Cliff avoided: Congress staves off tax hikes
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) — Past its own New Year's deadline, a weary Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation to avoid a national "fiscal cliff" of middle class tax increases and spending cuts late Tuesday night in the culmination of a struggle that strained America's divided government to the limit.
The bill's passage on a bipartisan 257-167 vote in the House sealed a hard-won political triumph for the president less than two months after he secured re-election while calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Moments later, Obama strode into the White House briefing room and declared, "Thanks to the votes of Republicans and Democrats in Congress I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing tax hikes that could have sent the economy back into recession."
He spoke with Vice President Joe Biden at his side, a recognition of the former senator's role as the lead Democratic negotiator in final compromise talks with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
In addition to neutralizing middle class tax increases and spending cuts taking effect with the new year, the legislation will raise tax rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. That was higher than the thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000 that Obama campaigned for. But remarkably, in a party that swore off tax increases two decades ago, dozens of Republicans supported the bill at both ends of the Capitol.
The Senate approved the measure on a vote of 89-8 less than 24 hours earlier, and in the interim, rebellious House conservatives demanded a vote to add significant spending cuts to the measure. But in the end they retreated.
The measure split the upper ranks of the Republican leadership in the House.
Speaker John Boehner of Ohio voted in favor, while Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the party's whip, opposed the bill. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the party's 2012 vice presidential candidate, supported the measure.
Supporters of the bill in both parties expressed regret that it was narrowly drawn, and fell far short of a sweeping plan that combined tax changes and spending cuts to reduce federal deficits. That proved to be a step too far in the two months since Obama called congressional leaders to the White House for a postelection stab at compromise.
Already, both sides were maneuvering for the next round in a seemingly ceaseless struggle about taxes and spending.
In a statement after the vote, Boehner said, "Now the focus turns to spending. The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House, and we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the 'balanced' approach he promised, meaning significant spending cuts and reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving our country deeper and deeper into debt."
Majority Republicans did their best to minimize the bill's tax increases, just as they abandoned their demand from earlier in the day to add spending cuts to the package.
"By making Republican tax cuts permanent, we are one step closer to comprehensive tax reform that will help strengthen our economy and create more and higher paychecks for American workers," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
He urged a vote for passage to "get us one step closer to tax reform in 2013" as well as attempts to control spending.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also said the legislation included "permanent tax relief for the middle class," and she summoned lawmakers to provide bipartisan support as the Senate did.
The bill would also prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated 2 million jobless, block a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices.
It would stop $24 billion in across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with savings elsewhere in the budget.
The economic as well as political stakes were considerable.
Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the new year could send the economy into recession.
Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions.
A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans made a significant effort to extend it.
House Republicans spent much of the day struggling to escape a political corner they found themselves in.
"I personally hate it," Rep. John Campbell of California, said of the measure, giving voice to the concern of many Republicans that it did little or nothing to cut spending.
"The speaker the day after the election said we would give on taxes and we have. But we wanted spending cuts. This bill has spending increases. Are you kidding me? So we get tax increases and spending increases? Come on."
Cantor told reporters at one point, "I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward."
Within hours, Republicans abandoned demands for changes and agreed to a simple yes-or-no vote on the Senate-passed bill.
They feared that otherwise the Senate would refuse to consider any alterations, sending the bill into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase. One Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would "absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.
Despite Cantor's remarks, Boehner took no public position in advance of voting the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.
The brief insurrection wasn't the first time that the tea party-infused House Republican majority has rebelled against the party establishment since the GOP took control of the chamber 24 months ago. But with the two-year term set to end Thursday at noon, it was likely the last. And as was true in earlier cases of a threatened default and government shutdown, the brinkmanship came on a matter of economic urgency, leaving the party open to a public backlash if tax increases do take effect on tens of millions.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise.
The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30 billion, and is not offset by savings elsewhere.
Others said unhappiness over spending outweighed fears that the financial markets would plunge on Wednesday if the fiscal cliff hadn't been averted.
"There's a concern about the markets, but there's a bigger concern, which is getting this right, which is something we haven't been very good at over the past two years," said Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio.
For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage merely cleared the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes.
With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs.
McConnell said as much moments before the 2 a.m. Tuesday vote in the Senate — two hours after the advertised "cliff" deadline.
"We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it's time to get serious about reducing Washington's out-of-control spending," he said. "That's a debate the American people want. It's the debate we'll have next. And it's a debate Republicans are ready for."
Obama addressed the same point in his brief remarks. He said he is prepared to take steps to control spending this year, and noted pointedly that savings must be found in Medicare. "I believe that there's further unnecessary spending in government that we can eliminate," he said.
Countering McConnell and other Republicans, the president said future legislation must combine additional revenues and spending cuts, and he warned the GOP not to try and use the expiration of the Treasury's borrowing authority to force spending cuts.
The 89-8 vote in the Senate was unexpectedly lopsided.
Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only three Democrats opposed the measure.
Among the Republican supporters were Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, an ardent opponent of tax increases, as well as Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, elected to his seat two years ago with tea party support.
The bill's passage on a bipartisan 257-167 vote in the House sealed a hard-won political triumph for the president less than two months after he secured re-election while calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Moments later, Obama strode into the White House briefing room and declared, "Thanks to the votes of Republicans and Democrats in Congress I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing tax hikes that could have sent the economy back into recession."
He spoke with Vice President Joe Biden at his side, a recognition of the former senator's role as the lead Democratic negotiator in final compromise talks with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
In addition to neutralizing middle class tax increases and spending cuts taking effect with the new year, the legislation will raise tax rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. That was higher than the thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000 that Obama campaigned for. But remarkably, in a party that swore off tax increases two decades ago, dozens of Republicans supported the bill at both ends of the Capitol.
The Senate approved the measure on a vote of 89-8 less than 24 hours earlier, and in the interim, rebellious House conservatives demanded a vote to add significant spending cuts to the measure. But in the end they retreated.
The measure split the upper ranks of the Republican leadership in the House.
Speaker John Boehner of Ohio voted in favor, while Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the party's whip, opposed the bill. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the party's 2012 vice presidential candidate, supported the measure.
Supporters of the bill in both parties expressed regret that it was narrowly drawn, and fell far short of a sweeping plan that combined tax changes and spending cuts to reduce federal deficits. That proved to be a step too far in the two months since Obama called congressional leaders to the White House for a postelection stab at compromise.
Already, both sides were maneuvering for the next round in a seemingly ceaseless struggle about taxes and spending.
In a statement after the vote, Boehner said, "Now the focus turns to spending. The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House, and we will use it in 2013 to hold the president accountable for the 'balanced' approach he promised, meaning significant spending cuts and reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving our country deeper and deeper into debt."
Majority Republicans did their best to minimize the bill's tax increases, just as they abandoned their demand from earlier in the day to add spending cuts to the package.
"By making Republican tax cuts permanent, we are one step closer to comprehensive tax reform that will help strengthen our economy and create more and higher paychecks for American workers," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
He urged a vote for passage to "get us one step closer to tax reform in 2013" as well as attempts to control spending.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also said the legislation included "permanent tax relief for the middle class," and she summoned lawmakers to provide bipartisan support as the Senate did.
The bill would also prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated 2 million jobless, block a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices.
It would stop $24 billion in across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with savings elsewhere in the budget.
The economic as well as political stakes were considerable.
Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the new year could send the economy into recession.
Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions.
A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans made a significant effort to extend it.
House Republicans spent much of the day struggling to escape a political corner they found themselves in.
"I personally hate it," Rep. John Campbell of California, said of the measure, giving voice to the concern of many Republicans that it did little or nothing to cut spending.
"The speaker the day after the election said we would give on taxes and we have. But we wanted spending cuts. This bill has spending increases. Are you kidding me? So we get tax increases and spending increases? Come on."
Cantor told reporters at one point, "I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward."
Within hours, Republicans abandoned demands for changes and agreed to a simple yes-or-no vote on the Senate-passed bill.
They feared that otherwise the Senate would refuse to consider any alterations, sending the bill into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase. One Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would "absolutely not take up the bill" if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private.
