NY Post falsely suggests state aid bill increases deficits
A New York Post editorial misleadingly claimed that the Congressional Budget Office said the recently passed state aid bill "will bloat the deficit another $13 billion over 10 years, using 'pay as you go' accounting." However, that figure excludes much of the savings used to pay for the bill, and CBO said that when accounting for these savings, the measure reduces deficits by around $1.4 billion over ten years.
NY Post: State aid bill "will bloat the deficit another $13 billion" using "pay as you go" accounting
From an August 12 New York Post editorial (emphasis added):
Voters' focus on spending forced Democrats to make a telling choice this week -- between public unions and folks on food stamps.
Guess who they picked? Yup: To fund another bailout -- $26 billion to save teaching and other government jobs -- Dems cutmoney meant to feed the poor.
President Obama inked the bill Tuesday -- to great cheers (natch) from teachers.
True, food-stamp spending will still go up, but not by as much. Dems also hiked taxes again, by $10 billion. Yet the Congressional Budget Office says even that isn't enough: The measure will bloat the deficit another $13 billion over 10 years, using "pay as you go" accounting.
But that figure excludes savings used to pay for the bill
Bill partly paid for with Recovery Act funds. As the New York Post noted, the state aid bill was paid for in part by cuts in food stamp spending. However, the Post did not note that these cuts come from the Recovery Act funds that increased food stamp benefits. As the Washington Post reported, the bill "rescinds after 2014 an increase in food stamp payments enacted in last year's $862 billion stimulus package." The bill also includes rescissions of budget authority from some Recovery Act programs.
CBO estimated that the bill would reduce deficits by $1.37 billion over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the bill states that the "Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effects" of the bill are an increase in deficits by $12.6 billion over 10 years. However, CBO noted that this figure:
Excludes savings in Titles II and III that would result from changes to programs and rescissions of funds previously designated as emergency, which total about $14 billion over the 2010-2020 period.
The Post editorial falsely suggested that the savings from the food stamp cuts were included in this "pay as you go" estimate. CBO stated that when accounting for these savings -- which "are not counted in the calculation of the effect on the deficit under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010" because they were emergency funds - the bill reduces deficits by $1.37 billion over ten years.
And they have spinmasters like MMfA to cover for them except it's a ridiculous cover. The increase in food stamp payment was just a bone tossed by Democrats that has now gone by the wayside to help unions.
And what happens when you are neatly tucked in the pockets of those big fat donors.
However, none of that matters anyway, because it's not Dems siding with a powerful union over poor people because they're big donors to Dems - that's just his dishonest portrayal of events.
The Food Stamp money was money targeted for 2014 and beyond. They'll almost certainly find another way to fund those increased payments in another way, because Dems DO care about poor people! But for right now, they needed a way to pay for THIS program to shut up the nonsense from the right about spending programs that aren't paid for.
And even though they FOUND a way to do that, the right is STILL being dishonest about it by saying that this bill increases the deficit AND by saying that we're siding with fat donors!
You said a mouthful. So who do you think gets the shaft when push comes to shove for Democratic lawmakers?
THAT is not rocket science.
I don't know where the lie comes from that all teachers are union members. Most southern states don't allow public servants to unionize. I know this because I taught school for 33 years and was never in a union because the state constitution prohibits it.
Sometimes it's good to use the Google before jumping to an inaccurate conclusion.
In fact, as I've explained to you many times before, it's REPUBLICANS are are really influenced by money. Groups give money to Dems so that the Dems might lean their way. The two parties are NOT equivalent in how influenced they are by money and how much they'll ignore a group that doesn't/can't give them money!
And, as been explained to you multiple times, since the money can be added back to the Food Stamp fund in the future without EVER impacting those who will receive it, there is NO cost to the poor people right now in order to benefit the states today!
Again
Please don't feed the troll post.
It's ok Sue. I expected nothing more from you.
Point is government employees. If you are satisfied with "only" federal employees making so much more, fine.
I am talking about all government employees.
you responded with "Absolutely. "
So paying federal employees is NOT bankrupting the states is it? BUt thanks for the reading advice.
Next. I think you and both know California is a unique case, cna republican to boot! A calssic case of too much democracy maybe?
You mean that unique brand of incompetency, fraud, waste, abuse and shamefulness?
Damn right.
Oh wait - what's this?
(here - I'll save you some time - "What does this have to do with my post?" "You are an idiot and I won't waste my time explaining to you." "Grow up")
And I notice WalMart hasn't handed out those big raises nor have they gone out of business as you promised. When's that gonna happen again?
As for your WalMart reference, I mean that was days ago, and what I have told you about your childish inability to accept losing an argument and not dragging it around in your cute little red wagon from thread to thread.
Come on, we are only lowly posters on a blog, if you can't accept when you're not getting attention from me, I imagine your spouse or your Mommy must pull their hair out constantly.
Grow up Peter Pan.
Some drag out old arguments (Old B), some say I hate kids and want them to suffer and everyone makes excuse after excuse for wasted tax money and incompetent politicians. Which is exactly what this thread exposes.
Drats. I'd send MMfA a quick note and tell them to 86 these type threads before they post them. All your nerves can't take it.
Silly - just trying to get the thick headed to see reality. Cause you sure dismiss anything coming from what you perceive as "the left". Sorry - but care to expound on what Mr Stockman has written in that post?
