From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Rep. Andy Harris voted against the debt ceiling increase. The plan did not require passage of a balanced budget amendment, which Rep. Harris feels is essential to bringing permanent common sense accountability to Washington.
“A balanced budget amendment is the only way to make sure the federal government spends what it takes in and lives within its means,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Over the past few weeks I have repeatedly voted for reasonable proposals to raise the debt ceiling that included passage of a balanced budget amendment. But I didn’t come to Washington to continue writing blank checks. Maryland’s families and job creators sent me to Congress to permanently change the way Washington does business. I appreciate Speaker Boehner’s remarkable, historic efforts to craft a proposal to solve the debt ceiling issue. But today’s debt ceiling deal just doesn’t go far enough to build an environment for job creation by requiring passage of a balanced budget amendment to bring permanent common sense accountability to Washington.”
Currently, the U.S. Government has a national debt of $14.3 trillion and runs an annual deficit of $1.65 trillion.
Your callous indifference to the impact on people’s hard earned savings accounts, 401(k)’s and ira’s and gleeful willingness to drive the entire economy of the world off a cliff is truly disgusting.
Anyone who currently has their retirement funds invested in equity markets is behaving reckless.
I think you are misreading your constituents Congressman Harris. We may be a majority of Republicans but the majority of us do not associate with the Tea Party extremists.
I think you’ll find he’s not misreading them, he just doesn’t care. See this formula describing how the slow death march for America goes on:
“In other words, leaders of both parties were able to shore up their bases, even as they repulsed the country. Which is a pretty neat summary of national politics these days. Appeal to the base, alienate your opponents, and hope the political center is so turned off it doesn’t even bother coming to the polls.”
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/02/the-debt-limit-debate-as-bipartisan-suicide-pact/#ixzz1TsMxCmgC
I couln’t agree more — except I am not a Republican, but believe it is time for Mr. Harris to take note of the fact that he represents all of his constituents, and not just the “job creators” a/k/a big business and superwealthy. Whether we voted for Mr. Harris or not — he serves all of us. And his recent actions durin the debt crisis have failed to serve his constitutents. While in the sense of financial contributions the “job creators” sent him to congress the rest of us “struggling to make end meet” consitutents can see to it that he does not serve another term; something that Mr. Harris might want to remember.
If only we didn’t let Wayne Gilchrest get purged. Perhaps we need someone to primary Andy Harris, particularly if he gets redistricted out and moves to Cambridge!
I hope Wayne is a reader of the Dagger and would consider challenging the primary.
I feel Wayne Gilchrest represented the Shore well and was a voice of reason. He was very active with local concerns and Chesapeake Bay issues. He always returned calls and answered letters. As a hunter and fisherman, I welcomed his representation and support on issues important to many of us who derive income and enjoyment from the Bay.
Yup but sadly he got on Ehrlich’s bad side and Mr. Harris was encouraged to primary him by Ehrlich and endorsed. We the residents of MD-1 lost out.
I applaud Rep. Harris. What happened to America, balancing budgets and not taking on more debt then you can handle are suddenly radical ideas?
Well, Colin, what happened to America was the Bush tax cuts, Iraq and Afghanistan. No one, right or left, I suspect is happy with the situation in which we find ourselves.
Rep Harris was elected to legislate in the best interests of his constituents. That doesn’t mean to quit playing kickball because you didn’t get to be the one who rolls the ball.
The “if I don’t get what I want you are all going to pay” mindset might be appropriate if he was one of the Little Rascals but it plays very poorly in his current role.
Don’t leave out Obama spending it as fast as it can be printed
Dulcinea,
Are you telling me that Congress hasn’t over-spent for more than 80 years? The Democrats answer to all of this is to tax more, not to cut spending. You and I could not live this way, and yet, Democrats campaign by giving money away. Get real.
So do Republicans, just to different people.
Get real.
Both of them are despicable.
To Noble,
BS to your statement. Who has controlled congress for most of the last 50 years? Who traditionally gives to every minority group- legal and illegal? You need to read and learn. I used to be a Democrat. No, Republicans aren’t perfect either, but they are a hell of lot better for this country. Get real and read.
Well, Dulcinea, Rep. Harris was elected with the expectation that he would keep his campaign promises. If you are in his district and voted for his opponent then – and listen to this very, very carefully – your point of view was rejected. That means that you don’t get to have him support the stuff that you want him to support if he promised to do something different. That’s how it works. That’s how it is supposed to work. Sorry that you don’t get to trump the majority that voted for him. You are just going to have to put on your big girl clothes and deal with it.
I agree with Congressman Harris. To think that we can keep borrowing money forever, keep the treasury’s printing presses going 24/7 and not have to face the consequences is foolish. Sooner or later we (or our kids and grandkids) will have to pay up and I’d rather do it now then later.But then again we can always raise the taxes 40 or 50% to make up for the over spending.
I agree with his vote. So did Elijah Cummings, Jon Sarbanes and Donna Edwards who also voted with him to reject the bill.
Are they all “callously indifferent” as charged by ANONYMOUS who still is ashamed to use a name, or “misreading their constituents” (MACG)or “just doesn’t care” as NOBLE says? Or do we give them a “pass” because they are Democrats?
You seem to misunderstand possibly, my statement that he doesn’t care. What it means is that he doesn’t care about what his constituents think because all he has to do is follow the formula laid out in my earlier posting and he will win the election.
That is, unless enough voters break the cycle.
You see, almost every single “NO” vote on this bill was politically motivated. Particularly in MD, it’s plain to see that each of those NO’s came from well defined districts where they can’t take a chance on voting Yes. The Yes votes came from either more diverse districts or from members who have a history of being more moderate (Bartlett, gasp) or have greater standing politically, Hoyer/Van Hollen.
It’s almost never about what’s right for people or America anymore, it’s all about winning your next election and keeping your base voters happy and motivated.
It’s a joke.
Scratch that.
We’re the joke. Because we constantly let these cowardly imbeciles represent us time and again.
People need to wake up, fill their brains, and go out and vote for new leadership everywhere. Spare not a soul.
If we don’t clean house, it will all just continue and America will get, as it has thus far, exactly what it has asked for.
Well, Noble, I agree that we are the joke. The people who are now elected are the people that convinced the majority of us to get off our fat backsides and go to the polls and vote for them because they promised us stuff that we thought we wanted.
That doesn’t mean that we should actually expect them to keep their promises because, hey, it might turn out that it would not be politically expedient for them and their next election campaign. Most of them are intellectually dishonest and they take us for fools because we don’t demand that they do what they promised and we believe their scare tactics of less police and education and all of that. I will admit that their assessment of the electorate as fools has a lot of evidence to support it.
To have top corporations like GE pay no taxes, that is right $0 taxes last year, to have billionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than the secretaries that work for them is irresponsible. Congressman Harris is on record as being for both above mentioned. A balanced budget amendment does not and will not work for the United States Government; we could not have and would not have won WWII if we had a balanced budget amendment. What seems to be more plausible is to have Congress fund initiatives as part of the appropriations process. That means Congress must find revenue or cut spending somewhere else before any spending could take place. Where was this outcry against debt when George W. Bush was spending us into oblivion, Medicare Part D, Iraq War, Afghan War, No Child Left Behind, Bush tax cuts for top 2% wealth holders in the country, all unfunded and financed with borrowed money from the Chinese. I do not think you are against government spending; it appears you are against government spending by black presidents.
I see a primary challenge to Congressman Harris on the horizon.
If you feel George Bush spent us into oblivion with deficits averaging less than 250 Billion (still too high in my book), how does that compare to Obama’s average which is 4-5 times as high.
Is there something beyond oblivion?
Being black has nothing to do with it. Being irresponsible and having no plan at all is more important.
Please cite your number for the deficiet under Bush? He increased the national debt by over 250% for each year. This does include money in which he printed from no where.
