RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/13/2009 7:58:36 PM

InvisibleBlack

Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

Even to this day, not one conservative or GOP figure- not one conservative blogger or pundit- is serious about balancing the budget. Not one.

Actually, in 1985 Senator Phil Gramm sponsored the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (better known as the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings bill) - it was amended in 1987 to avoid a Consititutional issue (this is the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act ) which moved the controlling authority from the General Accounting Office to the Office of Management & Budget.

The bill basically said that if the deficit wasn't reduced to certain limits every year, the OMB would just come in and chop equally right across the board until the numbers hit the stated goals.

Senator Phil Gramm, R-TX (whom I don't like but I give him credit for this) was the primary author of the bill and the bill was passed by the overly Democratic Congress and then Ronald Reagan signed it into law.

Unfortunately, when Congress failed to hit these goals and the Gramm-Rudmann Act would have gone into effect in 1990, drastically cutting programs (defense by 32% and non-defense spending by 35%) Congress amended the bill as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and George Bush signed this into law. This (along his raising taxes despite everyone "reading his lips") is part of what destroyed his chances for re-election.

So, just to say, there actually were Republicans who tried to do something about the deficit. There were just other Republicans (and Democrats, too, to be fair) who undid all of it when push came to shove.

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to AnimusRex)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/13/2009 9:10:35 PM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

As noted in the article, most of it was a side-effect of NSPS. Critics screamed for years about how the GS system rewarded mediocrity and slackers, and now that they went to NSPS, which is performance based, now folks are screaming about the pay increases.

Those salaries are probably at the SES (Senior Executive Service) level, which are comparable to Generals in the armed forces.

In addition, with the aging of the workforce, you'll see higher salaries as more of the long-term folks compete for GS-15 jobs (pay in the lower six figures).

It's a lot more complicated than the article shows. You also need to see what those new positions are for - there are several career fields that are severely understaffed due to hiring freezes back in the '90s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Yet another related article: Who is working for who here?

quote:

For feds, more get 6-figure salaries

Average pay $30,000 over private sector

USA TODAY

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available. When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.

"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.

(Full article here).

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/13/2009 9:45:48 PM

SpinnerofTales

Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

quote:

As noted in the article, most of it was a side-effect of NSPS. Critics screamed for years about how the GS system rewarded mediocrity and slackers, and now that they went to NSPS, which is performance based, now folks are screaming about the pay increases.

Those salaries are probably at the SES (Senior Executive Service) level, which are comparable to Generals in the armed forces.

In addition, with the aging of the workforce, you'll see higher salaries as more of the long-term folks compete for GS-15 jobs (pay in the lower six figures).

It's a lot more complicated than the article shows. You also need to see what those new positions are for - there are several career fields that are severely understaffed due to hiring freezes back in the '90s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

As noted in the article, most of it was a side-effect of NSPS. Critics screamed for years about how the GS system rewarded mediocrity and slackers, and now that they went to NSPS, which is performance based, now folks are screaming about the pay increases.

Those salaries are probably at the SES (Senior Executive Service) level, which are comparable to Generals in the armed forces.

In addition, with the aging of the workforce, you'll see higher salaries as more of the long-term folks compete for GS-15 jobs (pay in the lower six figures).

It's a lot more complicated than the article shows. You also need to see what those new positions are for - there are several career fields that are severely understaffed due to hiring freezes back in the '90s.

Thorn, that's a sensible and rational explanation of what's happening. However, it's not going to do any good. Some (I think the term Michael Savage uses is) sheeple are just going to continue on with their "democrats are bahhhhhhhhhhhhhd" bleating until they get a republican back into the white house...at which time they'll start figuring out reasons why he's not a real conservative.

Facts just mess up their day.

(in reply to thornhappy)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/14/2009 6:58:39 AM

thornhappy

Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline

I thought the percentage of workers earning twice the average income was interesting. All engineers in industry would be in that position after 8-10 years of experience, especially if they have a Master's degree.

Generally that article is way short of facts and analysis. They could've done a decent job of it if they'd done a half-page article.

