Supercommittee Democrats Want War Savings To Fund New Stimulus Package

[bigtree]

11/10/11 10:43 AM ET

Democrats on the supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package, according to a summary of the $2.3 trillion plan obtained by The Hill.

The latest offer from Democrats on the deficit panel, made Monday night to their Republican counterparts, would use some of the war savings to help pay for spending on infrastructure . . .

The offer from Democrats includes $200 billion in defense cuts and slashes $200 billion from other discretionary spending . . .

The budget savings from ending the wars are estimated to total around $1 trillion over a decade, according to an estimate in July from the Congressional Budget Office.


read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/192861-democrats-want-war-savings-to-fund-new-stimulus

[WCGreen]

1. Meanwhile they are still cool with cutting back on medicare and medicaid....

[bigtree]

2. indeed they are

. . . unconscionable, in my view, without FIRST requiring the wealthy to sacrifice SOMETHING.

They can't seem to bring themselves to that point.

I like the direction of the defense cuts and the emphasis on directing the 'war savings' into infrastructure.

[TheWraith]

14. No, they aren't. That meme is utter and complete bullshit. nt

[bigtree]

15. bullshit:

The new plan from Democrats cuts a total of $1 trillion from federal spending, $100 billion of which would come from Medicare benefits. Another $250 billion in cuts would be made to payments to Medicare providers.

An earlier, $3 trillion package offered by supercommittee Democrats included larger cuts to Medicare benefits and a change to the way inflation is calculated for Social Security, which would result in lower benefits.

The revised offer includes $5 billion in cuts to payments for durable medical equipment, and $4 billion from payments to hospitals who care for the indigent. The offer counts $13 billion from changes to state taxes on Medicaid providers.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/192861-democrats-want-war-savings-to-fund-new-stimulus

[NorthCarolina]

3. Does that mean you don't buy into the misdirection?

SQUIRREL!

[bigtree]

5. I don't think any critic of those cuts will be dissuaded by the sweeteners

. . . nice to see that element included in negotiations, though. I mean, where have we seen that notion of directing 'war savings' into some of these areas of social and economic concern presented in any serious economic effort in Congress? That's what the rhetoric of the past campaigns promised.

Anyway, this is just one view through the window -- a look into this bizarre star-chamber of rich folks misering out money that would go to our basic needs and preserving the bulk of the rest for their defense and corporate interests which they claim are for our own good.

[WCGreen]

8. It sure is a big plus, but it obfuscates the true cuts.

[bigtree]

10. definitely there to appeal to reservations from objecting House members, for example.

. . . horrible, already-compromised process.

[KansDem]

4. Sounds like the "peace dividend" of 1989...

...when the Berlin Wall fell.

There was talk of using the money spent on the Cold War for domestic programs. After all, if we weren't keeping a fleet of B-52s in the air 24/7, and didn't have to pay to maintain armies in faraway lands, then we'd have lots of geld to spend at home.

Didn't work...the MIC and its toadies in Congress and the White House said "no" with 9/11...

[bigtree]

6. yep

. . . we've already heard the arrogant industrial warriors in Congress declaring they'll block defense cuts if it goes to the 'automatic trigger'. It'll be like catching fireflies in a windstorm trying to pull that money back from the Pentagon's black holes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. War spending was deficit spending

It was bankrupting us. This would just bankrupt us spending the same money on nice shoes instead of nice guns.

[bigtree]

9. I think some investments make sense

Trouble is, they never do anything along those lines on a scale that will make enough of a difference in the economy. That's the impetus for deficit reform. The proponents believe in balancing the books, but balanced books don't necessarily provide for jobs, education, health needs, or other elements of the general welfare that the Federal government has correctly assumed responsibility for.

That's the impetus behind folks who advocate for a more equitable distribution of available funds (borrowed or not) to help make the nation more competitive through tax breaks and incentives to (mostly small and medium) businesses to hire more workers, to help address health needs which have manifested themselves into a rising economic burden, and rebuild and expand our infrastructure to economically advantage rural areas and commerce everywhere else.

The trick is to get these elitist pols to agree.

[Scuba]

11. How to stimulate the economy per Moody's. You know, the bond rating folks...

<a href="http://imgur.com/T7qoo"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>

[Philosopher King]

12. Let's see--$200 billion in defense cuts and $200 billion from other spending...

plus "around $1 trillion over a decade," i.e., $100 billion/yr, equals $500 billion...and that is going to fund $2.3 trillion in new spending?

When are Democrats going to stop taking math lessons fro the GOP?

[mmonk]

13. It makes no sense to have a stimulus while simultaneously engaging in budget cuts.

Net zero. The ultimate triangulation.

[bigtree]

16. well, our government is more than just an auditor

. . . balancing the books is certainly a necessary and worthwhile enterprise, but most of the needs that our federal government correctly provides for in their budgets don't go away in the interim.

Moreover, there are many worthwhile and necessary investments in education, health care, and infrastructure which help enable and expand economic opportunity, fairness, and competitiveness.

[mmonk]

17. Net zero means of course no additional spending funding to stimulate the economy.

It's hard to expand economic activity as you actively suppress it. It's not a time for deficit management when revenue is down due to lack of demand. You get demand up first so revenue can come in to address it.