UPDATE:

Politico reports:

In the battle of budget scores, the Senate Democrats’ deficit reduction bill is the clear leader thus far over an alternative by Speaker John Boehner, which had to be pulled back from the floor Tuesday night for retooling.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report Wednesday morning that credits the Senate bill with reducing budget deficits by about $2.2 trillion through 2021, nearly three times the $850 billion credited to the Boehner bill on Tuesday.

In all fairness, there are some reasons and mitigating factors for the disparity, and “Not all is entirely good news for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,”

Read more here

—-

Original post:

In “Boehner’s Wool, Your Eyes,” Prairie Weather reports that:

House Speaker John Boehner’s new budget proposal would require deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, the repeal of health reform’s coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans. The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.

This, according to Robert Greenstein, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, who adds “This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not. The mathematics are inexorable.”

Now it turns out that Boehner’s math is not only inexorable but also shoddy.

The Washington Post has just reported that House Republicans are having to delay a vote on their much-touted bill to lift the debt ceiling as they are scrambling to fix their math problems after CBO analysts said that Boehner’s plan would only create $850 billion in savings as opposed to Boehner’s claimed and sought-after $1.2 trillion.

Boehner had spent much of Tuesday furiously rallying support for his two-step plan to avert a potential default, even though Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared the proposal “dead on arrival” in his chamber and the White House issued a veto threat.

Because of the snafu, the vote, originally scheduled for Wednesday, could now happen Thursday or Friday

Read more about this development here.

Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 The Moderate Voice
  • SteveinCH

    Well, anything that Robert Greenstein says is right by me. After all, he’s only the most partisan mainstream budget analyst in the country.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    “Well, anything that Robert Greenstein says is right by me. After all, he’s only the most partisan mainstream budget analyst in the country.”

    Really the MOST, no more partisan one can be found anywhere in the entire country Steve? Saying he is partisan pretty much resolves the picture you are trying to paint, throwing in the word most just makes your comment sound valley-girlesk…hold it maybe you are from the valley and now here I am mocking you for it. If so I am sorry Steve, even valley talkers can succeed!

  • SteveinCH

    That’s fine MSF, feel free to give me another, more partisan analyst and I’ll happily change my mind. I can’t think of one but maybe you’ve got some suggestions.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    Nah I just hadnt poked you in a few days and it made me feel sad.

    On a side note the House plan missing the numbers is a huge problem AND, for added humor, apparently some of that 850b is savings found through “accounting tricks.”

    Also one thing I had not caught until earlier today, did you know the CCB bill did not actually raise the debt ceiling and also failed to reach the 2/3’s vote needed for the amendment portion anyway? They just super promised that they would raise the debt if the CCB was passed and the amendment passed onto the states. As time goes on this is moving from a horror show to a laugh riot…maybe I am just getting tired.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-problem-in-a-nutshell-house-cant-pass-jack/2011/03/28/gIQAdlvMbI_blog.html

  • SteveinCH

    That’s not exactly right MSF. CCB said there had to be a successful vote on A BBA prior to the debt ceiling going up. There was no specific BBA proposed in the text.

    The text is here

    (a) In General- The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.
    (b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

    http://politisite.com/2011/07/19/h-r-2560-cut-cap-and-balance-act-of-2011-full-text-112th-congress-2011-2012/

    Not that I’d ever go to the source material rather than believing what I wanted to believe because I read it on a website….

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    That is actually worse by so much that it is difficult to put into words. So funny, but so very much worse. Can they even pass a debt increase?

    Also if they failed a 2/3 vote to send this…um promise, what are the chances they could even pass the BBA in the House? This is like cartoon Wiley Coyote math and planning here.

  • SteveinCH

    I actually think a BBA that didn’t have a spending cap could pass the House and the Senate but I don’t think Reid would let it come to the floor. Of course that wouldn’t fulfill the balance part of the CCB bill but then again, it wasn’t a good bill anyway.

    My point of course which you skated by is that (shockingly) something posted by a blogger was incorrect when looking at the source material would have shown you that in about 45 seconds.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    True, I was still glowing in the utter shock that no one bothered to note that CCB did not in any way raise the debt ceiling. I am still pondering how to deal with that portion.

  • JSpencer

    The republicans in congress won’t be satisfied until their plan for a new feudal system is complete. Remember, all is fair in rightwing politics, so they won’t actually call it a feudal system. Sorry bout that.

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    JSpencer-Honestly I think the most deadly truth to their spin is that CCB did not in anyway raise the debt ceiling. They kicked and screamed that O and the Senate saying it was DOA made any default their fault. And we were all to stupid to read the bill and merely note…um this doesnt say anything about avoiding the default idiot.

  • DLS

    CBPP — instant skepticism

    * * *

    Sky: The balanced budget amendment idea is outstanding. It’s the version of the amendment that the House has sought to get passed that is the problem. Examine the details and you’ll see why it’s poor:

    Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

    Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.

    Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which–

    (1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and

    (2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.

    Section 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of determining any increase in revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of the statutory rate of any tax.

    Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.

    Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific excess by a roll call vote.

    Section 7. The Congress may waive the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that fiscal year made necessary by the identified military conflict.

    Section 8. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.

    Section 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.

    Section 10. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

    Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

    Obviously, also, trying to tie it to raising the debt ceiling is BS.

