The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

When one is faced with an enemy that is stronger and more powerful, it is time to learn from clever, innovative forces such as the Viet Cong.

There is no shame in embracing the tenants and tactics of Guerrilla Warfare.

Strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare tend to focus around the use of a small, mobile force competing against a large, unwieldy one. The guerrilla focuses on organising in small units, dependent on the support of the local population.

Tactically, the guerrilla army attacks its enemy in small, repetitive attacks from the opponent's center of gravity with a view to reducing casualties and becoming an intensive, repetitive strain on the enemy's resources, forcing an over-eager response which will both anger their own supporters and increase support for the guerrilla, thus forcing the enemy to withdraw.

Please read the whole article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_tactics_of_guerrilla_warfare

Please avoid dying on a hill that can not be obtained/kept.

Please don't believe the movies; There is no glory in death.

Other than avoid the two mistakes/miscalculations I listed, I do not think he could be doing a better job.

He is attempting to get things done in a divided nation, and his "boss" I take that into consideration. I think it would be silly to replace this valued employee just because he made two mistakes.

I think the people the republicans propose to replace Obama are (so far) all worse choices.

I wish Bloomberg was younger, he isn't perfect but I think I he stinks less than Obama, Bachman, or the news pundit guy from Utah.

I believe I will always be someone who votes out of compromise, unless I was the person running. I would run, but I would not be electable.

I actually like Obama more than I thought I would.

I have consistently stated that I judge people's performance in light of the circumstances they operate in.

I pursue excellence, but I don't ever expect to achieve it. I'm in this for the long haul. Like the Viet Cong, I seek to win because the people with the superior size eventually decided to go home because I was such a pain their ass.

While I mourn the deaths of those who think they advance the cause by attacking the enemy head on, I also regard them as tactical fools.

If the political and warfare tactics of the Viet Cong can not be looked at objectively, may I suggest those of Gerry Adams? Nelson Mandela?

As you point out, having a majority of the people behind your cause isn't going to be enough in the 2011 environment of the US. ....you'll have to out smart your opponents.

I do not see the Democrats outsmarting the Republicans. I see the Democrats trying to win on the battlefields the Republicans have dominance and losing in 2012.

The democrats need to fight the battle differently, and figure out how to make the Republicans go home.

Don't let David get killed by the local drunk on his way to fighting Golaith?

What if the democrats allowed huge cuts to entailments to occur, yet successfully made the public believe that they could not fight the cuts?

The democrats could then unify everyone affected by the cuts to have taxes and spending implemented.

This would work if the public missed the programs enough, and "democracy" was the basis of such decisions being implemented.

....but I suspect that one or both is not true. The democrats have much work to do in the new economy. Everyone expects that the standard of living of everyone must fall, and the democrats are left pleading: Don't cut programs for the poor.

Sorry, their standard of living can fall further. This nation can and will tolerate third world conditions within it's borders.

If the Democrats don't want that to happen, they need to do something beside whine. They need power.

Without power, they must compromise.

I agree, those seem to be the tactics of each of the parties.

Even if we had more time, I think I would be opposed to a BBA. I believe government has a role in stimulating the economy in recessions, and agree with a lot of the teachings of Keynes.

My critique of the ARRA was that:

A. It was implemented in such a way that communities didn't know what role the money played in preserving the jobs of teachers, police, etc. Why thank Obama for something you have always had?

B. It assumed this is a recession, and not a New Normal.

C. It did not invest enough in infrastructure, and instead maintained the current skill set of the country.

If we don't change course, I see the our standards of living really falling over the next 20 years. I resent having to pay for the mistakes of current and passed presidents and legislatures, but think we can (and should) implement austerity measures.

It amazes me that not many people view this as a austerity debate. Throughout the world austerity has been implemented despite the cries of the old/pensioners/poor/etc.

I don't know why people believe the US is somehow immune fro

the larger economy. I don't know how they think wecan maintain our poor/old/etc better than other first world countries.

Yes, we have a lot of rich people, but we don't seem to have the ability to get more from them.....

Taxing the rich more is such a hard task, that we may need to focus on cutting spending.

I wish people would give me money when they don't have to, and there were no strings attached.

But I've reached the conclusion that until I get more power, I have to live within my means. It sucks.

A compilation of coverage from a news service:

Debt Deal Reached - Will It Fly?

By LINDA GITTLEMAN Gratiot Managing Editor and The Associated Press August 1, 2011

Racing the clock to avoid a government default, President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders reached historic agreement Sunday night on a compromise to permit vital U.S. borrowing by the Treasury in exchange for more than $2 trillion in long-term spending cuts.

