News How About That Us Government Money Management?

[Pietro]

Maybe a little late to the game, here, but I figured I'd get an idea about what people think about this, especially since so many people here are from outside the US. And, maybe, start a little trouble as well. ;)

Scene 1: Congress couldn't agree on how the government should be funded. Because of that, they didn't pass the necessary laws that would allocate money to pay for the government, so this means that the government gets shut-down. Sort of. Not exactly sure why only part of the government gets shut-down, and how they legally keep any of it running. But I guess that's for greater legal minds than mine to understand.

The main issue has been that the Republican Party has been trying to target a single program, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Originally, they wanted to defund the program, but backed-off of that and then tried to change certain aspects of it. The Democrats rejected the targeting of this one program in the spending bills, and, thus, no agreement on funding the government.

My opinion on this: it was a poor play on the part of the Republicans to target a single program. I think it was a bad play to even choose this means of negotiation, at the last minute, before government funding ran-out. This doesn't mean I disagree with the Republicans regarding the fiscal problems we have -- I just think these tactics were awful, poorly planned and thought-out. And a lot of people in the US, normally employed by the government, are now suffering without income (although they will be paid when the government is reopened). Don't worry, the Democrats will get there's in a minute. I'm an equal opportunity political critic.

Continued...

 

[Pietro]

Scene 2: On October 17th, the United States government will run out of cash. Mostly. The date is approximate, but, within 2 - 3 weeks of this date, it will most definitely be true. Which means our debtors don't get paid, nor do soldiers, the elderly, etc. And which means our bond rating drops like a lead balloon while interest rates sky rocket, businesses can no longer afford or even get credit, and the world economy goes to shit. US economists on both sides are predicting this, because it's simple finance -- any investment that becomes volatile and untrustworthy loses value.

In order to fix this, Congress has to approve an increase to the amount of money that the US government is allowed to borrow. We don't keep surpluses around here.

Again, the Republicans had considered tying changes to Obamacare to allowing the increased borrowing amount -- and again, this was a terrible strategy. However, they have backed-off of this, now, and will likely allow a six-week extension for borrowing, if the Democrats agree to negotiate in general over budgetary issues, not just over Obamacare.

This is what the Republicans should have done in the first place. Agree to keep the government open and to the debt level increase, while demanding that negotiations occur to work towards a balanced budget in a reasonable amount of time, and that automatic budget cuts occur annually if agreements don't occur -- as they did this year. The US government is currently 16.7 trillion dollars in debt. We can't go on like this.

And while the Republicans have been equally guilty of running this number up in the past decade or so, the entitlements that the Democrats greatly favor are the primary driver of debt right now. Moreover, the Republicans are under pressure to cut spending, period, from part of their base -- so they currently have motivation to return to being the party of "fiscal responsibility".

Thus, it will likely fall upon the Democrats to suck it up and decide that they are going to have to give some things up, and restructure other things -- including all of the health care programs -- in order to ensure that we don't end-up being China's vassal, which is essentially what will happen if this problem isn't solved soon.

Hopefully, I wasn't too inaccurate of the basic descriptions. If so, I'm sure someone will correct me. :D In any case, what do you think? Republicans -- brave fiscal sentinels or petty political primadonnas? Good strategy or bad? Democrats -- righteous protectors of the people, or codependent spendthrifts? Discuss!

 

[Nebulustrix]

It's been my understanding that the Republicans have been targeting and fighting the Affordable Care Act from the get-go, and that they did not really specifically target it just to single out one thing from the budget. They just utterly and completely disagree with it, and so do a great number of Americans.

It is a common tactic for "single" items that another party will not agree with to be tagged on to bigger bills/laws/etc, as this forces that party to make a compromise and accept something they are against in order to get the main bill they want passed. I think THIS tactic is what is so abhorrent. Bills/laws/whatever should be single items, not groups of items that may or may not be related in any way. It's what leads to filibustering, political bribery and "back-door" agreements - ie. "I'll accept and pass this, if you do this for me." or "If you don't pass this big bill because of this one small item, it will ruin your political standing and reputation."

