Washington's Budget Deal: The not-so-perfect gift for Christmas?

From Ernest Istook --

THE NORTH POLE, December 12, 2013 - Santa Claus has just made an emergency order of extra coal for this Christmas. It’s to fill the stockings of those supporting Washington D.C.’s latest budget deal.

But there’s a unique holiday spirit in Washington, so those receiving the coal will re-gift it to those who oppose the budget plan, with cheerful gift tags attached and addressed to “Ebenezer Scrooge.”

Since the whopper budget deal of August 2011, we have added over three trillion dollars to the national debt. Each new agreement teaches us the gift of giving, because our government knows it is more blessed to spend more than you receive. Politicians put a happy face on deficits, just like gift-wrapping the garbage before putting it under the Christmas tree.

Few were surprised at the latest announcement from House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA). These proclamations have become predictable, almost like prophecy. For unto us a deal is born. And the government shall be upon its shoulders and shall not be shut down. And the deal shall be called wonderful.

The choir of angels was missing, but President Obama sang praises. It was like the sound of herald trumpets to hear the pronouncements that spending will be reduced under the agreement. Yet it’s like silent night if you ask when that would happen.

In place of gold, frankincense and myrrh, this budget deal delivers $63 billion in additional spending during the next two years. Reductions in spending are sometime in the eight years thereafter. You can settle down for a long winter’s nap while you wait.

But, hey, it’s Christmas season. Everybody buys now and pays later, right? That’s what makes for a wonderful life!

If you have read the details of the new budget deal, you have seen the list they have made and perhaps you have checked it twice. It can get pretty confusing. For example, here’s part of the report from Politico:

“The bipartisan package includes $63 billion of ‘sequester relief,’ $85 billion of total savings, and $23 billion in net deficit reduction. The agreement would set the discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2014 at $1.012 trillion, and $1.014 trillion in FY 2015.”

This is what drives Santa to insist on more than milk and cookies. The new plan spends more than the old plan, but offsets the new spending by raising fees. So even though spending goes up, the deficit doesn’t go up and neither do taxes. Clear?

Sure, it raises airline ticket fees, but look at the bright side. It doesn’t raise fees on Santa’s reindeer. Possible new fees on Christmas trees are supposed to be in different legislation, not the budget bill.

When they bragged this week about “lowering the deficit,” that is not the same as lowering our debt. Even balancing the budget is less likely than a white Christmas in San Diego, much less reducing debt. The national debt remains up on the housetop, at over $17.2 trillion and headed even higher under this budget deal. Having ANY deficit means your sleigh is headed in the wrong direction; the amount of deficit only tells you how fast.

No, our national debt won’t drop under this proposal, but only The Grinch would expect that. (And perhaps his relatives, like Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Heritage Action, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots, American Conservative Union, Club for Growth. The ones who are getting nuttin’ for Christmas from the Washington insiders).

But this is the most wonderful time of the year. Even Washington and the American people learn they share something in common. At this time every year, millions of us decide we’re going on a diet—after the holidays. Meantime, we will enjoy ourselves. That’s what we did last year and the year before and the year before that. Too many of us still carry extra pounds from not keeping previous diets, just like Uncle Sam carries extra bloat from not keeping past promises to control spending.

Why should anyone believe this year’s promises that politicians will behave responsibly with future spending when past promises were not kept? That is the biggest single problem with the latest budget proposal. None of the numbers matter; only that principle matters.

So just remember the song:

He’s spending while you’re sleeping

He spends when you’re awake

He spends on things both bad and good

So slow down for goodness’ sake

You better watch out

You better not cry

You better not pout

I’m telling you why

Uncle Sam is not Santa Claus.

America loses again

Newt Gingrich is frequently on the money. From his email "Washington Wins, America Loses" today [emphasis added]:

Two things happened yesterday and both represented victories for Washington and defeats for America.

The smaller defeat was closing the federal government on account of an insignificant dusting of snow. The weather was so mild no one in Denver or Minneapolis would have noticed it.

Federal employees--who we had been told throughout the shutdown were eager to go to work--suddenly had another paid day off.

I went to an 8:00 am breakfast next to the White House. The roads were clear (and empty as everyone stayed home). We had 15 people on time at 8:00 am. There was no snow accumulating at the White House.

Then I drove out to Dulles Airport with no problems. There were 200 people at that meeting.

Everyone made it to our business meeting at work later in the day and one person even flew in that morning.

So the private sector kept moving through the light snow earning the tax money to pay the federal workers who couldn't manage to make their way through the flurries.

Washington had won and the country would pay for it.

The larger defeat came when the budget deal was announced.

You could tell how bad a deal it was when no one could describe it honestly.

The budget deal has tax increases but they can't be called tax increases or no Republican could vote for them, so they are simply described in misleading language. But if you fly you will pay a higher tax no matter what the politicians call it.

The sequester is broken and spending will go up.

Since no Republican can vote for spending increases there had to be offsetting out-year cuts.

Of course the immediate spending increases will be real and the out-year cuts will never happen.

It is sad that no one can tell the truth in plain language.

The real disappointment isn't just that the budget deal is so bad it cant be honestly described.

The real disappointment is the lack of imagination and lack of new thinking and creativity.

. . . There are many new developments which could be used to shrink spending, cut out waste, improve services, increase competition, grow the economy and get back to a balanced federal budget.

Sadly the opportunities to break out are ignored while the opportunities to tax more and spend more dominate.

And Speaker Boehner continues to demonstrate just how out of touch he is with the conservative base. The Hill has the ugly report, Boehner lashes at conservative groups: “They've lost all credibility” here.

WHO has lost all credibility???

Obama Exchange

This one is making the rounds. Heh.

What's In the Budget Deal?

Over at the blog Hot Air, Matt Berman and Sarah Mims report on the budget "deal":

Here's something different: Congress has actually come to a bipartisan budget agreement. The budget team's leaders, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., announced the deal Tuesday night.

Here are the big numbers you need to know, from a Senate Democratic aide:

·         It's a $1.012 trillion budget for fiscal year 2014.

·         $85 billion in total savings over ten years.

·         $63 billion in sequester relief over two years, split evenly between defense and non-defense budgets.

·         $23 billion in net deficit reduction over ten years.

·         Does not include unemployment insurance extension. Includes federal employee pension pay-ins.

The reporters describe this “bipartisan budget agreement” as something different. How about: “no good can come from this?” Patty Murray is a spendaholic liberal, and Paul Ryan is the same Paul Ryan who blew off Tea Party Patriots with his support of immigration “reform” (see CTPP blog here) and then diluted his commitment to defund Obamacare.

And those bullet points: who takes seriously any “savings” over a ten year period? Future congresses can ignore any reductions or freezes at pleasure; they are not bound by past actions.

Heritage Action has more buckets of cold water here: 

“Heritage Action cannot support a budget deal that would increase spending in the near-term for promises of woefully inadequate long-term reductions.’’ said the group.

The opposition from Heritage Action could put new pressure on congressional Republicans to oppose the deal if, after the details are released, the group decides to “score’’ the vote in its annual analyses of lawmakers’ voting record on conservative issues.

The likely opposition of many conservatives to the emerging deal means that House Democrats will have to vote for the deal in significant numbers — and many liberals are also unhappy with the emerging deal because it is expected to include cuts in pensions programs for federal employees.

. . .

However other Republicans including Mr. Ryan argues that mandatory program cuts over time are a more durable contribution to fiscal austerity than immediate, one-time cuts. And others, including Ms. Murray and many economists, argue that it makes more sense in a still-fragile recovery to postpone spending cuts into the future when the economy is stronger and better able to absorb cuts.

(WaPo report is here.) Exit question: How does more government spending strengthen the economy? 

Pearl Harbor 72 years ago

"A Day That Will Live In Infamy"

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor 72 years ago today. This photo is from Time Life (h/t Michelle Malkin). Click on the Time Life link for more history and photos.

