That’s an incoming member of the House leadership, Kristi Noem (R-SD), encouraging the tax cut deal, but quickly pivoting to the urgent need to slash spending.
While stopping all the tax hikes would be a good first step, this alone won’t eliminate the job-killing uncertainty hanging over our employers and entrepreneurs. That’s why we need to focus on cutting spending and reducing the size of government.
Some would look at this as ridiculous. After all, Noem just endorsed a tax cut bill which would add $893 billion to the deficit over five years. And she dares to lecture about fiscal conservatism?
But if consistency is not the strong suit of conservatives, it doesn’t mean that it will be met with laughter on either side of the political aisle. This is the gambit that Republicans have worked for a generation – make taxes so low and deficits so burdensome that pressure builds to slash spending. They claim that tax cuts shouldn’t be counted as part of the deficit but that any spending must be offset or eliminated. It doesn’t have to make sense. Because it’s working.
Americans should prepare themselves for spending cuts by Congress next year, the chairmen of the House and Senate’s budget committees said Friday.
Both Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee, signaled that they’re preparing budgets that would seek cuts to government spending in order to address the deficit.
Conrad said he’d look to the recommendations by President Obama’s fiscal commission as a “starting point,” and then look to craft a budget that improves on those proposals [...]
“We intend to do lots of spending cuts and lots of spending reforms as soon as we take over in January,” Ryan said. “The debt ceiling, obviously, is going to have to be increased if we’re not going to default, so the question is, what do we get in exchange for that, and what kind of fiscal controls?”
These are the two most important people in Washington in terms of what the next budget will look like and how the fight over the debt ceiling will play out. And both of them are gunning for federal spending across the board.
Someone tell me again how this tax cut deal will find reward in creating a “stimulus” by increasing aggregate demand. It’s completely clear that conservative Republicans (with a good deal of support from budget hawk Democrats) will try to create a crisis with the debt limit vote, and if only moderately successful there will use the fiscal year 2012 budget to cancel out whatever increase in demand comes from the tax cuts. And you have to ask yourself – what cuts will be more harmful? Marginal taxes on the rich, or the elimination of Head Start and TANF and dozens of other programs for the poor?
Bernie Sanders notwithstanding, I don’t see a whole lot of resistance to deficit mania in Washington, even after the deficit-busting tax cuts get passed.




95 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
As progressives, we have to face the fact that it’s going to get a lot worse before we reach a point where people are angry enough to demand that something be done. I just hope that we reach that point before our entire economy implodes. Based on the speed with which things are going sour, I’m wondering if the breaking point might even be reached by 2012, or at worst 2014. Even if we wind up with a right-wing President in 2012, if things get bad enough and people get angry enough, we could start turning Congress around in 2014. A responsive, responsible Congress could do a lot to cancel out a bad president.
Look at what happen in the uk this week. Where the future king of england was attacked by students upset at baby boomers that wasted the surplus of the greatest genration WWII thru Viet-Nam and now thay want to finance there over spending by cheeper labor,takeing away the safety net and ower children will pay for the baby boomers excess of the upper class.
If we “wind up with a right wing president”? Like we don’t have one now you mean?
The Pentagon is busily planning how to maintain control once the implosion happens. From MSNBC tee vee show:
Army studying implications of “large scale economic breakdown”
Would force the Army to keep “domestic order amid civil unrest.”
Army to deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets.
30 US Marine Corps War College in October visited JP Morgan trading floor to study markets.
LINK.
Good luck with that. There are a whoooooole lot of armed people in this country. Perhaps at a greater percentage than any other country in history.
This is the only rational reason that the Rs would give Obama the stimulus that he feels he needs to win in 2012 — that they are sure they can reverse its effects by cutting spending in 2011 and 2012.
Indeed, Rush coming out officially against the “tax deal” shows this is exactly their plan.
Someone needs to ask Kristi Noem whether she favors a national speed limit — and whether she would ever obey it. This woman has more speeding tickets than all the characters in Gone in Sixty Seconds put together. And lots of failures to appear, as well.
There’s not any way she’s qualified for federal office given her scofflaw attitude toward the most basic common laws we all must obey: traffic speed limits.
Hmmm…looks like Alex Jones has been right all along.
Worst. President. Ever. Congratulations W. You just made 43!
