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 (53)


  • Add A Comment

  • 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" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ronp
    February 11, 2013 1:18 pm
    So you would rather the government borrowed money from private sources (at a higher interest rate) rather then from SSI? Why?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Messiah - that's a real stretch to justify theft.
    February 11, 2013 1:40 pm
    Hows about we DO NOT borrow money ? At least within logic. I know savings bonds and treasury notes technically are borrowing, but at least they are eventually repaid = with modest interest. ... AND WE ARE ALREADY BORROWING TOO MUCH FROM CHINA.

    The problems with 'borrowing' from social security are that there is never a repayment and the Reagan/O'Neill solution that was to keep social security solvent to 2030 has been gutted. ... Whatever short term gain from using SS funds for other programs are far out weighed by the long term effective destruction to the system.

    Same thing with Medicare, what with $500b 'transferred' to ObamaCare.

    { "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" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    CG
    February 11, 2013 1:26 pm
    $1500 in 1966 would be the equivalent of $10,638 today
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    CG
    February 11, 2013 1:14 pm
    The way that average lifespans are figured is a bit tricky as most of the increased life spans are do to increasing the live birth rate.So its not like people were dying at much younger age when SSI was started.If a person makes it through his early years his chances are great to reach his late 70s or 80s.I'm 66 and when I planned for retirement I was told that I should plan for dying at 91 yrs based on my current age .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    WSUalum
    February 11, 2013 8:59 am
    That peanut gallery comment was rich coming from you. Have you been missing your AA meetings lately? Isn't that included in your diploma from wsu? I'm sure thats all you studied there. It's against the law to be a conservative prof at wsu so how you be expected to learn anything useful?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    HLC
    February 11, 2013 6:10 pm
    You and your "peanut gallery" will be out in full force tomorrow night after the presidential speech. Against the law to conservative at WSU? Apparently you know nothing about WSU. Many students from the east side and agriculture majors.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    I don't like the current approach either....
    February 11, 2013 9:19 am
    Look I get it, we need to reduce spending, and i understand that going over this cliff is one way to do it, the problem is they're essentially saying, lets just jump off... why not take a parachute instead? The purpose of these budget talks should be to find a way to SAFELY reduce spending, not just allow certain departments to go bankrupt... Why is it so hard for Repubs and Dems to sit down and say, we are going to be more fiscally responsible, lets cut spending... lets prioritize our approach and do our best to spread the cuts across the different departments... It's almost as if the current approach from Republicans is, fack it, lets just stop funding anything that comes up and needs renewal. I get it, they don't trust Dems to cut anything but you can't simply ignore what harm may come of allowing certain programs to go unfunded... really? you're going to cut mental health programs for returning vets? seriously? BECAUSE THOSE are the people that deserve to be cut off? come on Rep's and Dem's should know they can do better than that....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Cbrew, I want to agree with you but
    February 11, 2013 11:11 am
    but until we figure out overnment isn't supposed to be the cure all for everything and anything, politicians will keep spending taxpayer funds to buy votes. It's all about ginnie, gimmie, gimmie.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    mnpat
    February 11, 2013 2:16 pm
    I don't think it's the cure all for everything either, but I also believe that there are many things it should do. It should provide/oversee education, should provide for our defense, Should be involved in protecting/preserving our natural resources, there's a balance of what the Government should do and what the Private Citizens/private sector should do... We can't just sign everything off to private companies because many companies have private agendas that do not necessarily line up with the best interests of the United States, consider having Schools run by corporations? Imagine how that could/would lead to our Children being taught specifically what a specific corporation would want those children to believe, or consider that some corporations would destroy vast tracts of our natural resources to benefit their pocketbook in the short term... We can't afford to let the private sector run too much of our country but we also can't let the Government run too much of our country... As we all know, they do not necessarily get the job done right either... a fair balance is what we should be looking for, the biggest problem from my perspective is Dems and Repubs are no longer willing to sit down and hash out these issues together, they have instead decided that it's either the Dem way, Repub way, or absolute boycott of the process which i believe is worse than either party's plan... they need to figure this out... don't just throw the country into a deeper recession because they won't get their way.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Cbrew, I agree with most of what you said,
    February 11, 2013 2:54 pm
    especially about the two parties, unfortunately today they seem to feel the party circumvents the republic....sad comentary.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    This is one thing both sides agree on
    February 11, 2013 10:34 am
    when it comes to slopping at the Taxpayer trough both sides are pretty adept at removing funds from the taxpayer kitty.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    I'll take the "Pelosi approach" to the sequester
    February 11, 2013 2:12 pm
    We have to pass it (let it expire) to see what's in it. It might just provide the moment of clarity American citizens need to reach over and jerk the steering wheel hard right and get us back onto the road!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Progressives seem intent on crashing the economy
    February 11, 2013 4:35 pm
    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.

    So over 60% of the "cuts" were just a sham. The republican response seems reasonable given the dishonsty on the part of progressives as to the reality of these claimed "cuts".

    And even if the 37 Billion were real it's still nothing. That's less than 1 half of one percent of the trillion dollar deficit the US is running in excess each year. Instead we are borrowing over 40% of every year's expense. The left is famous for calling for sustainable this and sustainable that...what a joke. How about a sustainable government? Nah...let's just crash the whole thing appears to be the progressive's plan.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }