TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross
AP: f61b2571-d32f-416a-8cb1-9872346c5967
So this time around, top Republicans are digging in. Republicans like Eric Cantor are saying they don't like this meat axe approach, not one bit. (AP Photo/File)

Bring on the deadline!

BY Dave Ross  on February 11, 2013 @ 5:30 am (Updated: 10:33 am - 2/11/13 )

Our latest national spending deadline is March 1, when $85 billion in federal spending is scheduled to disappear like Cinderella's coach at midnight.

We've tried this before - back in May of 2011. We cut $37.8 billion. It was the biggest federal budget cut in history. Both parties supported it. Except the Washington Post discovered that $23 billion of that was cut without losing a single federal employee.

Because those cuts included highway projects that had already been canceled; and included $6 billion saved by not conducting a census in 2011, which they weren't going to do anyway since the census was in 2010.

So this time around, top Republicans are digging in. Republicans like Eric Cantor are saying they don't like this meat axe approach, not one bit.

"Clearly this is not the best way to go about trying to control spending."

By all indications, come March, they're going to let the clock strike midnight and see what happens. They don't believe Democrats are capable of cutting anything.

Top Democrats like Dick Durbin go on Meet The Press and say 'of course we're willing to cut.'

Except, "Think about this for a second," says Durbin. "cutting back on psychological counseling for the members of the military and their family?"

We will make some tough cuts, "But listen, do we really want to base our spending cuts on reducing medical research in America?"

And are you really going to insist, "On eliminating 70,000 children from HeadStart?" asks Durbin.

That, my fellow Americans, is how everyone can agree that SOMETHING must be done… and then still not do it.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (46)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    This could be interesting - IF anyone actually looks for true waste (and dead programs).
    February 11, 2013 5:16 am
    Not likely, because Congress (both sides) and the President apparently prefer rhetoric to actually doing their jobs (or actually thinking, for that matter).

    So....... these looming cuts with either gut the military to the point that Iran can walk all over us .. OR .. result in American children dying. .. Depending on the source. ........ And, of course, some sort of a solution will be found. .. Not likely a compromise - that's a sin in both churches - but putting off action for another couple of months - or maybe even until next year.

    After all, Dave, if the fiscal crisis WERE ever solved, you'd be left with ONLY guns and gay rights to talk about. Forever.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    The feds are doing the same thing states do (where do states get the idea from)
    February 11, 2013 6:10 am
    The feds will fund their 'pet projects' then say they don't have enough money for things like Medicade/Medicare, Defense,etc and we need to raise taxes for those. (WA state is good about using education for those tax increase scares.) Congress needs the key things they are truly responsible for and all those 'pet projects' need to be dropped off the bottom. I'm not saying that cuts will probably need to happen in those big areas, but those 'pet projects' are a waste of money.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    The difference being...
    February 11, 2013 8:21 am
    ...that Washington State, by state constitutional mandate, must balance its budget. The Fed? Not so much.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    Drop in the bucket,
    February 11, 2013 5:17 am
    the cuts should be 10 times that amount. Political gamesmanship that would make PT Barnum proud.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    Ah Yes, the party of Dave Ross and the no cuts Budget.
    February 11, 2013 5:17 am
    Don't you ever get tired of being the Gunga Din of the Democrat Party Dave?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    *Poof*
    February 11, 2013 5:36 am
    Department of Engergy - *POOF*, Department of Education - *POOF*, EPA - *POOF*, 50% reduction in Department of Defense - *POOF*