  • stallaris

    HOW MUCH FURTHER ARE WE WILLING TO GO IN ORDER TO PLEASE THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO DENY US EVEN THE RIGHT TO EXISTENCE(what is to you country without laws or lawless country in respect to your personal rights, but the one that in contrast to your denied basic human rights recognizes you extremely liable when payments are due) !!?

    IS IT INDEPENDENCE THAT WE CELEBRATE OR DEPENDENCE (what are your credit card bills or alimony saying about it) !!? HOW IS YOUR DIABETES AND LOST MARRIAGES !!? FORECLOSURES AND JOB SEARCH !!? THAT IS THE QUESTION TO BE OR NOT TO BE !!!!!! IS IT LAND OF THE FREE OR STATE OF TERROR AGAINST OWN POPULATION !!? IT IS TIME TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT COLOR ARE THE STRIPES ON OUR STAR SPANGLED BANNER !!!

    VISIT(google text if links don’t work) “DICTATOR OBAMA = STALIN = BUSH or USA = SOVIET UNION” http://avsecbostjan.blogspot.com/ or http://avsecbostjan.wordpress.com/ …TO LEARN WHO, HOW, AND WHY RUINED YOU…FROM 911 TO EXILED WHITE AMERICAN REFUGEES SEEKING ASYLUM RIGHT NOW !!! TIME TO DETERMINE WHOSE INDEPENDENCE/AMERICA, WE CELEBRATE TODAY(who want to erase us and denies us the right to exist) !!! IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHOM WE ADDRESS WITH “PRESIDENT”(STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF) !!!!

  • Absalon

    Does someone still think republicans still care about the debt or the deficit?

    They care about making the country more Randian. The debt and the deficit is a means to an end, an opportunity.

  • merkin

    A balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea.

    One thing we have seen in the recent recession is the highly destabilizing effects the state balanced budget amendments have. In a recession tax revenues go down just as social spending to mitigate the recession’s impact goes up.

    With a balanced budget enforced the government is faced with only two options, raise taxes or cut spending. Doing either will make the recession worse by deepening and prolonging it.

    In the current recession this affect was lessened only because the federal government stepped in to provide funds to the state governments to replace the lost revenue. But those funds have dried up and now we are seeing more unemployment as a result.

    So have we learned our lesson from this? No, we haven’t. In fact we are now contemplating passing a balanced budget amendment to make sure the federal government must never again try to stabilize the situation but must actually contribute to the instability.

    This is a terrible idea. More economic suicide for the US.

  • SteveinCH

    Yes merkin, it would be extremely difficult to make an exception form when the country was in recession as there is one already for wars. Care to guess how much of our accumulated debt was driven by recessions as opposed to not?

  • Jim Satterfield

    merkin, in RepublicanLand that’s a feature, not a bug. And Steve’s comment is completely unrelated because the exception for war would get Republican votes. An exception for necessary funding for recession related spending would not.

  • SteveinCH

    Jim,

    I think having both exceptions and no spending cap would pass 3/4ths of the states and I think it a good idea.

    Merkin’s comment was general — “a” balanced budget amendment, not “this” balanced budget amendment.

    Maybe he meant this one in which case I withdraw my comment and would say there are far worse issues in the current House BBA than just the lack of a recession exception.

  • In states that can’t borrow for the general fund, like mine, they typically have a cushion saved up (rainy-day fund) specifically for recessions.

    It’s called planning ahead.

  • DLS

    Merkin wrote:

    With a balanced budget enforced the government is faced with only two options, raise taxes or cut spending. Doing either will make the recession worse by deepening and prolonging it.

    That’s obviously untrue, as even the latest GOP amendment version shows; but more importantly, the real issue is that a balanced budget amendment curtails excessive spending, and that’s what is disliked by the many who want such spending.

    But something more to-date is at issue here, something that makes me laugh. The same liberals and Dems who say federal spending has to be increased, never reduced, because of the state of the economy are stampeding to increase some taxes at the same time, notably taxes that might have especially harmful disincentives. That Liberal Hypocrisy, Again [tm] is here again!

  • DLS

    Prof.: As I’ve written before, the experience we have witnessed with the raiding of the FICA trust funds (turning them into federal debt) indicates we can’t trust Congress with any kind of federal reserve (or insofar as the federal debt is concerned, a sinking fund for the debt).

    Congress can’t even be trusted with general revenues (a problem we see in the states frequently, as well). (Related to the budget: Imagine having entitlements be 100% “mandatory” appropriations out of general revenue — without the tax increases to make such an action legitimate, i.e., that there will be the money for them).

  • DLS

    Meanwhile, we hear all about Boehner’s plan not cutting as much as claimed, but nothing about Reid’s plan suffering the same defect.

    * * *

    Here’s an interesting story about Boehner as viewed by activist Republicans.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/0727/John-Boehner-faces-a-tea-party-revolt-over-debt-ceiling-crisis-video

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    “Meanwhile, we hear all about Boehner’s plan not cutting as much as claimed, but nothing about Reid’s plan suffering the same defect.”

    See UPDATE

  • TheMagicalSkyFather

    I actually expect it from Reid. From Boehner(or to be more specific the GOP) I expect to see methods to shift any burdens to the middle and lower classes and any benefits to the upper class and corps. From Dems I expect tricks to raise taxes and not cut spending. This is the low expectations world in which I live.

  • DLS

    Well, in the end nobody will be satisfied (especially those who are wrongfully aghast at the precedent of some spending reductions and the precedent that it is setting, albeit long overdue), but at least we should have the debt limit increased and default avoided. (should