Want to cut something like $850 billion from the next 10 years of budgeting? End the War. There's a novel budget-cutting idea, eh, folks? The Drug War has now cost us roughly the same amount as the Iraq War, to put it in context -- $2 trillion each.
Monday will be a big day for Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican Party. He will announce the results of a task force he convened, following last November's election, which he asked to "figure out what we can do to grow our party and win more elections."
I'd been discussing the absolute non-reality of his proposal -- how the numbers don't begin to add up, the unrealistic budget cuts, the plethora of magic asterisks in the absence of actual proposals -- and the interviewer was like, "OK... but if you're right, why is his budget front page news?"
If Congressman Ryan really wants to get serious about cutting spending, he should look to the one U.S. President who has squeezed the federal budget, and squeezed hard. So, who can Congressman Ryan look to for inspiration on how to actually cut spending? None other than President Bill Clinton.
The problem isn't that we can't fix our economy. The problem is we won't. And until we change the primitive culture of our politicians and media, our citizens will suffer the consequences.
How can we explain why both under Bush and Obama, Wall Street has grown even larger -- so large that even Eric Holder admits they are too big to prosecute?
The budget that Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray released yesterday stands in sharp contrast to the one that her House counterpart, Paul Ryan, released on Tuesday. Hers is more appropriate to meet the nation's economic and fiscal challenges.
Given the extent to which this part of the budget is already shrinking, there's simply no way to cut it by more than an additional $1 trillion without causing significant harm both now and in the future.
If enacted, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget would slow the economic recovery. Chairman Ryan selectively uses Congressional Budget...
I have trouble with putting policy glosses on proposals that would deny health care coverage to millions of people and make care much more expensive to millions more. Because when more people lack health coverage, more people die.
A budget isn't just a bunch of numbers; it's a set of values that shows us a political party's vision for our country. It reveals whose side our leaders are on. And once again, Paul Ryan has made it crystal clear that he's not on the side of women and families.
Both parties agree that we suffer from mass unemployment, declining wages, and growing inequality. Both agree that rising future deficits should be addressed. But they offer completely different responses to these realities. The question, of course, is where Congress lines up.
Ryan's newest budget is much more about communicating with his party's leadership and activists than about usefully contributing to the policy debate. It could perhaps most accurately be described as the "make Paul Ryan relevant again budget."
The budget just released by House Republicans marks the culmination of an important, long-term shift in the Republican Party. Over the last several decades, the party has abandoned political conservatism and embraced its opposite: an agenda of radical, experimental reform.
The sequester that took effect March 1 is a case in point. Some House Republicans have called it the Tea Party's biggest success to date. But a success for whom?