Despite Cantor's remarks, Boehner took no public position in advance of voting the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them.
The brief insurrection wasn't the first time that the tea party-infused House Republican majority has rebelled against the party establishment since the GOP took control of the chamber 24 months ago. But with the two-year term set to end Thursday at noon, it was likely the last. And as was true in earlier cases of a threatened default and government shutdown, the brinkmanship came on a matter of economic urgency, leaving the party open to a public backlash if tax increases do take effect on tens of millions.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise.
The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30 billion, and is not offset by savings elsewhere.
Others said unhappiness over spending outweighed fears that the financial markets would plunge on Wednesday if the fiscal cliff hadn't been averted.
"There's a concern about the markets, but there's a bigger concern, which is getting this right, which is something we haven't been very good at over the past two years," said Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio.
For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage merely cleared the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes.
With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs.
McConnell said as much moments before the 2 a.m. Tuesday vote in the Senate — two hours after the advertised "cliff" deadline.
"We've taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it's time to get serious about reducing Washington's out-of-control spending," he said. "That's a debate the American people want. It's the debate we'll have next. And it's a debate Republicans are ready for."
Obama addressed the same point in his brief remarks. He said he is prepared to take steps to control spending this year, and noted pointedly that savings must be found in Medicare. "I believe that there's further unnecessary spending in government that we can eliminate," he said.
Countering McConnell and other Republicans, the president said future legislation must combine additional revenues and spending cuts, and he warned the GOP not to try and use the expiration of the Treasury's borrowing authority to force spending cuts.
The 89-8 vote in the Senate was unexpectedly lopsided.
Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only three Democrats opposed the measure.
Among the Republican supporters were Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, an ardent opponent of tax increases, as well as Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, elected to his seat two years ago with tea party support.
We are all screwed with comrad dictator Obama. The debt will turn this country into a scene from Les Miserables.
The two biggest culprits in this pic.
Wow look a these hero's....NOT! Thanks for the ride boys.
As long as the 2 parties rule term limits will do nothing. Its time to send these pompous donkeys over a cliff and get some real change.
Agreed. The system needs change. 8 year term limits for all, with possibly the exception of the Supreme Court, limit them to twelve years, (many cases drag on for longer than that and we can't keep changing opinions mid-stream). No more permanent pay checks either. They serve their time in office and it goes toward their retirement, but they don't continue getting a full pay check and body guards for life.Â
8 yr term limits for all.....
IDIOTS, MORONS and total JACKASSES, they could have fixed this a LOOOOOOOOONG time ago but no, they ALL want to play games and try to scare people. These people are power hungry and very greedy game players.
I love our United States but sure don't like who is running it and running it right into the ground.
The ALL need to be removed from office and replace .
 @herb You don't understand. If they actually *fixed* the problem, then there would be no emergency for them to use to shove through more expansions of their power and extend their reach and control. That is the *purpose* of these games.
This so-called 'agreement' is pathetic, at best.....just, like always, the most minimalistic attempt at a real solution. All the while, these lame-brained politicians would not consider for a nano second, a decrease in their own cushy benefits package and putting themselves on the same plane as all of us taxpayers who keep re-electing these men and women who continually refer to Medicare and Social Security, as an entitlement. It's not an entitlement, you idiots, WE HAVE PAID INTO THESE TWO PROGRAMS FOR ALL OF OUR LIVES........AND YOU HAVE NOT!
Â
Quit placating us with these final hour, squeeze-by excuses of a solution that only last 2 months......this is NOT a solution. Quit the political posturing. You all make me sick!
 @Yadayada Very well said and thanks.
Sign the petition now. Call upon all of these fool politicians to get out of politics and let someone else give it a try. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/call-upon-all-politicians-who-have-served-two-or-more-terms-voluntarily-announce-they-will-not-run/jnBj2hYS
In the computer age we live in today there is no reason why everyone of us shouldnt be able to see the agreement the two parties have agreed too "right now on the internet ". Untill we see it ! The agreement means nothing !
Â
 @armchairquaterback Let's see what the markets think...Â
 @31F  @armchairquaterback Because, of course, the markets never misunderstand or miss-price something, right? Like housing, or tech stocks, or GM, or Solyndra, or FaceBook, or the banking sector, or Greek bonds, or....
