions in federal slush funds. He propose that revenues from energy sources on federal lands go to an “Energy Security Trust” — another slush fund. This is the same stuff he has rolled out every year and it has gone nowhere.

America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair. Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire: a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and internet; high-tech schools and self-healing power grids.

Tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children.

I’ve gone over the massively overstated case that our infrastructure is crumbling (such statements come from groups that lobby for more infrastructure spending). The Partnership to Rebuild America sounds very iffy. I’d much rather see privatization.

After talking about re-inflating the housing bubble, he turns to Universal Union Employment, er, Pre-K:

Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.

Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America.

I have taken on this subject before. There is no evidence that universal pre-K — yes, even in Oklahoma and Georgia — does anything. In fact, American kids start school performing quite well compared to international peers. But the longer they are in the public system, the more their performance decays. There is simply no good case to be made — other than wishful thinking and good feelings — that a lack of universal pre-K is the biggest problem with our education system. There’s frankly not a lot of evidence that it’s a problem at all. The logic amounts to “other countries have universal pre-K (even though many don’t) and other countries have better educational performance, therefore …” That ain’t logic. That’s rationalizing millions more union jobs.

Sandwiched in between Obama’s bullshit about pre-K and bullshit about college education is a not so bad idea:

Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering.

We need to give every American student opportunities like this. Four years ago, we started Race to the Top – a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.

This is, in fact, something that Bobby Jindal has been pushing in Louisiana. Most people do not need a college education to get a good job that matches their skills. A better high school education — focused more on skills than abstraction — could obviate the need for crushing student debt and bloated universities.

Oh, about that higher education. Obama claims to have brought down costs (he hasn’t) and proposes that student loans be more conditional on education utility rather than just being handed out. Of course, that could be achieved very easily and cheaply if we 1) re-privatized the student loan market; and 2) made student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. This would guarantee that $100,000 loans for degrees in puppetry wouldn’t happen. But, of course, that wouldn’t create more government spending and control.

Obama then digs into immigration, which I’ve already blogged about. He urges passage of the Violence Against Women Act (a bad piece of legislation wrapped in good sound bites) and the Paycheck Fairness Act. He proposes raising the minimum wage and linking it to the cost of living (as Romney proposed). Of course, that ignores that the COLA fell in recent years. Would the government then cut the minimum wage appropriately? I think not.

And this year, my Administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet. We’ll work with local leaders to target resources at public safety, education, and housing. We’ll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest. And we’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and doing more to encourage fatherhood – because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.

Spend, spend, spend on dead towns. Create collaborations between local government, federal government and business to maximize corruption. That’s the way to move an economy!

Obama then shifts to foreign policy. He promises to get out troops out of Afghanistan and adds this:

Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.

I don’t disagree entirely with this. But it seems like this has been obvious for quite some time and it took a disaster in Benghazi for the Administration to figure out that they were wielding the guns of august.

Here is the biggest whopper of the night:

As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.

This is, frankly, a lie. The Administration only recently shared their drone policies with some members of Congress after being excoriated for the ambiguities in their “white paper” on the subject. They have asserted just as much executive authority as Bush did and with even less transparency. This Administration has killed an American citizen and his son and refused to disclose the rationale. They have asserted their ability to kill American citizens without any kind of due process of external review. To talk as though they were the most accountable transparent Administration ever is absurd and offensive.

After burbling inanities on Russia, Iran, North Korea and third world poverty, he gets to his final issue, which is gun control:

Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment – have come together around commonsense reform – like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.

Most of this I don’t have a problem with (although I don’t like citing victims of tragedy in support of any law). The problem here is the last sentence which claims that our citizens have “weapons of war” and the police are outgunned. This is simply false. Automatic weapons are heavily regulated and illegal in most areas. And the proliferation of para-military SWAT teams and no-knock raids that results in such things as the killing of Jose Guerena (a military man who responded to what he thought were robbers with a military weapon) cries against this bleating about police being outgunned. In fact, police fatalities have been declining steadily for nearly four decades.