Granted, I don't really study or follow politics much, so I may be completely off base here. I personally think all politicians are a load of crap and that the American government is in SERIOUS need of reform. It's design was inspired to ensure it was run by intelligent and ambitious people - but it was also intended that those intelligent and ambitious people would have the best interests of the nation and it's people at heart, and would use that intelligence and ambition to protect those interests. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case for a LONG time, and politicians are selfish and corrupt - anyone who does try to get into politics with the bests interests of the nation and it's people in mind quickly gets squashed by the bureaucracy, and this issue with the budget is one of many signs that the US is on the brink of collapse.

 

[kahlan]

Politics makes me crazy and politicians make me crazier o.O
I think honestly every last one of them, republican and democrat, act like a bunch of 5 year olds that refuse to share, cooperate, or
compromise.

The whole thing reeks of a temper tantrum, with them only thinking of what they want accomplished and not the many many people who are actually affected by loss of wages and then the snowball effect caused by this. Anyway thats my two cents!

 

[Pietro]

They just utterly and completely disagree with it, and so do a great number of Americans.

This is true. But this is not a great method to try and get your way. Plus, the entire country has revamped their health insurance practices to accommodate ACA. If it were defunded now, there'd be no way that they'd be able to return to the previous system in time for the new year, and millions, if not billions of dollars, would have to be wasted on this. If a program this large is going to be dismantled, it has to be done in an orderly way, not last-minute by the seat of your pants.

As far as American sentiment on ACA, it's largely split. A lot of people will benefit from it. A lot of people, including some very reasonable economists, are very concerned that it's a bureaucratic and fiscal catastrophe. We needed something -- but what we got was Frankenstein. It needs some thorough retrofitting, but, given the current political climate, we may not get that.

Bills/laws/whatever should be single items, not groups of items that may or may not be related in any way. It's what leads to filibustering, political bribery and "back-door" agreements

Agreed. This is a flaw in our appropriations process.

It's design was inspired to ensure it was run by intelligent and ambitious people - but it was also intended that those intelligent and ambitious people would have the best interests of the nation and it's people at heart, and would use that intelligence and ambition to protect those interests.

Largely true. The "founding fathers" were very practical and not naive -- they were well aware of human nature, which is why they divided the government up in to three branches that could each counter each other. But, as with any system, people, over time, find ways to get around the rules and protections. The American people need to become more involved in knowing and choosing who gets sent to Washington, D.C.

he US is on the brink of collapse.

I think the rumors of the demise of the United States are a little premature. ;) It would take a lot more than a bureaucratic hissy fit to dismantle the entire country. And, frankly, if this goes-on long enough, people aren't going to tolerate it. There are established ways to remove an ineffective government in the US, both within the bounds of our constitution, and outside of it.

 

[The Albatross]

With all due respect Pietro, the main issue is not a new one. The main issue is that there is no budget and has not been one since our current President took office. Even when he had a super-majority. The core issue of this present "shut down", is that the spending our president and democratically controlled senate desire, is above the amount agreed upon 14 months ago by committee. Both Dems and Repubs agreed on a set spending limit and Harry Reid tabled or refused to bring to the floor the legislation necessary to resolve the matter. What they were asking for was an increase in spending that ignored the agreed upon amount.

The meme for the low information citizen is that this strategy is unacceptable now, is a straw man that has been touted by Dem talking points and broadcast widely by the media.

It is customary (the past 5 presidents administrations) for such situations to have other agenda items attached to them as a stipulation or condition of passage. Both left and right have used this tactic. Here's [DLMURL="http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/09/list-all-government-shutdowns"]a quick rundown of the last 17 shutdowns[/DLMURL] If you think that this is a deplorable strategy... well so do I. But it is a ploy to attach to spending, negotiations on other issues and has been used that way for a very long time.

 

[The Albatross]

Which would you like to discuss, the topic of your thread title or the tactic?

 

[Pietro]

Which would you like to discuss, the topic of your thread title or the tactic?

Either one, or both. :)

The main issue is that there is no budget and has not been one since our current President took office. Even when he had a super-majority.