 @31F  @armchairquaterback clever response
to everyone that is happy about this where are we going to get the money to pay our bills these idiots are spending this nation to the trash heap of history
"The American people re-elected a Republican majority in the House..."
Â
More like the GOP engineered a redistricting-fueled re-election of a majority.
@Mikeftm -- yup Gerrymandering at it's worst...  (gerrymandering = rigging a state's congressional districts by having state legislatures design the districts to include areas likely to vote 'the right way' to help make it more likely to elect one party over the other).
Â
And a little 2012 election trivia.... There was over a million more total votes for democrats elected to the House than the total votes for Republicans elected to the house. Â
Â
Which means that other than for gerrymandering, it would appear that more democrats would have been elected to many of these house seats, making it likely that it would be a democratic majority there instead of the current Republican majority.
Â
Regardless of that speculation about gerrymandering, we absolutely need to stop this extremist game playing that happens in the House and get our Congress working to help the American people, not to play games to try to force things to be 'thier way and thier way only' as soo many of the extremists in the house clearly are doing.
Â
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt  @Mikeftm One problem is that America is just as divided as Congress. There's approximately 225 million people who are 18+ in America. Obama got about 60 million votes, Romney got about 57 Million. Only just over half of those 18+ voted, and a difference of 3 million votes really isn't that much even just out of the pool of 117 million people who voted. Those 3 million were key to Democrat victories across the nation, but not enough of a margin that they can just sweep the Republicans under the rug without batting an eye.Frankly I'm very disappointed with the lack of spending cuts in the bill. Whether we raise taxes or not, we need to be cutting our deficit; this bill increases spending.
It's amazing to me U.S. govt hasn't filed for bankrupsy yet. But it won't be long....  Welcome to the new world...
 @Special Force yes yes... bankruptcy, civil war, end of days. How I enjoy all the desperate doomsayers as they post the same stuff year after year... and it's always "soon"... "right around the corner"... "any day now"
@TruthinAdverts @Special Force -- same with the predictions of 'totalitarian government' takeover where 'the military' will be coming to bash in our doors and force 'government's will' upon us hapless citizens. We hear that claim constantly from many of the same folks - Particularly when gun control discussions occur (usually only right after a major tragedy like Sandy Hook)...     They spew these comments while blissfully ignoring much of the reality that would pretty much always prevent these situations from actually happening.
Â
Â
they won't admit it but I think the stock market had something to do with getting this done now. A loss of confidence can have broad implications quickly. They softened the downside by warning early that we might go over the cliff first, but we all know that the markets hate the "unknown". For all it's worth, I am happy with the outcome.
 @Komo Dragon Well, it adds about $4T to the debt compared to current law, so that's bad. It increases spending, so that's bad. It gets about $47 in new taxes for every $1 in cuts, so that's bad. The cliff is looking better and better.
I go into the store today and notice some of the Nalleyâs and Farmerâs pickle labels say âProduct of India.â What happen to the made in the USA pickles? Are our pesticides no longer effective? Maybe in India they allow DDT or something better like nerve gas.Â
Â
I notice Georgia-Pacific (A Koch Brothers enterprise) tries to hide the fact that some of their products are made in China. You have look for it but it is there.  Â
 @LiberalChuck Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I need to learn to pickle.Â
Another poster clued me in earlier today that Kleenex is a Koch company. Bet Boehner has stock!
Do you own Apple, Microsoft, Nike or any other product....you do know most everything is made overseas now. Maybe we could elect people who will make laws that will bring home our jobs.
@FED__UPÂ Â Until the unions get out of the way, this will never happen.
@FED__UP -- but that will only work if you are willing to pay higher prices for those goods.
Â
Why do you think that they went overseas anyways? So that they could make the product for less, and because of that they ended up making more money off of your purchase. In some cases, they eventually did not charge you more for the product as long as they could keep that high level of profit that they had gotten used to.
Â
If they are forced to make the products here, they will merely raise the price of the goods so that they can continue to make the same profit margin and blame the higher price on 'government'.
Â
And we buy the cheaper item when we have the choice - that's proven by the popularity of places like Walmart....
Â
I'm not happy with those facts, but that is the way it works.
Â
As soon as I saw the headline, I knew I'd be able to enjoy the poster comics... You guys don't disappoint!
alright now let's cut defense spending and end the wars, please.
 @stargunner OK. Let's cut mil spending by 50%. Now, what ELSE are you going to cut to cover the rest of the roughly ONE TRILLION dollars in other deficit spending? Suggestions, please.
 @RN1 pensions..
 @31F  @armor  @stargunner We haven't exactly privatized the space sector, as let NASA price itself out of business. But I do think it's ironic that you tout that that, while being OK with higher taxes, when teh biggest people behind things like Space X and Virgin Galactic are super-rich billionaires. It's *highly concentrated wealth made in the market economy* that allow things like this to happen. Not the commies, not the highly planned EU, not tribal areas. free(ish)-market capitalism, providing goods and services at a competitive price, *and NOT taxing the snot out of it because they "don't need it.*
 @RN1 no, that is not what i meant. but i would like to see that be a priority this year after years of pretending like it hasn't been happening. obviously defense spending cuts and bringing the troops home alone won't do everything we need, but it would be a great start.  then we also have to worry about re-introducing all those soldiers with X amount of tours back into society and getting them jobs in a weak economy.Â
Â
i know it is not so simple.. and i don't think i have all the answers. these are just one girl's hopes, nothing more than that.Â
 @stargunner Oh, yes. Brilliant ideas. Ramp up the SS retirement age, fairly quickly, until it will be totally self-sustaining forever with at LEAST six workers per retiree. Trim medicare funding, and make it a per-capita block grant to states to act as a free market insurance voucher. Scrap Obamacare, and most other insurance regs, to make it a free market. To to a flat income tax, such as the FairTax. Freeze ALL government programs and salaries in actual dollar terms for at least until the budget is balanced. Cap SS disability so that the more people are added the lower everyone's payment is, so there are incentives to rat out frauds. Disallow government retirees from collecting pensions until at LEAST 65, and not while still working for any government agency (directly Or indirectly through a private company). Totally revamp the SEC and get a bunch of Wall St execs in jail. Cut all farm subsidies. Eliminate a half dozen agencies, including the FDA, Dept of Ed, Energy, etc, and combine some of their functions in a much smaller department of Research. Outlaw government employee unions, and require that nearly all FedGov agencies dump at least 30% of their management staff. Require that for any new regulation added, at least one old one must be removed. Eliminate title IX, the ADA, and a whole bunch of other stuff that was well-intentioned but now is a HUGE drag on the economy. Eliminate the BATFE, the TSA, and let the FBI and CIA hire the seven worthwhile employees they have.
Â
There. That ought to get us close in a few years time.
 @stargunner No, not trying to be snarky or put words in your mouth. I've just heard many people over the years say, using virtually the exact same words you did, that if we'd just cut back on military spending, it would all be fine and balanced. I interpreted your initial comment as a typical left-wing military-hating "it's all the Republican's Fault!" sort of comment that implied that was ALL we'd have to do to make things all OK. I was just trying to point out (to that sort of person) the fallacy of the position. If I misunderstood you, my apologies.
Â
Most people just don't get how big the problem really is, but for someone else reading it that thought about your initial comment as I did, perhaps it gave them some perspective.
 @armor  @RN1lol well when you look at it that narrow-minded then yes, but robots are doing more in space than humans are observing. NASA has a state-of-the-art robot on the surface of mars, the Dawn mission which has been to Vesta and is now on its way to Ceres, ChandraX, New Horizon, the James Webb Space Telescope... the list of current NASA programs goes on and on.
 @armor  @stargunner  @RN1 We also have a new sector, privatized space exploration.  Talk about gains... Â
 @stargunner  @RN1 NASA layed off 10000 staff under obama and we use russian rocket explain how they are doing more
 @RN1 well if you're going to put words in my mouth i am done here. i never said half the military needed to be "shut down", NASA's budget has shrunk and they are doing more for the future of space exploration than ever before. it's all about how you spend money.
Â
i'm sure you have some brilliant suggestions, or are you just good at being snarky?
 @stargunner You said "pensions," which are retirement benefits for former workers. Since we are talking FedGov budget, it only means retired FedGov employees. Did you mean Social Security and SS Disability, perhaps? If so, you'll need to be a bit more specific. But even SS is less than $800 B. So, if we decided to still ALL SS beneficiaries (wouldn't THAT make a few headlines), we'd STILL not be balanced. Sooooo... Next? Almost there, only a hundred billion more to go, after shutting down SS, half the military, and all the FedGov retirees (including military).
 @RN1 those are some oddball numbers you're coming up with. pensions are one of our biggest expenditures. over $1T easily.
 @stargunner OK, all FedGov pensions, including veterans, etc, are around 100 billion (IIRC) if you zero those out (of course, that would cause more than a few political fatalities). Next up? Only $900 Billion to go (speaking in round numbers)
Boehner has got to go. No guts, no job.
@oldster70  Boehner and the Republicans are doing their jobs. Shame on Obama and the Democrats for not cutting spending. SHAMEFUL.
@oldster70 it's called POLITICS. Boehner got something for his vote, we'll find out soon enough.
@Howard Beale - it's a strange game of politics that Boehner is the victim/beneficiary of(depending on your point of view).
Â
And this strange game is one of blatant extremism.Â
Â
We need to get the blatant and intolerant extremism out of Washington DC and get back to the days when comprimise meant more than 'force your opponent to totally humiliate himself by forcing absolute capitulation to your will' that is the House Republican mantra.
Â
Comprimise is not a dirty word. It's the way the federal and state governments have worked for the 236 years that this country has existed. It's not perfect, but it's better than the extremism that we have today.
Â
You may not get everything you want today or tomorrow, but eventually someone else gets elected and you get more, and the other guy gets less of what he wants.
Â
And contrary to what many from the right think, even most democrats understand that spending and the deficit must be reduced.  The only real arguement is how and where to do it.
Â
And let's hope that extremism doesn't get in the way during the next two months where spending and deficits get thier due time in Congress. The serious federal budget and the debt limit discussions need to start NOW. Â
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
 @virtual anomaly I think we need to see some more figures with your post.  For example, revenue generated from defense spending; percentage of people who actually benefited from those benefits and their income generating statuses now; etc...  Perhaps, data or information for us to make comparisons.  IMO, a number alone is just a number.
@31F $1.6 trillion annual deficit, what other numbers do you need to be convinced that cuts need to be made?
Â
"revenue generated from defense spending"
Â
You don't generate revenue by spending, that's a complete fallacy. Every dollar spent by the gov't is money taken out of the hands of private citizens. I think most will agree that gov't does not spend money very efficiently.
 @virtual anomaly True, as it may, I am more interested in what we get back, and not just increases in jobs and sales of arms.  I am interested in the opportunity costs.  I want to find figures that actually reveal that our defense spending is, indeed, better going somewhere else.  For example, our last wars, opened up sectors and brought in technologies that have gained incredible momentum and boosted innovation, and I am not just referring to drone and weapon tech.  Communications, encryption, network security, technology, etc.. have all returned to the civilian sector as U.S. business competencies.  I know with this weak economy our spending should be routed.  However, we cannot totally put a blinds-eye on the benefits from defense spending.  It should play as an important factor in the way we spend.
@virtual anomaly I agree, to further compoud the issue, the millitary is spending a lot of it's budget on what many of us would consider to be bad purchases...
@31F We spend more money on defense than all other nations combined, that's too much. Yes, the money spent does provide some jobs, but if the gov't didn't spend that money, somebody else would. And it would most likely be spent in a more responsible manner (higher return on the investment).
 @virtual anomaly I say that (revenue from spending) in terms of spending money to make money.  I know for a fact that our defense spending does equate to some revenues.  How much; well that is the question.  Plus, these revenues come in the form of short and long-term.  Tactically, our defense spending is draining us, given the current economic condition.  However, strategically, over the long run, we do create revenues, as well as open opportunities for further strategic income.