Ok, Bush did it. Obama is innocent. No, they’re both innocent because I did it. The simple fact remains that if this article is correct “Currently, the U.S. Government has a national debt of $14.3 trillion and runs an annual deficit of $1.65 trillion.” DC spends $1,650,000,000,000 MORE than it takes in – EVERY YEAR… and NO ONE Dem or Rep will do anything concrete to address the issue. The O was president with both houses Dem and he did NOTHING but push a huge pork bill and a medical fantasy bill. They’ll just keep throwing millions away on stupid crap like researching member size among the gay community, or condom use among Brazilian prostitutes or building turtle tunnels in Florida or any of the other stupid things they piss our money away on every year. They’ll say “how can saving a million here and there fix this huge deficit problem?” then they’ll throw more of our money away on their cronies and donors. None of these millionaires would know a budget if it bit them on the ass, so how on Earth can they be trusted to fix this problem?
Never said that Obama is off the hook. Did I? You are putting words in my mouth but TOday Sean Hannity was acting like in Jan of 2009 the debt magically happened and ignored that since 2001 we spent like drunken sailors under both admins and congresses controled by BOTH parties.
Personally, MACG, I am an equality opportunity “against government spending” whether black or white, male or female, Hispanic, Asian, (have I left anybody out?). Bush didn’t get a pass from me because he was white and Republican, Slick Willie didn’t get a pass from me because he was Democratic and white, so Barack Obama isn’t gpoing to get a pass either.
The conclusion I have drawn, based on his track record and education is that he is a very well educated man. Therefore, I have to attribute the many problems I have with his politics to intellectual dishonesty, but that trait is shared by many politicans of both parties. The politicians I admire are those that do after elected what the promised to do when running for office. I may not agree with it but I appreciate their honesty. If all politicians did that we would have no budget problems in the US because nearly all of them have promised repeatedly to cut spending.
Wow, how do you possibly argue with that! If I am against the president I am a racist! You win! Except that my party has forever been on the right side of racial issues. Let’s not forget that every southern segregationist politician was a Democrat and that the Democrats in the Senate (including the father of Al “I invented the internet” Gore) filibustered against every piece of civil rights legislation! So let’s stop the playing the race card!
Thank you, Colin. Like you, I am sick of the race card tactic. I just hope that all the liberals who wanted to show that they were not prejudiced will, in the next election, vote against Obama to prove that they aren’t stupid. Like many Americans, I don’t care what color my elected officials are, or anyone else for that matter. What I care about is people treating tax money with the respect it deserves and believing in a capitalistic system which provided us with the greatest opportunities and standard of living in the world. Unless we stop spending beyond our means, these opportunities and standard of living will be down the tube.
@MACG – About GE and taxes here’s what Washington Post reported on April 9, 2011
Did GE get a $3.2 billion tax refund? No.
“Did GE pay U.S. income taxes in 2010? Yes, it paid estimated taxes for 2010 and made payments for previous years. Think of it as your having paid withholding taxes on your salary in 2010 and sending the IRS a check on April 15, 2010, covering your balance owed for 2009.
Will GE ultimately pay U.S. income taxes for 2010? After much to-ing and fro-ing — the company says it hasn’t completed its 2010 tax return — GE now says that it will.”
Regarding hedge fund managers and secretaries they are both subject to the same tax rates for ordinary income, capital gains and treatment of carried interest. Secretaries don’t typically pay as high an ordinary tax rate nor do they pay as much in actual taxes and they don’t enjoy carried interest benefits (which are usually taxed at 15% rate) because they aren’t hedge fund owners, there secretaries.
People try to remember that Presidents don’t spend money, they take credit for money spent or not spent.
Congress is the only part of the government that spends money. No action taken by any President is ever done without the consent of the Congress.
So trying to blame Presidents without mentioning Congress and the ruling parties in them at that time, is disingenous or uninformed.
Bush’s bailout and Obama’s stimulus are where the debt has really soared. The wars didn’t help. If you want to moan about our debt, you should also be stating whether or not you wanted the bailout to happen.
Now most of us didn’t want to do the bailout, but most every creditable economist believes we were doomed without it.
Finally, holding Presidents accountable to the status of our economy is like complaining to Best Buy about their food.
Noble, I responded to a previous comment of yours. I hope that you will read it. As for not holding Presidents responsible for their part in spending, you must been absent in government class the day they discussed the budget process. You remind me of the proverbial college professor who never comes up with any plans for our problems because he is too busy trying to impress people with what he thinks he knows.
First, I read your comment. It’s funny, because I’ve always been a Republican, so welcome to the club, and I’m glad you came to your senses. Second, parties aren’t the problem. It’s politicians of any party, who serve numerous interests before those of the country, including their own, corporations, lobbyist, and yes, even radical elements of their own parties that help them get re-elected.
Unlike most of the people who comment here, I don’t have a problem with people of either/any party, I respect their ideas and opinions as long as they are equitably informed by unbiased information and basic common sense. Everyone wants to throw labels around to make life easier to understand, but it’s not easy.
Second, the President only signs approval of the budget that Congress passes. Technically, Presidents have no obligation or responsibility in the budget process, other than signing the bill. Only in practice, particularly in the modern era, do Presidents actually make their own budget and send it to members of their own party in Congress to introduce as a bill. There is no Constitutional part of that process. The President cannot introduce a bill in Congress.
The buget bills that Congress passes are typically an amalgam of what the President wants, and whatever the majority in Congress wants.
So yes, in some cases, many of a Presidents iniatives (ie campaign promises) end up in the Federal budget, but the fact is that it is still all approved by both Houses of Congress first. So no dollar that a President has ever spent didn’t first go through the approval of Congress (save for military actions).
Lastly, if you read my comment that you responded to carefully, you’ll see that I only said we really can’t hold Presidents accountable to the “state of the economy”. I didn’t say anything about Federal spending. My point is that although most poeple vote their pocket books and Presidents live or die by the health of the economy, this is foolish beacuse most of the time a President is swimming in the pool created by their predecesor. And that, only to the minimal extent that a President can actually influence hte economy, which I contend is very very litte. The most important thing one can do is appoint the Fed chairman. Other than that, our economy is driven largely by private enterprise and consumer spending far more than anything a President does or doesn’t do.
Noble, you have to be kidding yourself to believe that the President doesn’t have anything to do with the budget. It is the President, as with all executives who prepares and submits the budget to Congress. This comes from the various departments and agencies, which you and I know would fill many screens. Yes, Congress approves it, but let me start the budget and I have great control over it. Congress has some blame for approving it, and most often adding to it. They create many agencies that never go away. But, yes, the President can be blamed and should be. Congress should be blamed also.
Well then I’m glad you agree with me, because nothing above disagrees with anything in my previous statements.
Andy Harris will vote “No” against pretty much any bill, unless it eliminates his taxpayer funded health care insurance.
How quickly we forget that the last balanced budget was under President Bill Clinton. It didn’t take the Bush admin long to piss that away, between the tax cuts for the wealthy and the off-the-books wars. Where was the tea party then? Where were the fiscally sound Republicans then? They were drinking the Bush/Cheney Kool-Aid.
After eight years of that sugary potion, they are as bloated as the budget, and are cranky and full of gas, and blaming the nearest black man they can find. Big surprise.
It’s a sad day when you turn on the national news and there our congressman was complaining about his health care not starting soon enough. There are plenty of us that wish we had the perks of health care and all other benefits that go with being a member of congress.
If you believe that there was a balanced budget under Clinton I’ve got a really nice bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to you. There has not bee a REAL balanced budget in this country for well over one hundred years. The Clinton budgets were all smoke and mirrors, just like the before and after him.
Here’s a fresh look at the debt ceiling:
You come home from work and find that the sewer system has backed up and you have sewage to the ceiling.
What do you do: raise the ceiling or pump out the shit?
I would opt to pump out the Yensan.
Yay, Dagger Dan! You’ve been gone too long.
Rep Harris was sent to Washington to represent the people of his district. He was not sent to DC to further his own ideas on the way things are run in DC. We are fighting the MdTA about increasing tolls and haven’t heard anything from him on that. His district includes the Hatem and I95 Tolls. Must not be that important for him to help out when needed and not on the news. Also, what about this budget amendement? I think it is a good idea, but don’t you need 2/3 of the states to ratify it? There isn’t much that I liked about the whole debt ceiling from both sides. When are the Honorable Members going to stop talking about what they think and start talking about who elected them!
The BBA is a good idea but tieing it to this bill was a bad idea. Particularly since they spelled out specifics and a little thought may make one realize the ammendment should look different. The ammendment must get 2/3rds of both houses of congress. Then 3/4ths of the state legislators (38) must approve it in 7 years. What ever the wording is going to be a bipartisan wording if it has a snowballs chance in hell.
I basically agree with this, though I don’t know that a BBA is an entirely “good” idea. I think there are other solutions already available that don’t require a Constitutional Ammendment.
It’s mostly a pipe dream, and a political calculation to tie to the debt ceiling debate.
If we want a balanced budget then a BBA is the only thing that will achieve it. However the one proposed in the first two bills through thee house are bad models for one. Even the Heratige foundation agreed in 2006.
You haven’t heard from him about the tolls, only because you weren’t listening.
Just watching the news and seeing about starving children that get free lunches. This is what makes me ponder if all this grand standing for the debt limit and not increasing spending. How many would let a small child go hungry? One comment the lady made, “We are feeding our future”. I am sure the honorable members of congress have a heart, but need to put their priorities in order. I may not be a fan of increased spending, but would a higher rate of taxes, if the money went to the right place.
and it never does. Let’s get our house in order before we try to get everyone else’s in order.
the everyone else in the piece being refered to are kids in Apalacia and other rural parts of the south where kids literally lose 30 pounds over the summer when school is out!
CDEV,
Yes…. and you can find hundreds of other worthwhile charities. Do you give your family’s money away so you cannot take care of them? We all know thousands of charities. If you do that, then I think you are an unfit parent, husband, etc. If you don’t do it, then why would you expect our government to spend more than they have. Where would we be as individuals if we did this? Maybe, if we, stopped giving money around the world, we could give more to our own citizens. hmmm, common sense
Again this money is not being spent around the world….it is being spent in our own back yard on our own citizens!!!!
cdev,
I know that most of the money is staying in our country. That is another issue. My comment is that one aspect of our overspending is because we do give billions of dollars to foreign countries, and have been doing so for many years. We can’t afford this any longer, unless, like many liberals you want to continue to increase taxes. As far as Appalachia, I thought that problem was solved when LBJ began the war on poverty. Oh, wait a minute, throwing money at problems doesn’t always solve them. That program was roughly 50 years ago.
@Monster – Cdev is a big government progressive who finds a way to always be on both sides of any issue. He is a deplorable equivocating pabulum spewing Casper Milquetoast.
Porter
Yes monster I get your arguement but you commented in reply to Concerned Republican’s statement about feeding poor people in our own country.
As far as solving anything with a war on something….WHen has that ever worked. We had a war on communism and there is still Communism, a war on poverty and there is still poverty, a war on drugs and there are still drugs, a war on terror and the is still terror. So yes throwing money at it does not always solve it.
One thing you need to remember is that foreign aid is often the price we pay for not having active military intervention around the world.
It has been our way of extending global influence without using bullets to do it.
Of course, there’s healthy debate on how effective that strategy actually is, or how efficient especially, but for the most part, Americans as a whole decided in the last several decades that $500 billion spent on foreign aid is better than $500 billion and 5,000 lives spent.
But utlimately, the larger point (that we can’t afford it anymore) is absolutely right. Our time as an influential global power is waning. People need to come to grips with it.
I strongly agree that this legislation was largely insignificant. We have just started the process of getting this country back to the America we all remember. Just hold on to your hats. Things are going to get very bad before they get better. Hopefully, the federal government will have to face the same belt tightening that all citizens are experiencing. Federal employees that are grossly overpaid need to start this process by taking a 10% pay cut, increases for health care and contributions to their pensions. Jobs cuts are coming. Look out all those companies placing federal jobs and making six figure incomes. The glory days are over.