    Spending problem solved...Reality - *POOF*

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    Ha ha ha
    February 11, 2013 5:36 am
    that's funny....cutting programs.... so silly....cutting spending??? Ha ha ha....silly people....the Government owns and controls every aspect of our lives now.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Sick
    February 11, 2013 6:06 am
    Since you do nothing but complain and tell us how horrible everything is, why don't you pack your bags and go somewhere else that you find more favorable? You live in a very liberal state. You can go to the southern states and join the "peanut gallery." If that doesn't suit your tastes, you can pack up your bags and leave this country. There is nothing telling you that you have to stay. Rather than just complain, go somewhere else. I am sure that after you gone for a while, you'll find out that things aren't as bad as you have been told by your RWNJ friends. You remind me of the guy that just complains about his job, but does nothing about it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    I have to laugh
    February 11, 2013 6:14 am
    that when someone expresses their 1st amendment right to speak badly about the government, others tell them to leave the country. The wonderful thing about this country is that we can speak against our government, especially when one thinks the government is doing something wrong. AND BOTH parties are very wrong in their agendas. They both are right in some areas too.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cash wrote...
    wsualumn
    February 11, 2013 7:22 am
    God forbid that someone holds a different viewpoint on how government should be run than you... At least the folks on the right bring a plan to the table and not just beat around the bush and say they did something when they really did not. You want to believe being a untra liberal is the right thing that's fine with me but stop telling someone else they are wrong and to leave. The last time I checked we all have the right to believe in our own values and voice our opinions. Your comments make you nothing more than a classless jerk.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Cash
    February 11, 2013 5:42 pm
    I find it ironic how the RWNJ said the exact same thing when Bush was in office. No, I am not blaming Bush. Limbaugh and all of his fans said "why don't those complainers just pack up and leave since they find it so "awful" here. After all, there is nothing that holds them back from staying here. Now, you want to invoke your right to "free speech," yet you want Piers Morgan to pack up and leave.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Cash
    February 11, 2013 6:07 pm
    In regards to Piers Morgan, I meant to say that The RWNJ want him to leave.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    And in favor of the meat axe? The concept of proportionality
    February 11, 2013 6:36 am
    No matter where you hang your personal hat on the political rack, we nearly all agree that the government is spending far too much money. It remains to be seen whether we have any congressional representatives with the political 'nads required to crank the faucet somewhat shut. Mostly, what we'll ultimately get from congress will be a lot of partisan finger pointing and preliminary posturing for the 2014 mid terms.

    We overspend, but we overspend in a particular way. A variety of departments and functions comprise the current mixture of federal spending. Suggestions like, "We should get rid of a few departments that I personally dislike and allow the others to continue to overspend" get nowhere. One person's "wasteful boondoggle" is another (often equally reasonable) person's "highest priority of government". It has taken many, many, decades to establish the current, defacto spending priorities. We have no hope of reaching agreement to change those priorities, especially to eliminate entire departments, between now and March. Probably not even between now and March 2020.

    Were I to wake up tomorrow and discover I had been put in charge of the Federal Budget, I would call a meeting of every department head. I'd say, "OK, ladies and gentlemen, prepare a plan to operate your department on less money. We're rolling back the budget X-percent per year until we finally reach a balance of income vs. expenditure. You will be graded on efficiency- find ways to cut costs while maintaining service as close as possible to the present level."

    While this process went on, congress would be free to dither around and debate whether some program, or some other program, was worthy of extension or should be curtailed- but that process will take many years and we need to act now (no, we needed to act a couple of years or more ago) to shrink the size of government.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Jason wrote...
    Good Approach
    February 11, 2013 6:49 am
    I would agree to that 100% as long as the Defense Department wasn't part of it. Reason being is that it is one of the very few items mentioned in the Constitution that is a government responsibility. Defense would be baselined at current levels and adjusted for inflation. If national security issues cone up, such as a war, then spending would increase paid for with an additional 6.75% tax on EVERYONE. As far as the other areas of government doing a 10% reduction each year, once targets are met, excess $$ would pay on the principal of the debt and not another program.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    There's waste in Defense too
    February 11, 2013 6:56 am
    I'm sure that there are areas in the realm of defense that can be reduced without compromising our security.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    With respect, Jason, that's why the current approach is mired down...
    February 11, 2013 7:31 am
    Each and every department and nearly every function can be individually justified by somebody. Contrary to popular impression, there aren't a lot of government functions that were founded as experiments to see how large a bonfire could be built with the hard-earned cash of working American taxpayers.

    As long as everybody says, "Yeah, we'll cut the budget- provided that means we gut the programs important to *you* and leave those important to me alone," we will never reach a consensus for moving forward.

    Across the board is the only way to cut the budget when it reflects so many contrasting, and sometimes even opposing, purposes and priorities.

    Nobody would think it ideal, but few could argue that it was not somewhat "fair".