The memorial USS Arizona a few years ago (photo credit: Pat Dooley)

 God bless our men and women in uniform.

# # #

Speaker Boehner signals support of amnesty

Photo credit: Oneoldvet.com

Roy Beck at NumbersUSA reports on the latest signal from Speaker John Boehner from Beck's email message yesterday:

In hiring a McCain open-borders expert, Boehner shows his commitment to forcing American workers to compete with millions more foreign workers

Our concern is with Speaker Boehner. After months of saying that he has no interest in anything like the Senate's S. 744 bill, why has he hired as his chief immigration aide somebody whose career is based on pushing bills like S. 744?

This is what I have been telling the media about what the new hire means:

It shows that Speaker Boehner remains committed to the corporate lobbies' quest for more foreign workers to hold down the wages of their American workers. His new hire has done almost nothing the last decade except work for giant increases in foreign labor. But Boehner still has to persuade at least 118 Republican House Members that their constituents would be okay with an expansion of immigration during the seventh year of high unemployment.

More at the NumbersUSA blog here.

Phyllis Schlafly’s most recent column here explains why this is not only bad short-term policy, it is also bad long-term for conservatives trying to strengthen the GOP from within by restoring core conservative values:

Looking at the political motivation of the groups pushing higher immigration and amnesty, it’s obvious that the Democrats promote large-scale immigration because it produces more Democratic votes. But why are some prominent Republicans pushing amnesty?

The pro-amnesty New York Times gleefully reported on October 26 the front-page news that big-business leaders and Republican big donors are gearing up for a “lobbying blitz,” backed up by money threats, to get Congress to pass amnesty. Big business wants amnesty in order to get more cheap labor and keep wages forever low, and that is a gross betrayal of the legal immigrants who hope to rise into the middle class and achieve the American dream.

The big donors poured $400,000,000 into the campaigns of losing establishment-backed Republican candidates in 2012. They would rather elect Democrats than conservative, social-issue, Tea Party-type, grassroots Republicans who don’t take orders from the establishment.

If the Republican Party is to remain nationally competitive, it must defeat amnesty in every form. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), summed it up: “I think it would be crazy for the House Republican Leadership to enter into negotiations with Obama on immigration, and I’m a proponent of immigration reform. He’s trying to destroy the Republican Party, and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policy.”

Time to call Speaker Boehner. Again. And send postcards to his Ohio office (shorter security delay):

Speaker Boehner’s details:

Butler County Office  PH (513) 779-5400

Miami County Office PH (937) 339-1524

Clark County Office   PH (937) 322-1120

D.C. Office

PH  (202) 225-6205

FAX (202) 225-0704

And his mailbox:

Speaker John Boehner

7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B

West Chester, OH 45069

Are you Aragorn?

Bill Whittle is a blogger, essayist, PJ Media’s host of Afterburner and co-host of Trifecta. His new essay “Shards” is posted here (h/t Mr. Instapundit). It’s not only worth the read, it's a shot in the arm, especially if it seems like our uphill battles keep getting steeper. 

Freedom is not the default state of man but rather a force field against tyranny that must be maintained every day through effort and hard work – there’s not one among you that does not look out into the free land that was handed to us by our ancestors with dismay, and the same sense of unfocused dread that a thousand generations felt as the sun dipped ever lower, day by day – because this time, perhaps, it will not climb again. 

The history of mankind has been to rule and to be ruled. For reasons that you and I will never understand, there exists in some people an insatiable desire to tell other people what to do; to bend others to their will. 

. . .  

I don’t know if we can stop the destruction of everything we love in this world. I don’t know that we can destroy this all-seeing eye that seems to watch us all now, day and night, in this once-free land. I don’t know if all of my efforts will amount to anything at all, in the end, and I don’t know if yours will either. 

I only know that every day I will make a decision to do everything I can to make sure my land, my realm, my America does not fall into darkness today.