@ Carol, Just what America is that you remember so fondly? Federal jobs have been around for a very long time and traditionally, pay for these jobs has been less than similar jobs in the private sector, but the benefit was job security and good benefits. State jobs have been the same way, and the payoff is at the end of 30 years when a pension awaits, not a fabulous one mind you, but certainly a very appreciated and decent one. Why should state and federal employees be punished for having made wise decisions by opting for security over profits? I think you, and your tea party friends, are simply jealous. We chose wisely, you didn’t. This is the very social darwinism you all seem to hold so dearly. The fit survive. In your way of thinking, this should make me superior to you who did not choose wisely and ,therefore, entitled to my just desserts.
The palpable sense of schadnfreude coming form the tea party is particularly distasteful to me. Enjoying, even looking forward, to the misfortune of others is hardly a mindset to be respected or emulated.
@DULCINEA Your liberal/progressive pabulum is distasteful to me; that a bigger, more expensive and intrusive government is better for our country and economy.
And long gone are the days that federal workers are underpaid, today these workers receive on average better pay than the private sector and inconceivably, astoundingly rich benefits.
Porter
Truth and lies.
My reading of federal work pay is that the rate of overpay looks like this: \
Meaning, the guy who cuts the grass or trims the bushes outside a federal building who is either a federal worker or a contractor, is significantly overpaid when compared to the guy who does the same job outside almost any other commercial building. Some might argue it’s fair pay, some might say it’s overpaid. I won’t argue that point.
And at the other end, the guy who works in the Whitehouse within shouting distance of the President and the nuke suitcase gets paid dramatically less than he otherwise would at almost any job in private industry for which he is qualified.
Insert she if you prefer it.
It’s not entirely clear to me that across the board cuts are the right answer, though it seems to be. My main point is I don’t think it’s fair to say that ALL federal workers are “overpaid”.
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
@Noble – As a group federal workers are handsomely paid and have uber rich benefits compared with the private sector, but the real problems is that there are just too many of them which exponentially increases the burden on taxpayers.
We have had a digital revolution in the world the past 25 years where the private sector has greatly increased productivity through technology and the federal government simply has not. It’s too big, too inefficient, too wasteful, too costly and completely out of touch with a for-profit capitalist citizenry. The federal government sucks dollars out of the hands of the producers and squanders it through bureaucratic malfeasance and incompetence.
Porter
I totally agree with everything you said except for the words “as a group”.
People at the top of the bureacracy (particularly at the appointee level) can get a dramatically higher salary in private employment, and if you look at it, most of them leaving government work do just that.
@Porter — Distasteful? How the taste anything after gulping down all that BS that the Klan for Liberty is feeding you? See a doctor – I think your heads been up your ass for too long and your tastes are now all backwards.
Blah blah blah Klan blah blah
Same crap every day. Boring.
and if you believe the liberal media, your head isn’t spotless either
For those that worry about socialism, we are already living in a socialist nation. The vast majority of the “red” states are net importers of tax dollars sent to DC, while the vast majority of “blue” states are sending more in federal tax dollars than what is being returned.
The best thing that could ever happen to Maryland, New York, New Jersey, California, etc. would be for someone to propose and get a bill passed that stipulates that no state can receive more in Federal funding than its proportionate share of what it puts into the kitty. Then watch how fast the red states start voting their pocketbooks instead of whether two gays should be allowed to marry, or whether a woman has a right to choose, or whether it should be lawful for citizens to buy assault or other automatic weapons. Watch how quickly these states with little or no personal income tax have to change their policies if their Statehouse accountants weren’t lined up to nurse on the Federal teat, at the expense of taxpayers in NY and California and Maryland.
Want to balance the budget?
First, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we took just a small portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent their every year and used it for better screening in our ports, more police, more first responders, stricter border control, we would be much better off. For chrissakes, if the Soviets — who assuredly did not play by the same set of rules that our troops must adhere to — couldn’t bend the Afghan nation to their will after ten years, what in heaven’s name makes the U.S. think that we can? How much longer can we read about the number of American kids killed on the one hand, and then read about the corruption in that nation and the record production of opium and then heroin on the other. What in God’s name are we doing there? What are we spending lives and scores of billions of dollars on? The only nation we should be worrying about nation building in is located south of Canada, north of Mexico, and nestled between two great oceans.
Next, any nation that has a U.S. military base on their soil must pay us the full cost of us having that presence there. Otherwise bye-bye. Call us when you really need us. The United States spends more on defense than the next 20 nations COMBINED. Eisenhower was correct in warning the nation about a military industrial complex. The Pentagon is the penultimate example of where boys must have their toys, whether needed or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Repeal the Bush tax cuts at the top end immediately. If tax cuts are supposed to provide jobs, where are all the freaking jobs that, according to GOP orthodoxy, should have been created over the last decade? The policy was a sham under Reagan, and it’s a sham now. Makes for a helluva good campaign slogan though. Americans, especially higher income earners, are paying less in taxes now than at any time in 60 years. How can we justify that when the coffers are bleeding? The vast majority of the bloating budget deficits can be directly traced to 1) the Bush tax cuts and 2) the unfunded wars.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-thumbWide.jpg
Instead of giving corporations tax breaks, any corporation with overseas operations — think call centers, for example — that could be performed here be fined $50,000 per overseas employee. How’s that for providing incentive for keeping jobs in the USA? If it doesn’t infuriate you when you call your bank or your computer company and you end up being transferred from Mumbai to Scotland to Taiwan and then, if you’re lucky, to someone back on US soil, then there is something wrong with you.
That would be just a start.
There is one small silver lining in these historically tragic budget deficits. There has never been a better time for the government to go in the red. The cost of borrowing is as low as it has ever been. Thank goodness — again, for a borrower’s perspective — that rates on Treasuries aren’t at 5% or higher, because the interest on these deficits would consume us. Unfortunately we are heading in that direction, and Congress and the President must be very mindful of the catastrophe that awaits should borrowing costs return to where they were just a few short years ago.
And to the gentleman who called the Clinton budget surplus the result of smoke and mirrors trickery, spend a few moments reading this article from FactCheck.org and leave Rush off the radio for a day or so, and don’t bother with Fox or NewsMax. It will leave you healthier, at least for that day or so. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ The real smoke and mirrors comes from the deniers of the non-partisan CBO report.
Noble, no we don’t entirely agree. You insist that Presidents can’t be blamed for the economy. Hogwash! They do affect the budget, and if you don’t think that the federal budget and actions don’t effect the economy, then you and I have nothing to say.
You have made three points:
1) “presidents can be blamed for the economy”
I said that often they are being blamed for the economy created by their predecessor, so yes they can be blamed for it. However, most of the time the economy is like a giant cargo ship, which turns in the direction you want to go quite a while after you turn the rudder. The President’s influence over the health of the economy is usually very small, espeically during their term. (The bailout, not withstanding.) Even the stimulus plans they come up with are just a small nudge in a direction. Like one tugboat on a super container ship. Accordingly, to cast a vote for President on the basis of the economy as it is at that time, is rather pointless. If we have a dispute here, it’s in severity.
2) “Presidents affect the budget”
Yes, of course they do. I actually described exactly how that happens. Did you read it? My points were that the President has no business or responsibility in creating the Federal budget (technically speaking), and that it’s impossible to hold a President alone accountable for a budget because they all get passed by Congress. As you said, they are both to blame– which is exactly what my original point was.
3) “federal budget and actions effect the economy”
Of course it does. I actually said that. But I also said that the influence is very small when taken in comparison to private industry and consumer spending. Again, no disagreement.
You stated my positions as absolutes: Presidents can’t be blamed, they have no influence, government spending/taxing has no impact on the economy… but I didn’t say those things.
Absolutes are great if you want to argue endlessly without listening or taking the time to understand the other side.