    Cut now, change priorities in the future.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Let the fingerpointing begin..
    February 11, 2013 7:07 am
    While your prescription is probably the right approach Chuck, I share your pessimism that anything significant will be done. It is likely that our politicians in D.C. are spending more time trying to figure out how to take credit or assign blame for whatever happens next. Goodness knows they wouldn't want to get caught making a compromise for the good of the nation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Oh Chuck
    February 11, 2013 8:26 am
    Were there only such leadership coming from the White House...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    But Congress holds the pursestrings
    February 11, 2013 8:41 am
    It is congress who is constitutionally responsible for the budget. This means that the blame for not balancing the budget can can be equally shared by the representative and executive branches.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    Individual departments are headed by the Executive Branch
    February 11, 2013 9:10 am
    If the POTUS wishes to actually do something to reign in government spending, he has immense power to do so.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    You can tax and cut till your are blue in the face but until you real in the big entitlements
    February 11, 2013 7:59 am
    Or the debt nothing will change. So you need to cut expenses to real in the debt, that means social security, medicare, medicaid, and health care....that and the debt exceeds the US income.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lonestar wrote...
    It's the year of the snake
    February 11, 2013 8:04 am
    This is the year we honor all politicians.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Lonestar
    February 11, 2013 8:45 am

    Real talk, now I would be all for a 10% across the board cut in EVERY department. As far as the epa and education and social services, I think it's too late to cut those departments totally, looking at our political landscape today.

    Do I expect our business leaders to respect our environment while making a profit and trying to be as cost effective as possible in order to maximize profits, NO, do I expect the individual States to be able to deliver adequate education to every district in there individual States after decades of Welfare payments from the federal government subsidies? No. Do I expect individual states to handle social service needs after decades of Federal subsidsy's , No.

    I am not naive to think that there is no waste in our Defense department, that is just crazy to think that they can't find any waste there, do I really believe that the DOD is running efficiently with no pork,ha,ha,ha,. Oh boy.

    My expertise has always been in the insurance industry, I started as a lowly data operator and work my way up into managing the profitability of a huge territory in the Pacific Zone, Cali, Oreg, Washington. I wasn't a visionary, but I was the best at making someone's vision a REALITY, because I knew how every department worked and could do there jobs, I was able to take a company that was hemoraging money and cut cost and find ways to make the company still do the same work with less waste and pork, you find the best in every position who has done the work and I am not talking about supervisor's, you find some IT guys that know how to program and you put them all in a room and have them come up with standards and programs that does the work for you.

    One of the biggest things that I did that made me a hated man in the company was have it come up with a program that calculated how much work you averaged at the end of the day, I started with myself and used that as the average work and/or minimum requirement needed to be considered an average employee, if you met that average, you were good to go, would make the minimum pay raise, if you surpassed it, you got a bigger raise and higher performance review and if you didn't meet it, you were put on an action planned. The company turned around within 2 years and has never looked back despite me leaving the company and they are still using the system put in place.

    People that couldn't adjust are gone and people that did embrace the change are still there and moving around the company. The technology is there, the Federal government just has to use it and the people able to implement it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    The reality is...
    February 11, 2013 8:30 am
    ...we could raise every form of federal revenue by 50% and still be running deficits.

    We have a major spending problem. In addition to cutting a couple government departments altogether (Dept of Education for sure), I'd be making big moves to shut down almost every one of our overseas military bases...unless those allies start picking up big portions of their operating expenses.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Good Fox News analysis the Social Security issue:
    February 11, 2013 8:36 am
    cite: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/11/longer-life-expectancy-straining-social-security-analysts-say/

    According to this particular article, when FDR signed Social Security into law (1935), the average life expectancy from birth in the US was only 63 years. Social Security, as originally conceived, was only intended to pay benefits to people who had already outlived a normal life expectancy; folks who were, (relative to that day), of extremely advanced age.

    In the 1950's, a typical worker began collecting Social Security at age 68, and the average male lived to only 76. Eight years of benefits.

    Many people now collect benefits for over 20 years. Men who begin collecting Social Security at what is now more-or-less the end of middle age, (62), will collect benefits for an average of 21 years until they reach the current life expectancy for males (83). Women who begin collecting at 62 will, on average, receive benefits for 23 years until reaching the current life expectancy for females (85).

    Even from the perspective of a guy who could be collecting SS very soon, if he chose to do so, (and I won't, for a variety of reasons), it's obvious that we need to begin raising the age of eligibility for SS benefits.

