Posted on 01/08/2013 8:00:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Let's suppose the GOP doesn't raise the debt ceiling on time.
And let's suppose the administration doesn't try any novel ideas, like invoking the 14th Amendment or using the Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin to get around the debt ceiling.
The best hope, then, is that the Treasury "prioritizes" its payments, so that it honors some things like interest payments, while delaying payments on other stuff that's not so crucial.
So what might that look like?
A presentation from the Bipartisan Policy Center did a good job of looking at what we'd have to give up if we prioritized crucial things like interest payments, Social Security and defense.
There are four slides here. Two sets of two. In each one, the first shows what we could keep spending on, and the second show what we would have to cut.
|
|
 Bipartisan Policy Center |
 |
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
As evidence by his imperial presidency, if Obozo really wanted to do something about the deficit, why not use his favorite tactic of bypassing the Congress and issue the following Executive Order:
“I am announcing an Executive Order effective immediately that all federal agencies, with the exception of the Social Security Administration and the branches of the US military, have 10 percent less funds in their current budget than they did in their last annual budget (the 2010 budget, since there hasn’t been one since then). Those agency administrators who cannot provide equal or better service to those it serves will be replaced by someone who can. Thanks, and have a nice day.”
This sounds like the argument my town’s school superintendent makes when anyone suggests that the school budget is too high...”then we’ll have to cut music, sports and transportation!!!”. Then everyone backs down and we pay more money. No one questions priorities, like “why does the middle school need three assistant Principals?”
The priorities of the author of these slides are goofy. Cut “IRS tax refunds to individuals???” That is money that belongs to the individuals! Does the author think that the government actually counts IRS refunds as money it can use?
Shutting down the government is a one-trick pony.
If they do shut it down for every long, people will see how little some parts of it are really needed. They might start asking serious questions.
Politicians can’t afford that. After all, government is their livelihood.
Of course, politicians just want to shut down enough of it (essential services excluded, of course) to create an aura of inconvenience on the general public in hopes that the general public will jump on their side.
Risky business — for politicians.
Some of the “can’t pays” if the “choose to pay” scenario options include SSI (a federal outlay but administered by SSA), TANF, Grants (Pell, etc.) I don’t have a problem with. The veterans’ payments and defense vendor payments I do.
In a proper God-fearing world, that would have already been done.
Given our current sorry situation, that will never, never happen as it doesn’t fit in with nobama’s “Turd-world country with me a dicktator for life” scenario.
The very last thing he will do is to cut anything associated with “The Barack” entitlements: TANF, SSI, WICs, Heat & electricity assistance, Section 8, Pell Grants, student loans and the yearly BIG EITC check! et al. Missing three months of these would really piss of his voter base.
“We’ll be spending over $1 trillion a year on interest by 2020. That’s $1 trillion we can’t spend to educate our kids or to replace our badly worn-out infrastructure,” said Erskin Bowles at a recent forum hosted by IHS Global Insight. “What makes it doubly bad is that trillion will be spent principally in Asia, because that’s where our debt is.”
When Clinton and Gingrich “shut down” the government, I was camping in Joshua Tree. The park was “shut down” in the sense that no additional campers were allowed in. Those who were already there were allowed to stay, so the “shut down” saved no money. The rangers remained on duty to serve the campers; the trash was picked up; the outhouses were cleaned. It was all for show and to frighten the public.
What don’t you understand? It’s the same principle that tax-cuts ‘COST’ Fedzilla.
Easy as pie, when you realize all $$ belongs to the one who can print it </s>
Cut “IRS tax refunds to individuals???”
That one is funny. It’s also why I claim the deductions I do. I always owe money at the end of the year. Sometimes so much I get dangerously close to having to pay a fine.
I’m uncomfortable letting the FedGov owe me money.
This sounds like the argument my town’s school superintendent makes when anyone suggests that the school budget is too high...”then we’ll have to cut music, sports and transportation!!!”. Then everyone backs down and we pay more money. No one questions priorities, like “why does the middle school need three assistant Principals?”
Bingo.
If the IRS announced a refund deferral process, I’d simply file my taxes to apply the refund to next year’s taxes, and then increase my withholding enough to get the money back over the next two months or so.
When it balanced out, I’d go back to my old withholding.
Remember, this isn’t a question of what money is theirs to keep, it is about how to prioritize the use of the money they have available.
So yes, they could defer sending refund checks, if they need that money for something else. It wouldn’t mean they thought it was their money, and eventually they’d have to send it back with interest.
The problem though with that plan is that technically, at some point those refunds not sent out would become “debts”, and would impact the total debt, and they’d have to pay off other debt to keep under the debt limit.
The debt limit isn’t a “shut down government” event. It simply says government can’t borrow any MORE money than it already has.
Government does get tax revenue every month, and would be free to spend every dime they get. They’d have to prioritize the spending to the limits of what they were getting in revenue, until they got more borrowing authority.
The good thing about using the debt limit for the fight is that Obama would be responsible for setting priorities of spending. So we’d all see what he thought was most important, and each decision he made, we could ask why he thought, say, giving his millionaire cabinet a raise was more important than funding food stamps, or why giving the unemployed another 99 weeks of insurance payments was more important than paying our soldiers, or whatever choices he makes.
I certainly think we wouldn’t be happy with his choices, but he’ll finally have to set priorities.
the very logo of the outfit tells the educated observer that there is nothing “bipartisan” about the outfit - a bunch of RINOS and Libs; birds of a feather
We should all look for ways to gum up the "smoothly running" Federal machine. If you owe the IRS, wait 'till 15 April and then apply for an extension. If we all did that it would be like a flash mob flushing all the toilets in Washington at the same time!
The liberals are living hand to mouth and we need to hide the buffet.
Regards,
GtG
Just defund the white house vacation and golf fund - budget deficit solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.