NSPS was championed, and implemented, under Bush and Rumsfeld. No news there.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/14/2009 9:12:57 AM

AnimusRex

Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline

InvisibleBlack-
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, Reagan did actually campaign on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, during the 70's.
But over time, the GOP has grown less and less fond of the idea. A cynic would say that once they found themselves actually in power, they discovered how hard it is to actually make painful budget choices.

So today, even with all the tantrums and stomping of feet about the deficit, not on contender for the GOP 2012 nomination is talking about a balanced budget. Not one conservative pundit or even blogger (aside from outcasts like Bruce Bartlett) are making the case for one.

I call them CINO's- Conservatives In Name Only

I may change to
WINO's- Wingnuts In Name Only

< Message edited by AnimusRex -- 12/14/2009 9:13:40 AM >

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/14/2009 11:19:24 AM

Sanity

Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

There is no hope that the Democrats will reign in spending. Obama promised to be fiscally responsible but thats turned into a bad joke, and third parties are all but hopeless. The only possibility for people who are concerned about our soaring deficits is to help turn the Republicans back towards their roots as fiscal conservatives. I think that would be real popular.

Maybe if we're lucky Dems will split off into two parties and take all the Rinos with them!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Sorry, Sanity, but the GOP lost budget credibility with me during the Bush term. Noe the Dems are joining them in my mind, but there is no way I will believe that the GOP is fiscally responsible as much as grandstanding. They want to be able to state that even though the bill passed, they opposed it. I doubt that they would have opposed it if there was a danger of it not passing... they almost all voted for the TARP abomination after all.

You can try to make a case that the GOP is fiscally responsible. Personally, I'm planning to vote third party in 2012.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/14/2009 11:45:51 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

There is no hope that the Democrats will reign in spending.

Agreed, especially since not they seem to have learned the "buy now, pay later - maybe" spending of the GOP.

quote:

Obama promised to be fiscally responsible but thats turned into a bad joke,

Agreed.

quote:

and third parties are all but hopeless.

Strongly disagree. If and when Ron Paul and/or other fiuscal conservatives start getting votes in the 10%-20% range, fiscal conservatism will get taken seriously.

quote:

The only possibility for people who are concerned about our soaring deficits is to help turn the Republicans back towards their roots as fiscal conservatives. I think that would be real popular.

You seem to think that that will come from within the GOP. As I've stated, I think an external threat to them will be much more effective and likely. The Limbaughs/Becks/Coulters exist by bashing oppositions and whining that things aren't right. They represent powerful divisive forces within the GOP, as do Cheney and Palin. I see the GOP as not having anything like a single voice.

quote:

Maybe if we're lucky Dems will split off into two parties and take all the Rinos with them!

Not likely. The Dems seem to have no strong platform except for healthcare, and they don't have the anger and energy to support a split IMO. And the very concept of a RINO - "You're not a twue Republican!" - shows the internal fighting of the GOP. The GOP seems to be inward-focused and more concerned about ideological purity than about listening to the people. Getting walloped in 2008 hasn't made them more concerned about how well they represent America as focused on criticizing Obama at every step and hoping to regain power in 2010. (To be fair, that's what Pelosi did between 2006-2008.)

I don't see the GOP changing until someone from without begins working with the principles they abandoned.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Senate GOP denied on spending filibuster attempt - 12/14/2009 1:13:15 PM

AnimusRex

Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline

Actually, Sanity, you and I might find ourselves on the same side were the GOP to get serious about fiscal responsibility.

Trouble is, as I showed elsewhere, it is mathematically impossible to avoid deficits without either rasing taxes, or cutting Defense or SS or Medicare.

Politically, I suspect SS and Medicare are untouchable even in conservative circles.

So the GOP will have to either raise taxes or cut Defense. Both of which are taboo right now within the Beck/Palin/Limbaugh axis.

Which is actually the problem- "TRUE CONSERVATISM" is currently defined as rigid doctrinaire positions, leaving no room for compromise. Budgeting, whether is is a personal budget, corporate budget, or federal budget, is all about finding different strategies, looking at various options and coming to a compromise.

< Message edited by AnimusRex -- 12/14/2009 1:15:52 PM >

(in reply to Sanity)

Profile

Post #: 28