And quickly, regarding foreign aid, we both agreed it needed to be cut, so I don’t know what the disagreement is about there. Unless you think it’s always better to send our sons and daughters to die abroad to achieve foreign policy goals, instead of just plain cash. Always? Really?
If so, you should move out the land of zero’s and ones’s and live in the real gray area of life with the rest of us.
Every country on earth uses foreign aid to suit their ends, and very little of it is entirely humanitarian and selfless in intent.
Clinton’s budget was really Newt and the Republicans’ budget?
Noble, I have read everything that you have written. I am telling you that you are incorrect about the impact of the President. I don’t know what you mean when you say “technically speaking.” Is that a qualifier like what is used when television weathermen give us the weather prediction? The President makes the budget. Do you want me to say that again. Sure Congressional approval is required, sure he has to work with Congress, but it is the executive’s job to prepare the budget and submit to Congress. I don’t know where you get your information. Once the budget is adopted, of course it impacts the economy. Yes, businesses and consumers have a great effect on the economy because of what the federal government does or doesn’t do, and that is probably why the stock market is not doing well, and why jobs are not being created, etc. Please don’t keep repeating that the President doesn’t affect the economy. What kind of Republican are you anyway?
Secondly, you now say that we agree on foreign aid. Yet, you said in one of your earlier blogs that foreign aid was superior to American youth being killed. I pointed out that you are proposing something that hasn’t kept us out of at least 3 wars in recent time, and is nothing more than paying ransom or tribute. I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in that. In fact, I am not sure what you believe. Maybe you should run for office, professor, because you sure dance around a lot. You would fit right in to a system that no one wants to take responsibility for, and no one wants to be a bad guy to make tough decisions. Now, you want to stay in the gray zone, go ahead. Don’t call yourself a Republican, you don’t want to make decisions, you just like to play devil’s advocate. That is fine for college professors, but doesn’t work well when tough decisions have to be made.
Finally, how dare you to suggest that because I don’t support foreign aid, that I would sacrifice our kids. But, when we go to war, only a last choice, we owe to our military to fight to win no matter what. Not to send them without proper equipment, and tying their hands because we worry about the press. We never learn from history do we?
Amazingly, after repeating the same statement and explaining them more than I should need to, you still managed to restate my positions incorrectly in an all or nothing format. Apparently, complexity and nuance escape you.
My source is the Constitution, in which the power to tax AND spend is reserved for Congress. It’s actually NOT the President’s job to make a budget. You know how we know that? Because the budget is a bill, and Presidents can’t introduce bills. But as I said, ORIGINALLY, Presidents in the modern era submit budgets via their party’s leadership. Any member of Congress can submit a budget to Congress.
And, as I’ve now said twice, Presidents do have an impact on the economy and budget.
At this point, we’re arguing because you want to, apparently.
So, let’s put an end to this, and take up another issue in the future.
And please leave the rhetoric and personal attacks at the door.
Noble, one more thing…. We spent 800 billion just last month on Pakistan. One country. Go on online and look up how much we give in foreign aid every year. I know that is not the entire problem by a long shot, but it needs to be curtailed. To you and others who say it is better to give money than fight wars, what kind of logic is that? Is that ransom, or tribute as ancestors would say. Furthermore, when has paying money stopped our wars. It didn’t seem to help in Afghanistan where the government hid Bin Laden. You are trying to be fair, but your facts are not even in the neighborhood, and our government cannot sit on fences if they want results. We need decision makers who care about the interests of the USA and its citizens first and foremost. If we keep going the route we are headed, the golden goose will be dead.
Noble,
Don’t tell me to leave my rhetoric out of my postings. You accuse me of not restating your views correctly. BS. I stated them exactly the way you wrote them and raised questions which you never addressed. Do us all a favor and stop polluting this site with your meaningless dribble. As Theo. Roosevelt said, getting you to state anything clearly is like nailing jelly to a wall(paraphrased). You need to take some courses in American government and realize that the Constitution of the U.S. is not the only source of law or power relating to the President. Let me know if your ego can handle a detailed discussion on this issue alone. You seem to like “technical” issues, and so do I.