New Budget Deal Puts Final Nail in the Tea-Party Coffin

[Geee]

National Review

Three days after President Trump told his aides to look for deep cuts in federal spending for 2020, he agreed to a budget deal that blows a $320 billion hole in the spending caps and allows a two-year suspension of the debt ceiling. 

Trump tweeted that “this was a real compromise in order to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!”

In fact, it is exactly how Washington has worked for decades. This is a place where politicians splurge today, and promise to repent tomorrow. And where “compromising” means adding your differences together, rather than splitting them.

Thus, as a result of this “compromise,” Democrats are boasting that not only did they get a huge boost in domestic spending, they are “pleased that our increase in non-defense budget authority exceeds the defense number by $10 billion over the next two years,” according to the statement issued by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

[Geee]

A Budget Disaster of Epic Proportions

The conventional wisdom among Washington Republicans is that populist conservative voters no longer care about spending or deficits.

President Trump and congressional leaders are nearing a deal that would raise the discretionary-spending caps by $320 billion over two years and offset less than one-quarter of those costs (and even those offsets would take a decade to materialize). The budget deal would essentially repeal the final two years of the 2011 Budget Control Act and raise the baseline for future discretionary spending by nearly $2 trillion over the decade.

This represents a fitting conclusion of the Budget Control Act — the crown jewel of the 2011 “tea-party Congress.” The decade-long shredding of these hard-fought budget constraints mirrors the shredding of Republican credibility on fiscal responsibility

[Valin]

July 23 2019

President Trump's budget deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer unleashes spending, kills the only existing restraint on it, and uncaps the national debt. The political move takes the debate off the table during the presidential election season. Pelosi and Schumer crow that the deal allows them to "advance progress for the people." Does it also signal that any claim to fiscal conservatism by Republicans is dead?

[Valin]

OTOH

Tom Cotton on the Hugh Hewitt Show

July 23 2019

(Snip)

HH: Now we have a new deal, a budget deal. It is, in my view, not perfect, but it does fund the military for two years, which I think is great. Will we build ships? People have got, the Brits realize now they haven’t got enough ships to do what they need to do. We don’t have enough ships. Do you think we will actually build the ships, Senator Cotton?

TC: Hugh, I haven’t reviewed the details of the budget agreement, yet. It happened late last night. I am pleased that there is some increase in Defense spending. It’s not as much as Secretary Mattis proposed in his final budget before he resigned late last year. But staring down the threats of radical budget cuts because of the dead hand of an eight year old law was a pretty stark alternative. I’ll be reviewing the details going forward. Whatever happens with this budget deal, though, this moment is a good example of why we need those ships. No matter how advanced, how technologically superior our ships are. A ship cannot be in both the South China Sea to counteract China, the Persian Gulf to counteract Iran, and the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic to counteract Russia at the same time.

HH: And my last question, it’s become a cliché to say the oceans haven’t gotten any smaller. But in becoming a cliché, it lost its power, Senator Cotton. People don’t realize you can’t have a destroyer or a frigate in both places. And if you’ve got to go with a tanker through the Straits of Hormuz, you cannot be running through the false claims of the PRC in the South China Sea.

TC: Hugh, the most fundamental fact of international relations is geography, because it’s the most permanent fact. It never changes.

HH: And that means?

TC: The seas never get any smaller. And you cannot police two different seas with one ship, just like you cannot defend two borders with one division

(Snip)

[Geee]

@Valin - if I can remember back to when Reagan first took office (and remembering is a feat in itself nowadays) he took real heat for big budget spending on the military when he first took office. Mostly because the country was in such a big mess (can you spell CARTER) and he made that the priority.  At least the country is not in such an economic  mess as it was prior (can you spell OBAMA) 

[Valin]

TOS

[Valin]

 

[Valin]

32 minutes ago, Geee said:

@Valin - if I can remember back to when Reagan first took office (and remembering is a feat in itself nowadays) he took real heat for big budget spending on the military when he first took office. Mostly because the country was in such a big mess (can you spell CARTER) and he made that the priority.  At least the country is not in such an economic  mess as it was prior (can you spell OBAMA) 

 

Yes I remember that. Here's the thing (As Bill Whittle points out) We can't grow our way out if the budget (federal government) keeps growing.

I am always reminded of the Herb Stein quote...."Trends that cannot continue....won't."

Example my SS check is spitting distance away from $2,000 a month. And I doubt I am anywhere near the top.