All, in all, it was what I expected. A huge declaration of a big liberal agenda that will never happen. Punting on the most important issues and staying the course of this bumbling presidency. And always deferring to the state and the law for progress.

SOTU’s are never very substantive. With each one, I become more and more convinced that Thomas Jefferson got it right and the SOTU should be a letter instead of a monarchial speech. But it does give us a chance to see what kind of agenda that President’s party thinks they should be flogging. And this agenda is … well, what we expect after four years. Bigger government in the language of smaller; “new ideas” that aren’t; bold initiatives that are throwbacks to yesteryear; Bush policies in prettier packaging.


Oh, what a web they weave as they continue to deceive

The LSM is at it again and shilling for the political class that is destroying this country:

One thing you won’t hear when President Obama delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday: An ambitious new plan to rein in the debt.

In recent days, the White House has pressed the message that, if policymakers can agree on a strategy for replacing across-the-board spending cuts set to hit next month, the president will pretty much have achieved his debt-reduction goals.

“Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit [over the next decade] by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt,” Obama said during his weekend radio address.

By the administration’s math, Washington needs to enact only another $1.5 trillion in 10-year savings to hit the $4 trillion target, White House economic adviser Jason Furman told reporters last week. At $1.2 trillion, the automatic cuts, known as the sequester, quite nearly fit the bill.

The problem with this scenario? It would indeed stabilize the national debt, compared with the broader economy, for the next 10 years. But the debt would fluctuate between 73 percent and 77 percent of gross domestic product, according to new projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — the highest level in U.S. history except for the period after World War II.

Oh what a pile of bullshit! These fuckers, in both parties, have cut squat. They have reduced planned increases and put on paper cuts that will not happen until decades from now, which all but quarantine on past historical precedent there will be no cuts. The fact is that we now have $16.5 trillion in debt obligations, and are growing it by a fat trillion plus a year at the minimum. By the time Obama leaves, we will likely be at or over $25 trillion of debt if we keep things going the way they are. Wait until Obamacare kicks in man. And someone else, at a much later time, we are talking at least a decade away, is supposed to do spending cuts. HEH! Right.

We are hosed. Do not believe the LSM when they tell you either party is doing anything serious to tackle the debt. The donkeys certainly are not, and they are trying to set a new record for debt obligations due to excessive government largesse to the parasitic. The republicans don’t have a clue how to sell the cuts that would need to happen, and frankly, I doubt they want them either, because they would lose power doing so. We are burned toast. Watch the state of the Union. Obama is going to promise more free shit, and jobs too! And someone else will pay for it all. Yeah, sure. I used to think the people that warned me to invest in canned food, heavy metals – silver, gold, and lead – and learn how to survive on your own where all bonkers, but these days I am wondering if I am not the one that is insane.

Democrats think they will win no matter how bad the consequences to America

I now believe that we are going to go over the fiscal cliff, not because a deal can’t be reached, but because democrats now believe they have far more to gain from not getting a deal and having the cuts go live. You think I am crazy for thinking they feel this way? Well, hear me out, then think about it.

First off, the democrats know that no matter who junks this deal, they can count on the LSM to blame the republicans. The sad thing is most people will believe them too. Think I am way off or exaggerating? Well, check out how the NYT is reporting on the current deal on the table. And what is the current deal? Here is what the NYT has to say;

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.

So we get $1.6 trillion in new taxes, $50 billion in immediate stimulus – that’s money for democrats and their friends – some undefinded mortgage refinancing scheme that is sure to be loaded with social engineering nonsense, and thus, going to cause more pain down the road, and basically an end to any control on how much these fuckers just borrow. That last one is a doozy too.

As the first line in the second paragraph points out: the democrats’ “concessions” is basically their Christmas list – which by fiat then means more government vote buying schemes, and by default more spending – and nothing else. There are no cuts, as I pointed out in my previous posts, just promises some cuts will happen 10 to 20 years out. Anyone pretending there are cuts is lying or stupid and to be laughed at. But hang on you say! The NYT points out I am wrong, because there are some upfront cuts that were proposed.

He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details. And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might be outweighed by spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare.