(Hi!) Yep. I’m a liberal, and armed.
Jones often makes sense but more often is just nuts.
(Hi back!) Not armed yet but a qualified sharpshooter. I’ve always been a bit of an anomaly for being as liberal as I am since I am so pro private gun ownership. For the record I think there should be some reasonable restrictions but I have always interpreted the second amendment to mean that’s it about defending our nation against internal enemies and tyrants within government more than external enemies. It’s a whole lot harder to impose martial law on an armed population.
I agree…it’s the often makes sense part…
The story of her just proves that “if you have a wheel borrow full of shit and the street is long enough, you will sell it”.
Why do people have such a hard time with simple arithmetic? Numbers have to add up. If beers are $1 each and you only have $2, you can’t buy 5 beers, just two. The US congress wants to buy everybody a beer but doesn’t have enough cash to pay for the round. Even when it takes money away from others that don’t drink.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Why didn’t I ever see it before?
We’re not in the first grade with Tom and Jane buying apples with their pooled allowance. The world isn’t as simple as you imagine. Even stone age economies had credit.
Democrats are free traders. Clinton started this downhill slide, and Obama will continue it. Why do I say this? Clinton started ramping trade with China, Obama is continuing it with Korea. There won’t be a country left if we keep destroying our manufacturing sectors.
I never thought about it that way. You’re right. Those that don’t drink or don’t have a dollar can just eat cake.
Beer trickles down, ya know.
Yeah…cause Bush didn’t contribute at all. I agree with you about Clinton and Obama but leaving Reagan and the Bushs out is like saying that England and the United States won World War II without any other help.
That’s not all that trickles down….
Ahh, the myth of the budget as a family’s budget example.
Here’s the deal Nailhead –
When I have the ability to print my own money, and keep my huge ass army off the books, I’ll accept that my budget and the Government’s budget works the same way.
Till then? Not so much.
You’re scaring the children again, Peggy.
Ah well, then maybe they should grow up a bit. :)
I heard this on NPR yesterday. The reporter from England keep saying that the Boomers blew the money. WTF? If a bank is robbed it is not the customers who are at fault. It is the robbers. The money was stolen while the Boomers where present. Doesn’t mean they did it. This is just another wedge issue that doesn’t really work. Same thing is going on in the states concerning social security. The younger generations have been convinced they will never see it. The remedy to the problem is tax the forkin’ rich asshats.
If only our leader wasn’t also propagating it.
Yeah. It’s kinda like the difference between climate and weather isn’t it?
What??? After all the effort they went to convincing young people that they’ll never see Social Security?
Obama is a beaten wife. Period.
Yep.
And leadership knows better. Gah.
Useless tax cuts for the super wealthy during a recession, paid for by cutting services and screwing the American people…
Makes sense to me. /s
Interesting. Chuck Todd said something the other day to the effect that “we all blame the Boomers for the situation”….must be some kind of talking point.
We really are trying to relive the Herbert Hoover years, aren’t we. Betcha this time the Bonus Army will be armed.
A monumental example of enforced amnesia.
Meanwhile corporations are posting record profits along with record (not) hiring. You’d think that they would have learned after the TARP failure and the mortgage cramdown scam to attach some fucking strings to money that they throw at rich people…
Btw, Kristi Noem is definitely going to rise fast in our political system!
Something tells me it came directly from
Scott McClellanTony SnowRobert Gibbs.How many folks mortgage is larger than their annual income? I suspect most, because the realtor’s rule of thumb is buy at twice your annual income and mortgages generally are for 80% of the purchase price.
That’s what the family version of debt/GDP ratio is about. The analogy is bogus, because the national debt included purchases of assets that in a family are not seen as debt so long as the resale value is greater than the mortgage plus the equity they have.
“They” are the rich people.
That’s pretty intelligent. I’ll buy a copy of your next book.
Especially if she has a brain. The contrast with Palin, Bachmann, Myrick, Foxx, and a few new women in their company will be her Teflon.
Can’t there be prosperity without the assholes who systematically and all-too-effectively abuse it? Our capitalist system will implode if someone doesn’t step in who can rein them in while they’re making money.
Did you pay cash for your house? If not, why not? Can’t you do simple arithmetic?
If you’re too weak to take the rich asshat’s money on your own, why should anybody else help you with the theft?