I don't know that this is the "main" issue. It is certainly an issue that this hasn't been done, but budget bills were drawn-up and submitted from House to Senate.

The core issue of this present "shut down", is that the spending our president and democratically controlled senate desire, is above the amount agreed upon 14 months ago by committee.

I'm not aware of this, so I can't comment on it. I don't have the time I used to, when I followed all the details. :) Even if true, though, this is not the issue that the Republicans publicized. They've all been haggling, back and forth, regarding ACA mostly.

The primary problem I have with the Republicans is the tactic. It's a bad practice to begin with, as we both agreed. However, it was also poorly executed. They threw-in a "poison pill" to the budget bill, knowing that the Senate would reject it, probably in order to make a point. Sadly, the Republicans are allowing a minority caucus within their party to call the shots and allow these things to occur. The end result was predictable -- the Republicans take the blame.

I want changes to the budget. Today, there's rumor that they may pass a bill raising the debt ceiling for the next 6 months -- I actually think that's too long (although I think they were back to 6 weeks by this evening). I want to see us get back to a balanced budget, and would prefer that borrowing have some stricter rules around it. In order to make this happen, all of the government-sponsored medical programs are going to need to be refurbished -- combined would be even better -- and programs will need to be simplified. And so on.

I think the Republicans are on-board with this now. During Bush 43, they weren't. Cheney famously told Paul O'Neil, Bush's first treasury secretary, that deficits didn't matter anymore. They spent nearly $1 trillion on Iraq. Now, however, I think they are back to wanting to be seen as the financially practical party. I also think that they are getting a lot of pressure to do something, and not just from the Tea Party. US business, our creditors such as China, and large world banks and financiers are probably indicating nervousness about the increasing imbalance in our debt to productivity ratio.

The Republicans have got to do better about explaining their position. They also need to have flexibility to negotiate, and the Tea Party is preventing this, which weakens their overall position. The Republicans need to get their party whipped into shape. They need Gingrich back. ;)

The Democrats will only have the upper hand for a little while. They are going to be forced to make cuts -- if not by their constituents, then by fiscal necessity. Their business-oriented campaign contributors will also start putting pressure on them.

I like Obama in terms of his intelligence, and I think he's relatively honest. However, he is disillusioned and is too "hands-off" when it comes to banging-out deals. He's too intellectual, not street-savvy enough. ;) Our presidents are not figure-heads -- unless they choose to be. But our government doesn't work when that happens.

 

[The Albatross]

This issue would have never come up if the Obama Administration would have done what all former administrations have done and passed a budget instead of limping along from House Resolution to Resolution. It has taken center stage in part due to the Republican desire to defund a program... and taken the eyes off other issues Keep in mind, all this vitriol being spewed by the Dems is fuss and bluster over 17 percent unfunded, 83% funded government. Meanwhile, because of shenanigans on both sides 10 million dropping off the unemployment tax roles and 20 million Americans on unemployment and looking for work... the fiscal state of the nation, not to mention the scandals are all being ignored until this can gets kicked down the road again. When I first heard December, I thought "Great, the Feds are going to ruin my Christmas".

When I heard November I thought, "Well, Christmas looks better, but Thanksgiving is pretty messed up now." Congress polled at 5%, its lowest in the history of the US... and Obama isn't fairing much better, he polled at 37%, the lowest of his presidency or before his election.

Obama is the problem, not the solution... he is no leader. He cut short his trip to Asia... for what? To come back and do nothing to negotiate the crisis.