Heh, sure. At least even the author couldn’t pretend that these promises amount to much more than the usual “Sure, I will respect you in the morning” line, and they are so miniscule that the $50 billion the donkeys want immediately to shell out to their buddies and causes, is likely to be far more than any cuts they allow. In the end the balance sheet ends up with red. The NYT dutifully parrots the DNC talking points by then saying the following:

Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, said: “Right now, the only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of Congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates. The president has already signed into law over $1 trillion in spending cuts and we remain willing to do tough things to compromise, and it’s time for Republicans in Washington to join the chorus of other voices — from the business community to middle-class Americans across the country — who support a balanced approach that asks more from the wealthiest Americans.”

It’s the fault of those intransigent republicans! And both the democrats and the NYT love this, as the following paragraph ending the DNC propaganda bit shows:

Senate Democratic leaders left their meeting with Mr. Geithner ecstatic. If the Republicans want additional spending cuts in that down payment, the onus is on them to put them on the table, said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

And there you have it. While the LSM is doing gyrations to not have to point this out, it is obvious that all that the democrats want is higher taxes AND spending increases. That’s what the “stimulus” money is. And it won’t be a one time thing either. If the republicans want cuts, they have to propose them. That’s so we can then blame them for the cuts and score political points. If this sweetheart tax hiking deal doesn’t go through, the left plans to lay the blame at the foot of the republicans, regardless. Their choices and decisions are not about what is best for the country, but what is politically expedient for them. Period! They could care less how people are impacted. They smell blood and they think they are going to come out of this on top.

And have no doubt that now that the whole “Blame Boosh” thing has become stale that they are looking for new excuses to explain why their economy crushing policies have kept our economy in a coma. If they don’t get their tax & spending hikes, with zero cuts, plan to pass, they have an instant excuse for why the next 4 years are going to see an even gloomier economy. Get ready for the “Our awesome deal, sure to stop the seas from rising, while immediately eliminating the debt, dropping unemployment below 4%, and giving everyone an Obamaphone, was rebuffed by the evil republicans, to protect the rich of all reasons, and that is why the economy, which had been recovering and doing great, UNEXPECTEDLY went south” excuses.

The left thinks it can’t lose. That is why America and Americans are going to lose. In the mean time the useful idiots will keep pretending that this disgrace of a proposal is all a great deal, that the democrats care for the little people, that Obama is a genius, and that our problems are always caused by anyone but them.

At least some republicans realized how horrible this democrat proposal really is. At this point I am starting to believe that Krauthammer is right when he recommends republicans just walk away. They are going to be blamed anyway.

Cuts? We don’t need no stinking cuts!

The shell game has begun. So is the damned narrative. If you get your news from the usual LSM outlets, you are probably thinking that the problem is all the evil republicans who want to protect their rich buddies from paying their “fair share”, whatever the fuck that bullshit arbitrary marxist lingo – and have no doubt that it is arbitrary on purpose, so they can redefine it in their favor whenever they feel they need to steal more money – is supposed to mean. The narrative is that the democrats are standing fast but working hard to get a compromise, and Politico is doing its best to carry the narrative. What’s the first issue? Them dumb republicans will have to cave to the donkeys and give us tax hikes.

Listen to top Democrats and Republicans talk on camera, and it sounds like they could not be further apart on a year-end tax-and-spending deal — a down payment on a $4 trillion grand bargain.

But behind the scenes, top officials who have been involved in the talks for many months say the contours of a deal — including the size of tax hikes and spending cuts it will most likely contain — are starting to take shape.

Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach.

That $ 1.2 trillion over a long period, maybe a decade or two, because there is no way they hike taxes on just the rich to get that much in a year. It’s thus going to be fucking peanuts in the grand scheme of things, because they are spending roughly the same amount every year over and above what they collect. If we say that the $ 1.2 trillion is over a decade, then doing the math, we are looking at about $12 trillion of money we don’t have over a decade, means we end up with $10.8 trillion in new debt after this new tax offsets the spending. We are fucked because these new taxes do nothing of any real consequence.