    It's tough to jerk the rug out from under people who have (foolishly) included SS income in otherwise responsible retirement plans, but we could start by advancing the age of eligibility by a certain number of months each year and allow folks now in their late 40's or 50's some time to plan and adjust. IMO- the targets should eventually be 50% benefit at 62, 75% benefit at 65, 90% benefit at 68, 95% benefit at 70, and full benefits at 72. (IMO).

    Medicare? Catastrophic only at 65, with benefits similar to the current plan progressively phased in between 65 and 72. (IMO).

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hate to tell you, Chuck. For whatever reasons you delay taking SS, if you die first, you get nothing.
    February 11, 2013 9:09 am
    Sure, your widow might get a bit more, but why DO you think the Feds advise starting as late as possible ?????. ... But, then, I'm in real estate, so if I didn't start at 65 I might have starved.

    There are ways to get more revenue into SS/Medicare, however. Recognizing and legalizing currently undocumented workers would let then start legally contributing'. Removing the (%93,500?) cap on SS payments would let Warren Buffitt pay a lot more toward us less wealthy AND - for the love of Pete - STOP, repeat STOP using SS/Medicare funds as a cash cow for every other federal program.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    I disagree Chuck
    February 11, 2013 9:30 am
    I think people who pay into social security for 40 - 50 years sometimes longer should not be forced to wait 10 more years because the Government mismanaged the funds... I'd like to retire at some point in my life... i think I earn that right by paying into my social security every paycheck since i started working at 18... I think we look at this problem the wrong way... you need to be looking at other ways to regulate these entitlement programs and you also need to find out why the program isn't making enough... sure we have tons of people drawing from SS for long periods of time, but what about the millions of people that never even reach that age? Consider you've been paying for an insurance program for 40 years and die before you ever use it, where does that money go? Millions of people have done this... why are we short in SS if this is the case?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Cbrew, we're short in SS because most people take out a lot more than they put in
    February 11, 2013 9:46 am
    They take out a lot more than they put in, even when a realistic return on investment is applied.

    Darn it all, even in the United States, the greatest country on the planet, we can't each and every one of us put 5 pounds of flour into the sack and then expect to pour out 10.

    If you want to retire on Social Security at 62, go for it- but the benefit should have some relationship to what you have paid in so far and how long you're likely to live- not how much you think you'll need every month to squeak by in retirement. Fact is, people retiring today are living long enough to spend more than their contributions, *with* any sort of reasonable interest factored in.

    You're right, people have paid in for 40 or 50 years. 46 years so far in my case. 46 years ago, entire families were able to live (although not extravagantly) on $500- $600 per month. People who paid in 7.5% of $500 back in those days ($37.50 per month, plus another $37.50 from the employer), now collect monthly SS benefits equal to four or five times their entire monthly wage in those early years of their working career.

    It doesn't take long (typically only several years) to burn through everything you put it, everything your employer put in, and any reasonable amount of imputed interest. After that, you're living on the charity of the following generations.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Chuck understood but....
    February 11, 2013 10:24 am
    It's not as if they kept paying 37.50 a month as the years went by... As the years went by and the inflation occurred those workers were still working, still paying in, sure, their wages were 500 a month when they started but by the wages adjusted with the inflation, i get that you're saying there would be loss due to inflation but the revenue went up along with inflation and therefor the amount people are paying in went up as well. it's somewhat relative, also, again, i contend that there are MILLIONS of Americans that did not live to utilize those benefits, hence there should be enough to cover the issue of inflation. Also, The Government controls how much it pays out on SS... If you are short because not enough money was paid in, reduce the amount that gets paid out.. I don't think that's what's driving the shortage though... I believe it's the fact that the Government has mismanaged that money and used it for other programs. Oh and as for using SS to retire, I was simply stating that i expect to get SS when i retire, I understand that SS alone will not cover my living expenses. I have a retirement account and hope to you know... work like a dog my whole life so i can finally enjoy it when i'm too old to really enjoy it and close to death anyways...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    We should also remember when they started social security
    February 11, 2013 11:06 am
    33 workers were paying in for everyone collecting, today it is 3 workers working for everyone collecting. We also need to recognize social security is used for minors (under age 18) to collect benifits if a parent passes away. I agree with Chuck and have long ago advocated raisning the age for full benefits in a phasing plan. I also feel that FICA taxes should be paid regardless of income. Those two issue would make SS solvent. Medicare, Medicaid and those without insurance should be a one payor system similar to VA benifits.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }