Budget Talks Continue But Will There Be An Agreement?

Murray and Ryan Race the Clock for New Budget Deal

 

By Eric Pianin6 hours ago

The private and painstaking talks between Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and House Republican Paul Ryan are coming to a head, as the two sides press to craft a new budget plan to meet a Dec. 13 deadline.  If they fail, the federal government will face a second round of automatic spending cuts and yet another possibility of a shutdown early next year.

The two sides long ago abandoned any hopes for a “Grand Bargain” of sweeping entitlement and tax reforms to address the nation’s long term debt and fiscal problems while   authorizing more immediate measures to spur a lagging economic recovery.

Related: The Shocking Cost to Taxpayers of a Government Shutdown

Exhausted by a year of relentless partisan sniping over the budget and debt ceiling that culminated in a 16-day government shutdown in October, Senate Democrats and House Republicans are searching for a minimalist plan that protects their most cherished priorities while still being able to pass muster with both parties.

If they can’t cut a deal, the House, Senate and President Obama will find themselves back in crisis mode in early January, with only a week or so to hammer out an emergency measure to prevent another shutdown.

The biggest question hanging over the negotiations is whether Congress will block a second round of automatic spending cuts under the 2011 Budget Control Act or allow the sequester to continue.

The sequester was designed to achieve $1.2 trillion of savings over the coming decade absent congressional intervention. But with so many complaints from the Pentagon and federal agencies about the hardships being caused by the across the board cuts, Congress has been under pressure to do something about it.

The Senate is pressing to replace the sequester with a package of alternative spending cuts, tax loophole closings to raise almost $1 trillion in new revenue over 10 years, and some reforms of Medicare and other entitlement programs. The House, meanwhile, insists on authorizing $91 billion less in domestic spending in the coming year than the Senate favors and it unalterably opposes raising tax revenues for more spending.  

Related: GOP Budget Strategy Takes Obamacare off the Table

"If we focused on doing some big grand bargain, like those prior efforts ... then I don't think we'll be successful because we'll focus on our differences,” Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman from Wisconsin, told Reuters earlier this fall. “Each party will demand that the other compromises a core principle and then we'll get nothing done." 

Murray, the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman from Washington State, has been consistently more upbeat and optimistic than Ryan since the two began presiding over a bipartisan House-Senate budget conference committee and meeting privately.  

“She is encouraged that the talks continue and hopeful that they continue to make progress to get to a deal,” Eli Zupnick, Murray’s chief spokesman, said this week.

How the Government Shutdown Shook Up the U.S. Economy

The private talks and a series of tangential public hearings held by the committee   have lacked the drama and suspense of previous negotiations going back to the budget and debt ceiling crisis of 2011, which led to the passage of the Budget Control Act and imposition of  the sequester. With public approval of President Obama and Congress at record lows, neither party can afford another budget crisis or threat of default on the U.S. debt heading into the 2014 mid-term elections.

What’s more, while Democrats are eager to spare the president’s domestic agenda from additional automatic cuts, many Republicans are comfortable with the current budgetary status quo, even if it’s far from their ideal.

The automatic sequestration cuts locked in deficit savings, while the fiscal cliff deal at the start of this year locks in tax rates, so it takes a legislative change to increase revenues. 

Neither party was happy with the $85 billion worth of automatic cuts in domestic and defense program this year, under the sequester.  The next round of cuts will be even larger, in the range of $109 billion, throughout the fiscal year that runs through next Sept. 30.

A growing chorus of Republican defense hawks is particularly concerned that a second round of sequester cuts to the Pentagon budget would hollow out the nation’s armed forces.

Related: How a Leaner Military Could Save U.S. Defense

 In an Oct. 23 letter to Ryan and Murray, Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee warned, “Continued sequester would lead to the reduction of an additional 100,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen from our Armed Forces, and cancellation of important programs providing key technologies and capabilities.”

Democrats are counting on this mounting GOP concern about defense to force Ryan into a compromise that would give them additional domestic funding and tax revenues. But several Republicans on the budget conference committee -- including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) -- have suggested that another round of automatic cuts in defense is preferable to taking a bad deal.  

“Obviously, [Ryan] would like to change the sequester to protect defense, but I think he has made it pretty clear in the past that if agreement cannot happen, we’re not just going to just walk away from sequester,” said a House GOP staffer.” We fought for those spending cuts back in 2011, we’re proud of them, and we’re not just going to give them up. . . .I think at the end of the day, we’re going to have a sequester if agreement is not reached.”

Food Stamps to Illegal Aliens

Once again our government gives millions away to NON-CITIZENS while citizens cannot visit the White House or whose flights are restricted by FAA cuts.  We need to address the needs of the citizens first and then if there are leftovers, we can give money to illegal immigrants.

Conservative Tom

USDA to Ineligible Immigrants: We’ll Still Give Your Kids Food Stamps

Friday, 26 Apr 2013 03:55 PM

By Bill Hoffmann

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• inShare4

Illegal immigrants can get food stamps on behalf of their eligible kids — without having to disclose their immigration status, according to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch.

The food-stamps offer is spelled out in a Spanish language flyer provided by the United States Department of Agriculture to the Mexican Embassy.

Judicial Watch said the flyer proves that the USDA is making “no effort to restrict aid to, identify, or apprehend illegal immigrants who may be on the food stamp rolls.’’

The flyer, part of the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, was made public in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by Judicial Watch last July.


According to Judicial Watch, part of the statement, translated into English, emphasizes in bold and underlined words, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

A USDA spokesperson insisted to the Daily Caller that illegal immigrants remain ineligible for food stamps.

“Non-citizens who are unlawfully present, are not, nor have they ever been, eligible to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits,” the spokesperson said when presented with the flyer.



© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/usda-food-stamps-immigration/2013/04/26/id/501611?s=al&promo_code=134BA-1#ixzz2RhgCIAAc
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Some Hide--Texas Acts

The old saying is "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade."  That is the way that Texas is handling the sequester cuts at their airport towers.  They are handling the situation, making do until the crisis passes and funding is returned to normal.

Congratulations Texas, you are showing the rest of the country that we do not have to curl up into a corner and cry when things change for the worse. Buck up and handle it!

Conservative Tom

Texas Deals With Air Traffic Sequester Cuts Like A Boss

April 1, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

PHOTOS.COM

Talk of sequestration in recent months has given Federal officials literary license in describing disastrous consequences that would starve the poor, create mayhem in the streets and cause planes to fall from the sky if the government were made to make modest budgetary cuts.

But Texas, in handling the defunding of 13 air traffic control towers, is showing the Nation that a State can survive without so much Federal assistance.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently announced that it would close 149 air traffic control towers to reduce its spending by $600 million. FAA officials said the move was necessary to cope with the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration.

Though the FAA said that the closures would have no impact of airspace safety, officials in Texas opted to implement a plan to keep 13 towers slated for closure in operation in the State.

“Safety is the primary reason we felt a need to take immediate action for the air travelers and business aircraft that use these airports,” Texas Transportation Commissioner Fred Underwood said in a statement. “I am proud of our leaders for taking this extraordinary measure to ensure that those relying on these municipal airports will be able to depart and arrive safely and efficiently.”

Texas Transportation Department Executive Director Phil Wilson cited the importance of small local airports to his State’s growing economy as the reason for using State funds to keep the towers open.

“Flying is an integral part of commerce in Texas,” Wilson told The Hill. “Local communities are counting on these airports to remain open for continued economic success.”

The FAA has been funding contracts for air traffic control towers since 1982.

Sequester Effects On The White House--None!

In our previous posting we spoke about the trips that the President and Vice President have been taken since the Sequester.  In this posting Marilyn Assenheim relates more interesting tidbits about the dictator's spending habits.

Conservative Tom

Shared Sacrifice? Obama’s Hypocrisy Proves Some are ‘More Equal’ than Others

15 March 2013 

By: Marilyn Assenheim

George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm, written in 1945, had the ruling class, the pigs, revise the law that “All Animals Are Equal” to read “Some Animals Are More Equal than others.” Our Imperial president apparently cleaves to this credo.

We have all had the impending pain of sequestration incessantly drummed into us, day in and day out, like water torture. The president is going to make certain that “everyone” feels the pain. We’ve been promised reductions in rank-and-file government staff, the military and phantom layoffs of teachers, firefighters and emergency responders. There will be increasing, overall jobless numbers. No more White House tours (there were seven staff members in the tours department), no plowing of National Parks (which doesn’t take place until April of every year and never exceeds more than 15 miles of trails).  Fire, brimstone and  plague. After all, we must all share in the sacrifices, don’t we? Well, not really. The Lyin’ King, at least, isn’t feeling the slightest pinch to his Imperial toes inside of his Cole Haan’s.  Miraculously, whatever the Lyin’ King deems “necessary” remains untouched.

Last week John Kerry surreptitiously forked over $265 million to Egypt. Monday, it was reiterated that the U.S. Treasury finances college football stadiums to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks. Yes, those would be stadiums indulging in that ghastly sport the president would have second thoughts about allowing any son of his to play.

It was also pointed out that, thus far, White House staffers, making six-figure salaries, have not been touched. These aren’t just any White House jobs; Oh no. We are talking about such crucial positions as energy and climate change “advisors”. Three of them. The salaries totaled over $370,000 in 2012.  In 2012, FOX news identified 139 White house staffers, each making over $100,000 a year. Three calligraphers are still on the payroll. The lowest White House calligrapher’s salary is $86,000. The highest paid calligrapher makes $96,725. Total White House staff  salaries alone ran an annual tab of $37.8 million in 2012.

Then, of course, there is the personal, presidential belt-tightening we can expect because of the sequester…oh, wait; no, there isn’t any presidential belt tightening. While Rome burns, Nero is cheerfully fiddling away. Twenty car motorcades to meet Senators McCain and Graham for dinner. Multi-million dollar vacations to Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard, all planned and set to proceed in the near future. No one seems to recall that, whatever one might think of George W. Bush, he gave up golf for the duration of his presidency because he didn’t feel it was decent to indulge in a game while Americans were dying on the battlefield. He took sporadic vacations on his Texas ranch or at Camp David. Yet he was still lambasted regularly by Hollywood and the mainstream media and, to this day, by The Lyin’ King. Let’s compare and contrast; our Dear Leader takes million dollar golf trips with Tiger Woods. His vacations, some separate from his mate, and play dates remain uninterrupted. It costs America more than twice as much to support The Lyin’ King and his family than it costs England to support the entire royal family. $1.4 billion dollars per year, to be precise. There are only four presidential family members. Five, if one counts the dog. Complaints? Anyone? No?

Are some animals more equal than others? Apparently so.

About the author:

Marilyn Assenheim was born and raised in New York City.  She spent a career in healthcare management; although she probably should have been a casting director, or a cowboy. A serious devotee of history and politics, Marilyn currently lives in the NYC metropolitan area.

Trouble Ahead

How Congress Sold Us Out

March 5, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

UPI

For the past several weeks, the word “sequester” has dominated headlines as President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers shrieked about the coming doomsday to be brought forth by $85 billion in Federal spending cuts, while Republicans refused to budge on taxes.

Since the sequester officially took hold on Friday, both sides have pledged to create a plan to retroactively reverse the spending cuts, with Democrats vowing that a deal won’t be reached if taxes aren’t raised and Republicans still vehemently fighting the idea of higher taxes. If they don’t come up with a plan, so what?

Obama has been warning for weeks that sequestration will have devastating impacts on everything from American education to public safety to the ease of travel. Meanwhile, defense hawks on both sides of the legislative aisle spent the months advertising premonitions of a vulnerable America if the military-industrial complex is funded by one less red cent.

The Federal government, it seems, is the boy who cried wolf.

Not only did the entire Nation fail to shut down on Friday after sequestration hit; American financial markets hardly even shuddered. The American public has grown accustomed to periodic government-hyped emergencies. And, ever more transparently, these manufactured crises don’t arise from a lack of government funding but remain necessary to whitewash Congressional inability, or unwillingness, to make budget decisions.

The truth about sequester — as evidenced by the White House’s full steam retreat from its previous sensational predictions — is that the mandatory across-the-board cuts are actually quite modest. In fact, over the next six months, government spending will be reduced by a trifling 2.4 percent. And, over the next 10 years, Federal spending under sequester will increase — yes, increase — by $2.4 trillion instead of $2.5 trillion without the mandatory cuts.

The same pattern will emerge all the areas of spending that government officials have proclaimed as unbearable sacrifices to bloodthirsty, government-collapsing sequestration. Military spending, for example, will increase by 18 percent over the next decade. Some people representing the military apparatus have claimed disdain that a one-time real reduction in spending will reduce U.S. defense capacity to what it was in 2007 under sequestration.

But left unmentioned are the following facts: In 2007, while a troop surge was under way in Iraq and some of the heaviest fighting of the United States’ undeclared military adventures in the Mideast continued, military spending topped out near $600 billion — more than 20 percent of total government spending. Add to that money given to the Department of State to provide aid to countries destabilized by the military activity, and the numbers grow significantly.

Lawmakers are making a big deal over sequestration not because it affects you or me in its current form, but because it affects them. Congress holds Constitutionally granted power over the U.S. budget, and it has so abused this power over the past several decades that lawmakers are willing to hand ever more budgetary control to the executive branch. This is the little-reported facet of the sequester debacle that should most concern average Americans; it is a recipe for tyranny.

Republican lawmakers have decided two things: 1) They cannot publicly give Obama his tax hikes and expect voters not to give them the boot; and 2) they cannot risk losing financial backing from big-money players in the military-industrial complex in upcoming elections.

So instead of forcing a deal that cuts spending, they’ve opted for a plan that is a win-win for all members of the political class. The President has reportedly agreed to sign a continuing resolution that locks in the sequester levels of spending and gives him flexibility to choose how and where to cut spending. So, Republicans don’t have to take the blame for defense spending cuts, and the President can ensure that his corrupt green-energy programs and social welfare initiatives remain intact. Thus, bleeding heart voters for both camps remain — if ignorantly — happy; and special interest donors continue to pump money into the coffers of whatever party will further their cause.

The financial “emergencies” are allowed to happen by design and through clandestine cooperation between both parties to cover up the fact that Congress is far too busy making special deals and campaigning to do its job. With the distraction, lawmakers on both sides are allowed an opportunity to pedal blame and look tough — Republicans by saying to their voters “look, look, we didn’t raise taxes,” in hopes that America forgets the $620 billion in tax hikes to which they agreed to avert the last “emergency” (fiscal cliff) just weeks ago. Democrats emerged victorious in that round of false problems because of the tax increases. (It almost seems as if an election year is approaching, eh?)

Meanwhile, a new precedent has been set by suggesting that the President should have unilateral power to decide where the U.S. should nickel and dime. Obama asserted the other day that he couldn’t force a Congressional deal in the sequester because he is “not a dictator.” He should have said he is not yet a dictator, but Congress is working on fixing that for him and his successors.

Where Is The Disaster After Sequester

Another week has passed since the sequester and so has another week of disaster. No more mail delivery, defense has been shut down,  borders unguarded, white house closed to visitors, government totally shut down and 30 million people have lost their jobs. It has been terrible--wrong. The only apparent issue has been the shut down of the White House, no other disasters have occurred. So much for the Democrat blame game!

The absolute insincerity of the Democrats and their lack of respect for the truth is very troubling. How can they be only concerned with their political "talking points"  and not for the  best interests of the country? How can Maxine Waters claim that there would be 30 million more job losses than exist in the country?  Even if she was off by 90%, she still would have been wrong. Who elected this idiot?

Then there is the "blamer in change" who has never accepted blame for anything but is able to shovel the crap better than most. Why will no one take him to task? Where is the media?  He is not a leader, he is a low level community activist with little future. What a loser.

Conservative Tom

Surviving Obama

March 5, 2013 by Ben Crystal 

PHOTOS.COM

If you’re reading this, then you’re one of the blessed few who somehow survived sequestration. By “blessed few,” I mean “everyone on the planet.” And by “sequestration,” I mean “infinitesimally minor reduction in the growth of our already grotesquely obese government.”

So, this is life in post-sequester America. Oddly, it looks remarkably similar to pre-sequester America. Despite dire warnings of horror issued by everyone from sequestration’s creator, President Barack Obama, to such respected Congressional luminaries as Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the world did not end. Our troops from Afghanistan to central Africa (yep, Obama has them there, too) didn’t suddenly find themselves without ammunition. And 170 million Americans didn’t wake up to find themselves unemployed. Highways and bridges didn’t buckle and disintegrate. And the Internal Revenue Service certainly didn’t halt its efforts to extract Uncle Sam’s annual pound of flesh. Hell, the U.S. Postal Service didn’t even stop delivering my Cabelas catalog to the neighbors. Vice President Joe Biden has been downgraded from Air Force to Amtrak on his 120-mile trip from Washington to Wilmington, but that’s mostly because he likes to stick his head out of the window like a Labrador retriever between stops.

I expect a little historical perspective is in order. During the most recent State of the Union, Obama bemoaned what he termed “manufactured crises.” Perhaps that was his motivation in manufacturing the sequester, a silly idea to which Obama finally admitted on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” when his minion Gene Sperling acknowledged Obama’s duplicity regarding the massively overhyped reduction in the increase in future government spending.

All the shouting about Americans sacrificing security, employment and even food was merely a situation cut from the whole cloth of Obama and the Democrats’ own folly. Evidently, the endless recession, the horde of illegal aliens pouring across our borders, Superstorm Sandy, al-Qaida’s African resurgence, the Benghazi murders and cover-up, Attorney General Eric Holder’s criminal and civil offenses in covering up Operation Fast and Furious and even the skyrocketing violent crime in Obama’s own hometown weren’t enough to keep the Democrats focused on the plight their derelictions have created. And with the public beginning to catch on to the usual phantom horrors like so-called “global warming” (or whatever they’re calling it this week), they invented sequester, blamed it on the Republicans, tried to use it to scare the pants off the public, attacked the credibility of anyone who questioned their narrative and then finally owned up to the whole thing.

Here’s a thought: Perhaps if Obama and the Democrats put the kind of effort into doing something constructive that they put into lying, slander and fearmongering, the bleak future of post-sequester America might be decidedly less gray. Then again, given the trail of crimes and misdemeanors (and bodies) left behind by Obama and the Democrats every time they do something they consider constructive, perhaps we’re better off if they stick to manufacturing crises.

–Ben Crystal

Sequester Hyperbole

People actually vote for Maxine Waters! Even if she misspoke, 170,000 jobs losses would be outrageous when the budget cut is less than 2% of the total.  We have seen too much hyperbole on this case and the President and the Democrats have been in the front of the parade. We ask both sides to put aside the scare tactics and solve the damn issue!

Conservative Tom

MAXINE WATERS WARNS 170 MILLION JOBS COULD BE LOST DUE TO SEQUESTRATION CUTS — BUT THERE’S A HUGE PROBLEM WITH HER ESTIMATE

Feb. 28, 2013 4:05pm Jason Howerton

• 311
• 17.4K
• 54
• 8
• 598

If Congress allows sequestration cuts to take effect, more than 170 million Americans could lose their jobs, according to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

“If sequestration takes place, that’s going to be a great setback. We don’t need to be having something like sequestration that’s going to cause these job losses — over 170 million jobs that could be lost,” Waters said.

She went on to say cuts must be done “over a long period of time.”

There’s just one problem with her estimation — and it’s a big one. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only 134 million people working in the United States. So by Waters’ estimation, the sequester cuts would be so apocalyptic that nearly 40 million people who don’t have jobs would become even more unemployed.

Further, the U.S. currently has a population of about 315 million people, according to Census data. If Waters was correct in her assertion, that would mean sequestration would leave more than half the country, 54 percent, unemployed. Talk about a catastrophe.

Luckily for America, the estimate is clearly wrong. TheBlaze could not find any data to suggest that the $85 billion in automatic sequestration cuts during  FY2013 (about 2.4 percent of annual federal budget) would cause 170 million people to lose their jobs. Then again, that’s also impossible because there aren’t that many people working in America. Unfortunately though, once something is said, you can’t take it back.

Keep in mind, Waters is the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, which “oversees all components of the nation’s housing and financial services sectors including banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities.” If Democrats should gain control of the House, she would become the chairwoman.

The Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle puts it this way:

“The best hope is that this is entirely symbolic, and they figure it’s safe to make her the senior member as long as she won’t actually be in charge of anything.  But having put her in a highly visible slot, it will be very difficult to dislodge her in the event that the Democrats retake the house, and Maxine Waters is expected to actually architect new legislation concerning the financial system.  And even typing those words strikes terror into my heart.”

FILE – In this May 8, 2012 file photo, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. The substitute ethics panel that investigated Rep. Maxine Waters, a senior Democrat, issued a stinging rebuke of the permanent House Ethics Committee Tuesday with a declaration that its members need to step aside from partisanship when judging member conduct. Credit: AP

–

UPDATE: Eric Orner, Waters’ deputy communications director, told Charles C. W. Cooke in a statement that the 170 million jobs comment was a “slip of the tongue.” He also scolded Cooke for posting the video at all, saying “I think this was below your standards, and I hope you’ll reconsider the post.”

Here it is:

I just noticed a post by National Review On-Line contributor Charles C. W. Cooke about  House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Water’s obvious slip of the tongue (she accidentally said 170 million , when she meant 170 thousand) when referring to the number of  jobs that may be lost as a result of sequestration.

I think this was below your standards, and hope you’ll reconsider the post.

Eric Orner

Deputy Communications Director
Financial Services Committee
Representative Maxine Waters, Ranking Member

Cooke’s response on National Review Online? “Never mind. When the very fabric of the republic collapses at 11:59p.m. tomorrow, this will all be rendered moot,” he jokingly wrote.

Bob Woodward At War With The White House

It will be interesting to see how the next couple weeks of the Woodward-White House war of words plays out. Will we see Bob Woodward cave or see the White House realize its mistakes? Or will other reporters finally start becoming reporters again or will they also bend to the demands of the White House?

Whichever way it ends, there will be blood spilled. The opening round was the White House demanding that Woodward not release the article on sequester and telling him that there would be hell to pay if he went ahead (our words, not a quote.)  As one of the Watergate reporters who broke the story that brought down Nixon, one would think that this would only encourage the investigator to dig deeper. Obviously, this was not a big story, but it is becoming one.

In that same vein, neither was Watergate. The break-in was something easily dismissed and could have been controlled by throwing a couple functionaries to the wolves. It grew into a real story as the President and his people tried to control an out of control situation.  The cover-up is where the real story broke.  

Now we have the same type of very private White House telling a well known and respected reporter to mind his own business and not to report what he knows.  Could this be the beginning of the end of the Obama Administration or will the press throw Woodward to the wolves and dismiss him as a has-been?

Time will tell, however ff we were to predict (which we know is dangerous business), Obama will get away with this. There will be some fence mending and Woodward will admit to a memory slip.  He will say something to the effect of "I did not really remember it the way the White House does and for any misunderstanding on my part, I apologize to the President." Will you be satisfied with this? Will other reporters get the message that you don't cross this White House? Or will some enterprising reporter find the real smoking gun? 

We have told you what we think, now it is your turn.

Conservative Tom