So what’s left? Well the vaunted cuts. The problem is that the donkeys, now that they have gotten their taxes, do not really want the cuts. Oh, don’t get me wrong, the LSM is going out of its way to pretend they do. Check this nonsense out:

A top Democratic official said talks have stalled on this question since Obama and congressional leaders had their friendly-looking post-election session at the White House. “Republicans want the president to own the whole offer upfront, on both the entitlement and the revenue side, and that’s not going to happen because the president is not going to negotiate with himself,” the official said. “There’s a standoff, and the staff hasn’t gotten anywhere. Rob Nabors [the White House negotiator], has been saying: ‘This is what we want on revenues on the down payment. What’s you guys’ ask on the entitlement side?’ And they keep looking back at us and saying: ‘We want you to come up with that and pitch us.’ That’s not going to happen.”

We want to cut entitlements. But by how much? Lets look at the Politico article for some perspective:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that he could see $400 billion in entitlement cuts. That’s the floor, according to Democratic aides, and it could go higher in the final give and take. The vast majority of the savings, and perhaps all of it, will come from Medicare, through a combination of means-testing, raising the retirement age and other “efficiencies” to be named later. It is possible Social Security gets tossed into the mix, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to fight that, if he has to yield on other spending fronts.

Hmm. $400 billion cut? Is that in annual spending, or is that $400 billion over a decade? Because if it is $400 billion over a decade, it is chump change. And while it will not bridge the annual gap – that $1.2 trillion of money we don’t have being spent each year – $400 billion is a lot. That’s $4 billion over a decade. The problem is that even when combined with the $1.2 trillion hike, we are looking at a total of $5.2 trillion over the decade. But then that still falls horribly short. At our current spending rate, we will have $12 trillion of added debt. While $5.2 trillion is no chump change, we still would be left with $6.8 trillion in new debt. And that’s assuming that the $400 billion number is annual, which I doubt is the case.

The problem isn’t that a total $400 billion cut is insignificant, or that even if it really is a $4 trillion cut over the decade that it isn’t enough, it is that this cut thing is a total shell game. Dig down through this puff piece and eventually you find this:

Democrats want most Medicare and other entitlement savings to kick in between 10 and 20 years from now, which will make some Republicans choke. Democrats will point to the precedent set by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of pushing most mandatory savings off until a decade from now.

We have to wait 10 to 20 years for the cuts? Seriously? Can we just say they want NO CUTS, because if the cuts happen 10 years out, as I already showed, we will be another $10 trillion in debt (assuming the tax increases happen). And if they come 20 years later that debt figure doubles. The cuts happening so far out that we can just accept it as fiat that they would never happen, is not acceptable. It’s not even an accounting gimmick. It is a bald faced bullshit lie. And even if off topic, I want to point out that I do not recall the Ryan plan pushing the cuts out like Politico claims, but I could be wrong. Yeah CM, that your token distraction item. You can focus on this tid-bit and ignore the rest of this story.

It sure is a given that these spending cuts, if they ever happens, still fall far short of what we need. And this assumes that these marxists don’t get to do what they really want – the reason they are doing the whole Kabuki dance about taxing the rich more for – which is to use the tax hike as an excuse to increase the entitlement spending they rely on to buy votes. More debt. We have also not even factored in debt increases due to Obamacare’s costs. The taxes & penalties that this behemoth levies are significant and economy crushing, but they will never cover the cost. Anyone telling you otherwise is a god damned liar. Even more debt. So we are still looking at an enormous jump in debt over the next decade if these crooks get their way. Huge jump. At least $10 trillion, in the best case scenario. Probably more.

Look, let’s not kid ourselves. If the cuts are not immediate and significant, they are never going to happen. This plan, if it doesn’t implement immediate cuts, is a sham. The American people are being had. Well, at least those of us that are productive tax payers doing the right thing are being bent over and had. The free loaders are gonna keep their gravy train and vote accordingly. At least until the gravy train derails. We are doomed. Nobody wants to deal with reality. We have to cut back spending or we are going to end up with an economic implosion that will wipe out practically all prosperity, growth, and advancement of the last century. Shame on the crooks willfully doing this to us. We are already over the fiscal cliff, and not bright enough to admit it.