Officials said Speaker John Boehner telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck.

No votes were expected in either house of Congress until today at the earliest, to give rank and file lawmakers to review the package..

It appears that Social Security and Medicare will survive. That's what mid-Michigan seniors are expecting, and that's likely what they're going to get.

"They are concerned, but they think it will be resolved once legislators stop acting like children," said Jo Jones, director of Ithaca Senior center.

Without legislation raising the federal debt limit in place by Tuesday, the Treasury will not be able to pay all its bills,

The federal debt limit would rise in two stages by at least $2.2 trillion, enough to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections.

Big cuts in government spending would be phased in over a decade. Thousands of programs — the Park Service, Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department accounts among them — could be trimmed to levels last seen years ago.

No Social Security or Medicare benefits would be cut, but the programs could be scoured for other savings. Taxes would be unlikely to rise.

If the compromise doesn't get through both the House and Senate and signed by the president, the government will have to pick and choose which bills to pay and which obligations to honor. Interest payments due to Wall Street are likely to be paid first, followed by Social Security checks - due to go out on Wednesday.

….The first step would take place immediately, raising the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion and cutting spending by a slightly larger amount over a decade.

That would be followed by creation of a new congressional committee that would have until the end of November to recommend $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or overhauling the tax code. Those deficit cuts would allow a second increase in the debt limit, which would be needed by early next year.

If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed constitutional balanced-budget amendment.

If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount.

Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.

----------------

Highlights Of Budget And Debt Limit Pact

By The Associated Press, August 1, 2011

President Barack Obama and top congressional leaders have reached an agreement on a plan to pair an increase in the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit with spending cuts and to create a special committee to recommend bigger savings for a vote later this year. The plan would:

· Immediately increase the debt limit by $400 billion, with Obama permitted to order another $500 billion increase this fall unless both House and Senate override him by veto-proof margins; a third installment of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion would be made available after enactment of matching levels of additional spending cuts recommended by a special joint committee of lawmakers. The full $1.5 trillion could also be available if Congress adopts and sends to the states for ratification a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

· Cut more than $900 billion over 10 years from the day-to-day operating budgets of Cabinet agencies. Caps spending passed by Congress for agency budgets at $1.043 trillion in 2012, $7 billion below 2011 levels.

· Create a 12-person, House-Senate committee evenly divided between the political parties, and charged with producing up to $1.5 trillion more in deficit cuts over 10 years. If a majority of the committee agrees on a plan, it would receive a vote in both the House and the Senate. If the panel deadlocks or fails to produce at least $1.2 trillion in additional cuts, or if Congress fails to enact its recommendations, the White House budget office would impose across-the-board spending cuts across much of the federal budget, including the Pentagon, domestic agency budgets and farm subsidies. Many federal benefits programs, however, would not be covered by this, including Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and federal retirement benefits.

· Require both House and Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

· Establish "program integrity" initiatives aimed at stemming abuses in benefits programs like Social Security.

· Increase funding for Pell Grants for low-income college students by $17 billion over 2012-13, financed by curbs in student loan subsidies.

-------------------

States Fear Cuts Under A Compromise To Avert Debt Default

BY Susan Haigh And Dinesh Ramde Associated Press August 1, 2011

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The cost of the compromise needed to raise the federal debt ceiling likely will inflict more fiscal pain on states still struggling to recover from the recession and the end of federal stimulus spending.

Although the details of the spending cuts to states remain unclear, lawmakers from both parties have discussed the need to cut or impose caps on so-called discretionary spending over the next decade.

That could mean wide-ranging cuts in federal aid to states, affecting everything from the Head Start school readiness program, Meals on Wheels and worker-training initiatives to funding for transit agencies and education grants that serve disabled children.

There also is concern among governors, state lawmakers and state agency heads that Congress will make deep reductions or changes in federal aid for health services for needy people, most notably through Medicaid. That could shift more of the costs onto states already having trouble balancing their budgets.

"We have the potential for disaster should there be a major realignment in federal funding that results in a cost shift to states," said Nevada state Sen. Sheila Leslie, a Democrat from Reno who recently discussed the issue with Obama administration officials in Washington. "In short, we are teetering on the edge right now, and a cost shift could send us over the cliff."

