Open Thread: Could the Senate Pass Cut, Cap, and Balance?

Oh, please...

Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 10:15am.

No. To mix metaphors, when the rubber hits the road, the previous Democrat "supporters" of the BBA will head for the tall grass.

• Login to post comments

FYI: H.R.2560.EH `Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011'.

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 10:23am.

Just so we are all working off the same page:
The bill is actually quite short. Follow the reference link below to read the full text (this actual text has been edited by me for ease of presentation).

Ref: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112ucVz3W::

Here are some of the highlights from the actual bill:
H.R.2560.EH
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011'.

`SEC. 316. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
`(b) Limits- In this section, the term `discretionary spending limits' means for fiscal year 2012: for the discretionary category, $1,019,402,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,224,568,000,000 in outlays.

`SEC. 317. CERTAIN DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.
`(b) Exempt From Direct Spending Limits- Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):
`(1) Social Security, function 650.
`(2) Medicare, function 570.
`(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.
`(4) Net Interest, function 900.

`(c) Limits on Other Direct Spending- The total combined outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $680,730,000,000.'.

`SEC. 319. ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.
`(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--
`(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by
`(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013;
20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014;
20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015;
20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016;
19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017;
19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018;
19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019;
19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020;
and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.

TITLE III—BALANCE (Editorial note: This is the full text)
SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.
(a) In General- The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.

(b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

- Grump :o)

• Login to post comments

Why So Complicated?

Submitted by iveseenitall on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 10:27am.

Did you hear Ron Paul yesterday? He's right. The answers are so simple, yet with the corrupt governmant which now exists in the Washington sewer, no matter what the final "deal" is, most Americans will be knifed in the back (right before these clowns take their next vacation). How sad for this once great nation.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)

• Login to post comments

It will not pass the Senate.

Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 10:36am.

It will not pass the Senate. When you have people like Durbin, Reid and Schumer, nothing gets done. They will not vote away their gravy train. If C,C&B is passed, it will make it harder to rip the citizens off.

• Login to post comments

Space Program over

Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 11:19am.

So the Shuttle Atlantis landed this morning, anyone bets or guesses what will happen from here on out?  Dear Leader has mentioned using Orion, but has there been any production of that?  Seems odd for what they want to do with it despite its original intent, which was supposed to be a long range rocket, not orbital, even if it can do the orbital part.

-Jon

• Login to post comments

So here's my OT question for the day.

Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 11:35am.

In honor of at least two of the former astronauts (and probably many more)  I want to ask,

"Are you a turtle?"

• Login to post comments

Another example of the stimulus at work

Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 2:07pm.

"Bite Me' gets stimulus funds. This will make you want to choke a bureaucrat. 14 boats chosen. Who wants to bet they are friends of former NC Senate Speaker Basnight? Sort of like a cash for clunkers of boat engines

*************************************

What  is going on with Tiger Woods? He has fired long time caddie Steve Williams. He had already fired Butch Harmon, his swing coach. Does anyone think he can still beat Jack's record of 18 majors? i also heard he had a cash flow problem. Before the blowup over all his concubines he was the highest paid endorser in sports. Much of that is gone. His ex took a big chunk. He could be broke, only having a couple million left.  

********************************************

Don't ever lease a burial plot. Rudolf Hess did and the lease has run out.

• Login to post comments

Let's hope not.

Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 12:41pm.

Let's hope not.

• Login to post comments

I look forward to when the

Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:48pm.

I look forward to when the House and Senate debate the Democratic plan.... oh wait, there isn't one.

• Login to post comments

AP media bias

Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 9:57pm.

I hope someone here at NB takes a look at this garbage. Here's the first several paragraphs:

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's hard to know which is more surprising: a Democratic president pushing historic cuts in spending, including Social Security and Medicare. Or a Republican-controlled House refusing to accept the deal and declare a huge victory for long-sought GOP goals.

Political orthodoxy has been turned on its head ever since President Barack Obama stepped up his call for a bipartisan "grand bargain" to raise the national debt ceiling and avert a default on U.S. obligations. The deal would include $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, mainly through steep spending cuts but also including up to $1 trillion in new federal revenue.

Those are far bigger targets than typical budget negotiations. And the spending cuts would seem more appropriate for a Republican president than a Democrat.

Some pundits and political insiders say Republicans should leap at the offer. But there's a hitch: The new revenue — mainly from overhauling the tax code and lowering rates by eliminating or limiting a broad swath of loopholes, deductions and tax breaks — presumably would violate a no-net-tax-hike pledge that scores of Republican lawmakers have signed.

Mostly for that reason, House Republicans so far have rejected Obama's overture, despite the interest shown by Speaker John Boehner. Some pro-Republican analysts seem bewildered.

Obama's offer of big spending cuts would have "brutally fractured the Democratic Party," and congressional Republicans probably "will come to regret this missed opportunity," wrote David Brooks, a moderate-to-conservative columnist for The New York Times.

Now, I know no one has ever accused Charles Babington as being anything but a die-hard progressive, but this story was written with obvious anger, and no attempt at all was made to shade his obvious bias. His editor should be immediately fired. Un-freakin'-believable.

• Login to post comments