Of course there can. What about that comment makes you think I believe otherwise?
You should. It’s called:
“Sovereign Nations Aren’t Like Your Household.”
Nothing at all! I was partly adding to your comment with a rhetorical question and partly wondering out loud what the right way to start thinking about a solution to the problem might be.
Unfortunately and anecdotally, most of the gun-owning folks I know are for more likely to side with authority and turn their guns on “external enemies” should some apocalyptic, social crisis, martial law scenario unfold. It’s a strange thing: on the one hand they exhibit a supposed abhorrence of government, but on the other they are very strongly authoritarian.
Theft? What do you suppose supports the society in which said rich asshat was able to make his/her money? Wishful thinking? No, it’s taxes. Who pays the police that allows Mr. rich Asshat to move around without being killed and robbed? Who pays the military that keeps Mr. Desperate Dictator from robbing us all? Who pays the fire department that keeps Mr. Rich Asshat’s property safe? Somebody has to pay taxes. Taxation is not theft, no matter what Rush wants you to believe.
Take, weak, theft – the keywords of the morally bankrupt are in your statement. ‘Nuff said.
/disengagesfromtroll
Sorry. Didn’t get the rhetorical nature of it. Thanks. :)
Yep. All Beck approved and Rush certified.
Eli is upstairs!
How To Get Republicans To Yes On Immigration Reform
Hmmm. It’s my experience that the authoritarian ones are the people that go around boasting about being armed and generally speaking, are much more a danger to themselves than anybody else. Not to say that you don’t make valid points though but I think there are a whole lot of people who are quietly armed.
Oh, shit, Barbie does DC. If those flashing big eyes don’t trigger “social inspiration” nothing does.
If the times we live in weren’t so fucking Historic; Barbie does DC wouldn’t be so concerning.
Love your new pic btw Kelly. :)
In re Noem and all the recent talk on the deficit, stimulating the economy, taxing and spending, etc. ad nauseam: It is stunning how nobody is discussing the cost of war. What conclusions might be drawn from the total public political silence on this murderous money hole?
I guess I saw it as rhetorical in the sense that, as you pointed out, the answer is/should be obvious!
No, Obama is a wife beater.
It’s cool. I read the comment a couple of times because it confused me a bit. I guess my wine is getting to my head.
No, Obama is a beaten wife who is beaten by (his) husband (the Republicans) and then beats the children, (us), in order to feel better about himself.
Obama is a beaten wife. With all do respects…in my world, Obama is carrying the Weight of the World’s Despair in a sick pageant designed to entrance us all. No, not the anti-christ.
The charismatic leader who lead us to abandon our civil rights, national pride, treaties, principles on a mass scale of designed apathy.
I’m so going to be hauled up against the Tribunals for saying that.
President Obama + the GOP + Grover Norquist = Triangulation.
The Obama/GOP “compromise” is straight out of Grover Norquist’s playbook: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, meant to shrink government revenues so that public programs and services can be cut to the bone and/or regressive taxes raised, all so that the wealthiest can hold onto or increase their wealth. Fascism. Oligarchy. A Banana Republic created by Banana Republicans, possibly facilitated by a “Democratic” president.
If this Obama/GOP “compromise” gets passed, $5 to $6 trillion will be added to U.S. federal budget deficits over the next ten years, with two-thirds of this amount coming from extending the Bush era tax cuts (with the presumption that the high-end tax cuts will keep being extended) and the other one-third coming from tacked-on tax cuts, including the rich-slanted change in the inheritance tax.
The Bowles/Simpson Deficit Reduction commission, created by President Obama at the urging of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, just recommended federal budget cuts in public programs and services over the next ten years of only $3 to $4 trillion, falling $2 to $3 trillion short of “filling” the hole blown in the U.S. Treasury by the Obama/GOP “compromise” tax cut package, meaning even more severe cuts in public programs and services or a huge increase in regressive taxes.
Of course, doing this to the federal government doesn’t even take into account the negative “trickle down” impact that this will have on state and local governments across America, even more so than that which has already happened since the 2001/2003 Bush era tax cuts went into effect, with many states and local governments in financial distress. IOW, whatever “benefits” American citizens in the lower 98 economic percentile may see from these federal tax cuts will be buried under increased costs, taxes, at the local and state level, meaning they’ll end up paying more in the long run.