Michigan and other states already have closed nearly $480 billion in budget gaps since the beginning of the recession, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

State officials across the country are worried about the austerity steps demanded by fiscal conservatives in exchange for raising the nation's debt ceiling, said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the National Association of State Budget Officers. He said the association expects states to be affected by cuts, if not immediately, then in the next year or two.

Although the legislation being considered does not cut entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it calls for creating a special congressional committee to find additional savings. That next step likely would lead to specific recommendations to trim spending on entitlement programs.

Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the California Senate, said he is concerned about such cuts, especially if they reduce payments to the states for Medicaid, which provide health care for poor and disabled people. The state's version is known as Medi-Cal and covers 7.5 million people.

But not all state officials are dismayed by the possibility of broad-based cuts in federal aid.

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said he believes substantial funding cuts would have less of an impact on his state than allowing the federal government to stay on its current course of mounting debt.

-----------------

Congressional Leaders to Pitch Debt-Reduction Compromise to Caucuses

Published August 01, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers of Congress will meet with their caucuses Monday for a hard sell of a compromise debt-reduction package that gives President Obama up to a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt limit as long as lawmakers can find an equal or greater amount in spending cuts.

But even if they can’t come up with solutions, the cuts will be found for them. If a committee set up by the proposal fails to have their recommendations for additional cuts approved by the end of this year, a “trigger” in the plan will automatically enact across-the-board cuts.

Party leaders are corralling their troops to take a head count of the votes needed to pass the legislation that President Obama said Sunday night will “life the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy” and prevent the nation from potentially defaulting on its financial obligations.

Hard-right Tea Party-backed Republicans, hard-left progressives and Congressional Black Caucus members have already whipped up a frenzy over the deal. But cooler heads are urging cooperation as financial markets abroad rallied over the news.

According to the president, the deal means an immediate cut of $1 trillion in government spending over a 10-year period accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling. That will be followed by the creation of the committee to come up with additional cuts worth at least $1.5 trillion. The debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion if the committee recommendations are approved by the end of the year.

Each of the GOP and Democratic leaders in the chamber will nominate lawmakers to the 12-member committee to report back in the fall. Tax hikes are not part of the package and a pledge for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote is.

Obama said everything will be on the table and both parties will find some of the cuts objectionable.

"Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they're still around for future generations. That's why the second part of this agreement is so important," Obama said from the White House briefing room.

The Senate adjourned Sunday night without a vote on a deal, but Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said that the parties are going to have to give ground and compromise so the country doesn't default.

"I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff. The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States," Reid said.

Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will both present the agreement to their caucuses on Monday morning. House Democrats also set a morning meeting to discuss the details.

McConnell, R-Ky., said that the framework calls for a "review that will insure significant cuts in Washington spending."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said after the president's speech that she'll see what kind of support her caucus can provide.

Several objections are expected, including from Republican defense hawks who don't want the military gutted and from the Congressional Black Caucus, which called the deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich."

House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet. But Boehner said it does not violate GOP principles.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding that the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government.

"It would also guarantee the American people the vote they have been denied in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment, while creating, I think, some new incentives for past opponents of a BBA to support it," Boehner said.

The 12-member committee, composed of six Republicans and six Democrats, three from each party and each chamber, will report the legislation by Nov. 23. The vote, to take place by Dec. 23, would be an up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed.

The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it subject to a presidential veto.

According to a Power Point presentation presented by Boehner to the caucus, roughly half of the proposal’s automatic cuts would come from defense and half from Medicare.

While the trigger is supposed to hurt as incentive to get Congress to act, other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits……

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/01/congressional-leaders-to-pitch-debt-reduction-compromise-to-caucuses/#ixzz1TluQtgw3

When I see them type that, I want to get annoyed at them, but then I tell myself, "everyone must not be able afford one of those fancy keyboards with the page down key".

...which is weird, because I have never seen a computer that can access the internet that does not have that key.

Life is strange.

BTW, now that CTK, BG, you and I have picked a boro and a date ....we should probably pick a more exact time and place.

Should we let people who haven't participated on this thread come?

I think everyone wanted to see defense spending get cut. Here is what CNN believes we will get:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_defense_cuts/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

CNN article wrote: "If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation's defense infrastructure would be severe," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday on Twitter. "And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation are increasing, not declining."

Meanwhile, just for fun:

left wrote: "If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation's defense social support infrastructure would be severe," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham some Democrat said Monday on Twitter. "And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation's poor are increasing, not declining."

I love it when the democrats and the republicans seem to genuinely believe what they are stating should take priority.