 

[The Albatross]

On the topic of your thread title "How About That Us Government Money Management?". If I ran my household like both parties have managed the financial state of America:

• I would have a printing press in my office and print currency based on nothing (Ben Bernake's printing away 83 billion dollars a month). Gold standard? Forgidahbowdit.
• I would consistently spend a minimum of 15% more than I take in revenues and more if I deploy the military overseas anywhere I feel like.
• I would have robbed my nieces piggy banks (social security and medicare) to pay for my wanton spending (entitlements for the masses), frivolous endeavors (Solyndra and the other green companies - eleven or so that all went bankrupt wasting millions of tax payer money), living large on the tax payers dime and paying my minions and federal employees at a rate 2-3 times what the private sector earns.
• I would have a pension and a retirement with great benefits and you have to pay for it.
• I would have 224 days of holidays but receive one years pay (Congress).
• I would borrow from my evil step mother (China) to subsidize my lifestyle.
• I would shake down the tax payers to maintain my own standard of living.
• I would bestow upon you smiles and photo opportunities but you aren't allowed to ask me any questions about the way I operate or you are an extremist, anarchist, traitor, etc. Just sit back and let the government take care of you from the cradle to the grave.
• I would have a second set of books and never have to balance my check books. (Questionable Clinton Administration practices... see the 17th government shut down in a comment below.)
• I would purposely skew the Congressional Budget Office reports to mislead you about the true cost of what I am going to propose (Cash for Klunkers, Bailing out the Auto Industry, Bailing out the Banks who are above the law and "too big to fail", Bailing out Wall Street)... I'll bail everybody out except you the 53% who pay taxes.
• I'll lie to you and let you think you're getting an entitlement, then tell the Supreme Court that what you really got when you elected me is hidden taxes on the middle class. 20 of them, and I'll blow a wad of your dough on my party's signature legislation (Obamacare)
• I will mismanage Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac so badly you have to bail them out too to the tune of millions.
• I will appoint the IRS to be the execution arm of a program that is supposed to be responsible and non-partisan but will target organizations with an alternative political bend with audits and red tape. They will also lose 67 million dollars of your money and not be able to account for it.
• I will tell you that if you can't pay your generously refinanced mortgage under my government plan you are a dead beat. (housing crisis/homes under water)
• I will pressure banks to give loans to people who would never otherwise qualify for them and spend your money all the more when they default. (Subprime mortgage crisis)
• I, however, will never be a dead beat because I too am too big to fail, which means you have to give me all the tax revenue I want and if you don't I'll find a way to make you cover it anyways.
• I never have to live within my means and you have no right to question or criticize me or I'll consider violating your first amendment rights and any other amendments that I think will get you to be quiet.
• I will be very generous with your money, giving it to the UN, to other nations even as I borrow and print more than is sustainable and there is nothing you can do about it.
• I will threaten your 2nd amendment rights but I will use your money to run guns to Mexico and now to the Middle east.
• I will invade your privacy and if you bother me, don't forget I know everything about you (NSA).
• I will tell you what you want to hear about cutting waste/fraud/and abuse as long as you keep giving me money.

Dissatisfied with the fiscal state of America, is yeah, an understatement. And all that is just off the top of my head and probably not as well thought out as I would like as I am exhausted. Exhausted and disgusted and mad as hell. I think it's time that some others took a real hard look and got mad too.

 

[The Albatross]

...I'm not aware of this, so I can't comment on it. I don't have the time I used to, when I followed all the details. :) Even if true, though, this is not the issue that the Republicans publicized. They've all been haggling, back and forth, regarding ACA mostly.

Had you looked at the link I provided, you would have found that attached to other government shutdowns other non-fiscally related agenda items have been attached. Abortion issues, were involved for instance in 5 shutdowns from 1976-1979.

Interestingly it was the 17th where the 1995/1996 21 day shutdown (during the Clinton Administration) under a Republican controlled House and Senate demanded a 7 year "that would balance the economy using the Congressional Budget Office instead of the Office of Management and Budget Office in the White House. There was controversy with whether or not the budget was being balanced correctly. In the end, the Republicans gave in and passed legislation that would end the shutdown. In return, President Clinton posed an alternative plan that balanced the budget in seven years."

No, the Republicans haven't done a good job messaging... but shoving it under the rug and giving freebies like the Democrats are doing is only exacerbating the problem. Reprehensible.

 

[Pietro]

I did look at the link you provided, and saw the issues over which many of the shutdowns occurred. In that quote, I was referring to the agreement from 14 months ago that you mentioned, where the Dems and Repubs had agreed on budget numbers. I wasn't familiar with that specific agreement.