So, why would any sane person want to makes things worse for themselves and their neighbors? Oh, right, the Grover Norquist playbook: starve the government of revenue so that public programs and services can be slashed, while engineering a disinformation campaign to fool enough people into believing that this is in their best interests, when it’s actually only in the best interests of the wealthiest, the oligarchs, the banksters, the fascists.
Or Speaker Nancy Pelosi can refuse to allow this Obama/GOP/Grover Norquist wet-dream turkey of a “compromise” tax bill reach the House floor, killing it, letting the budget-busting deficit-exploding Bush era tax cuts expire, and stopping these tacked-on tax cuts from being implemented, especially the giveaway-to-the-rich inheritance tax change, thus meaning that our federal government will have $5 to $6 trillion in additional revenue over the next ten years…hmmmm, what exactly was the purpose of the Bowles/Simpson Cat Food Commission once again? Oh, right, it was created earlier this year in a burst of “bi-partisanship” in preparation for extending all the Bush era tax cuts indefinitely.
If Speaker Pelosi allows this “bi-partisanship” bill to go forward and it passes (with Republicans joining with Blue Dog Democrats and backing-Obama -at-any-cost Black Caucus House members to pass it), then her name will go down in history alongside Bush-backing Sandra Day O’Connor’s name as having sold-out America and the future of our nation’s children.
Oh, quite agree with you on being more of a danger to themselves. I live in a concealed carry red state, and I often think, “You folks know that you have a far greater chance of shooting yourself or a family member than thwarting an armed robber.” No matter. It’s largely an issue of fear and the semblance of control.
Just my experience, but the authoritarians are armed. The efficacy of that arming is another question.
I’m “quietly armed,” but I’m a pacifist. :)
Good one!
Exactly. Just like being conservative, bad tempered and authoritarian, going around displaying the fact that you’re armed is a symptom of insecurity. Conservatives are cowards who arm themselves, swagger and preen to “prove” that they aren’t really afraid of everything.
It’s completely clear that conservative Republicans (with a good deal of support from budget hawk Democrats) will try to create a crisis with the debt limit vote, and if only moderately successful there will use the fiscal year 2012 budget to cancel out whatever increase in demand comes from the tax cuts.
I made that point here yesterday. Besides, the oil companies have already preempted the extra stimulus money by raising energy costs, diverting it to their own greedy selves.
Like that should come as a surprise.
I agree. I narrow it down to a Big Daddy Jesus complex that requires multitudes of lies to maintain.
But that’s just me. :]
Going off to make “marriage quality” chicken soup. Livens the senses and makes all hope a soft smile.
yeah
Who pays for the courts that enforce Mr. Rich Asshat’s fine-print unintelligible contracts against ordinary folks?
Yup, the all-American phony individualists, with Glocks and Made In China authentic Harley Davidson leathers.
That too. Apparently some people consider it “theft”. It’s been my experience that these people are the first and loudest to whine when services are no longer available though.
I think the Democrats as free traders are no more likely than Republicans to solve these problems. We can’t continue unemployment forever, even though it’s likely that it will be needed for a long, long time without some import tariffs to protect US jobs.
“I’m Kristi Noem brought to you by NRCC Young Guns and Leadership Theater™ (link).”
She wants to make sure that South Dakotans aren’t “over taxed” or “over regulated” while her state, as of 2005, received $1.50+ of federal money for every tax dollar the state generated.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
With the exception of Andrew Bacevich’s work, the best thing I’ve read in several years:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Isn’t that a fascinating phenomenon? In our effort to be rugged individualists, we end up wearing tribal uniforms smeared with corporate logo feces.
NASCAR and HD luncboxes for all! I share your experience re second-clausers. Most of them, in a national emergency, would line up to get little tin deputy badges and plus-size cammys so they could guard their stash from the minorities and liberals bent on taking it.
=
Bob Altermeyer’s book (The Authoritarians) is pretty good, but his thesis relies on works of others who are of questionable authority- Reader beware: read supporting documents too.
Here’s another good one: Hannah Adrent: The origins of Totalitarianism
There was a decent article in Time a few months ago on militia groups in Ohio. One of the things some of them mentioned was how they saw themselves as self-deputized supporters of local police. I read the article at the gym, so I don’t have a link.
“Questionable authority”? :)
I like “The Authoritarians” better than some of his other, more academic work because it cuts straight to the nut of the issue, although it may sacrifice something for that simplicity and accessibility.
Thanks for the link.
Her 1st decision was a lousy one: $139,000 in tax-cuts for Millionaires, $39 Billion for Sam Walton (Walmart-Inheritance) while screwing people (25 million of them) by INCREASING their taxes (Earn $20,000).
Republicans want to privatize Social Security and so does Obama, who really is a Republican.
Pete Peterson wrote about Boomers in a 1996 article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96may/aging/aging.htm
Interesting quotes include:
“[U]nlike the United States…other countries are unencumbered by the illusion that their people have some sort of inalienable right to live the last third of their adult lives in subsidized leisure.”
He really doesn’t like the idea of old people living on the public dole. Why couldn’t they all be billionaires like he is?
How much longer until we become a failed state?
I say Failed State ’28
The wing nuts I work with think liberals are pussy’s.
I for one am a radical leftist, ‘Nam Vet with guns. Bring it on dumb asses.
I was always under the impression from Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” that Canada had a higher rate of gun ownership compared to the U.S.
As for me, I am not yet armed, but I am strongly considering acquiring armaments the more I see free market bible thumping rightwingers and corporate democrats successfully working hand-in-hand in trying to destroy civilized society. There might not be anymore police or law and order in the U.S. in the near future thanks to many of the policies that may soon be enacted by the two party corporate oligarchy. These people believe Adam Smith’s theory that people acting in their own self-interest will always improve society.
But I ask that, if everyone always acts in their own self-interest, why then should people care to take the trouble to form societies? Just do what the rich do when they tend to their own self-interests i.e. STEAL EVERYTHING!
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all.
G. K. Chesterton
The boomers when put in power thay started letting there reprensenatives take away.When thay wanted to take ower benifits away we let them.The rich would leave the one thay put in charge a little extra to sell the rest out.Then you were wrong if we wanted to keep a liveable income.But still the upper middle class Management sold the working class for a few extra peaces of silver.The upper management brought in cheep and unqualified workers labor that drove wages and quality down.I truely think that the baby boomers that has taken management starting in the 1970 sold the working class of The USA out.I remember when one of these new to management baby boomers said he would not be able to make up the loss of money if his trade union stayed out on strack.When he went in upper management that baby boomer sent materal and men to work on business agent’s and inspectors for the goverment home for favor.all were baby boomers.The Greatest Genration failed in one area when raiseing there children to treat others as you want to be treated.If your going to employ anyone pay them a liveable wage I’m sure you would want that for yourself.If your not furnishing Health Care and Retiremen benifits.Then your the one that takeing WELFAIR.
I should have said “acknowledged right-wing president”, since large number of people think our current president is a socialist. Damned if I know why.
You are a little clueless on the reality for boomers. I’m a boomer still paying in to Social Security which all of my many octogenerian aunts and uncles collect. Their generation had defined pensions as well. Most boomers do not. Why do you think the percentage of people over age 60 who are working is increasing?
The Catfood Commission wants to cut my boomer Social Security and I’ve yet to collect a penny and I’ve been working 40 years.
“While stopping all the tax hikes would be a good first step, this alone won’t eliminate the job-killing uncertainty hanging over our employers and entrepreneurs. That’s why we need to focus on cutting spending and reducing the size of government.”
“…job-killing uncertainty hanging over our employers and entrepreneurs.”
The greatest job killer for American society, the most regressive force on life is: “The Cost of Energy!” It is the greatest tax on life. As energy costs rise, the jobs vaporizes! Just watch that price rise at the pump, at the store, everywhere! What a deal for America?
So lets protect that which essentially undermines life and liberty here in America for the benefit of select interests who have bought and legislated the servitude of the American people to the corporate shell as slaves where once in servitude to the master? So ask yourself how much economic value, money liberty, will Americans be leveraged into wasting today on just gasoline?
Austerity and continued Corporate Sodomy!
Correct…I son’t drink beer, therefore I have no interest in being forced to buy beer for the next door neighbor…Now I might choose to..that is the difference. Force vs Choice..The problem is spending, not income
I view it differently…I am being forced to be a slave to the government, thru over taxation and over regulation. I have no problem with the corporations..they provide jobs