No no, you won't defend a ridiculous assertion from a couple of days ago. I know, in the cold light of day, it can be a little embarrassing realizing you stated that WalMart will have to pay better wages or go out of business.
Way to not disappoint!
I made a broad statement about crappy wages and businesses, you were the one who brought up WalMart and never let up. So, you lied now, didn't you?
Oh no, the wheels just came off your little red wagon.
I made a broad statement about crappy wages and businesses, you were the one who brought up WalMart and never let up. So, you lied now, didn't you?
Oh no, the wheels just came off your little red wagon.
Yes you made a stupid broad statement. I pointed out a specific instance where your broad statement was shown to be inaccurate. And that is how righton "won" the argument? Good for you! Go get yourself a cookie and a tall glass of milk - you earned it!
If you had to do that, ask yourself why.
Because he NEVER said that you said "quote-unquote" that, liar.
Dumb voters in California and other restrictive measures have crippled their ability to provide the services the state needs with the revenue options they have! It's that simple. It's not the over-regulation that's the problem. It's the ignorance of what needs to happen to provide the citizens what they need and want.
Anyone can become a government employee if one has met the necessary qualifications for the job. It's not a closed field.
You don't have a leg to stand on in this argument, and you're simply flailing wildly now, like a caricature of a drowning man.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
You are one simple tool.
"Tax cuts for the wealthy are more important"
"I know tax cuts add to deficits but I am going to play dumb and pretend they pay for themselves because I know my constituents are dumb"
Is this accurate? Because this is exactly what you are supporting RO. You consistently fail to acknowledge the potential fate of the education system is hundreds of thousands of teachers are laid off. But I am sure you support tax cuts don't you?
Again, I see right through it.
And nowhere is this about tax cuts. Another strawman.
ok, here we go, I'll use one of your tactics here "only an idiot believes cutting teaching positions will not affect kids education" Are you REALLY that obtuse? I mean REALLY? And you have the nerve to use the word intelligence in your post. Laughable.
I want to hear your solution Right On, come on lets hear it and see if you can construct one that doesnt involve thousands teachers losing their jobs and cutting taxes. I expect to see a list of tired right wingnut talking points. So here I am ready and waiting.
Act like an adult instead of a ranting raving child. Grow up.
And on top of that, MMFA debunked the conclusions that Federal workers were unfairly and excessively compensated yesterday!
Well, I couldn't care less what an hysterical ranting maniac's opinion of me is.
As I said, post something of substance instead of cheap sleazy insults and you may get a respectful response.
Answer please,I am stupid so I need your solution.
"You consistently fail to acknowledge the potential fate of the education system is hundreds of thousands of teachers are laid off."
You are ok with kids education suffering, I'm still asking.
Gee, I doubt it.
Brilliant, be sure to forward this suggestion to all 50 state education depts, they can't have thought of this!
Maybe they can stop buying text books, stop heating/cooling their buildings, stop building schools, turn the lights out? Stop after school activities? Stop bussing students? Sell the sports fields? I think most of these things are happening already.
Ok.
LOL
As I explained elsewhere on this thread, when you look at the extra money spent by the Feds vs the shortfalls in spending by the states, there's actually been NO stimulus by the government!
This spending IS undeniably needed as stimulus AND to rescue states. It doesn't stop THIS help from being valuable that they got OTHER help earlier via the financial stimulus passed last winter.
LOL!!!!! Good Sue, write them a check if 106 billion isn't enough.
And liberals wonder why nobody trusts them to run anything. Like Sue, it's all simple, the money they got before is just enough, need more.
Ok fine. LOL!!!
As for, "And liberals wonder why nobody trusts them to run anything," I beg to differ because the proof is a majority in both Houses of Congress and a democrat in the WH.
And furthermore, if the Bush tax cuts worked out so well as a sign or republicans' ability to govern well, then why:
*didn't the republicans gain majorities in 2006 and 2008?
*didn't McCain win in 2008?
*are we in a deep recession?
You seem more confused than usual today. Are you under the impression that the $106B was going to California alone? The article says the money is distributed nationally. Further, it wasn't just wages being paid from that money, seems there were infrastructure upgrades as well as other capital costs which, once the money is spent it's gone. And right in the article you linked to - it states that even getting their portion of the stimulus funds, education would still have a budget shortfall.
Oh nevermind - you're just gonna get all emotional and lash out again.
Look, if you just rubber stamp when politicians or their backers tell you they need more money, that 106 billion just doesnt' cut it, fine. Go ahead, if you want to be their violin, who am I to stand in your way.
Just don't expect me to join your orchestra.
Forget it, if you expect anyone with a lick of sense to buy that crap you're crazy. If you as a gullible liberal want to, fine. The rest of us don't.
Psst, your class envey is showing again.
So because they are public service employees, they aren't private citizens? And gee I recall you being irate at the "low level civil servant" Shirley Sherrod (sp?) being thrown under the bus by the WH. Your compassion for those who work in the public sector seems to ummm fluctuate somewhat.
If that is class envy to you, well, I guess that makes you classless.
Clearly you are jealous of "the protected class" or why else would you want to strip them of wages and benefits to bring them down to the lowest common denominator.
No what you are clearly advocating is a race to the bottom - not to lift everyone up to a decent living wage. That is class envy.
And here you have another challenge, (a lie), can you link to where I said I "want to strip them of wages and benefits to bring them down to the lowest common denominator"?
I will wait. You couldn't possibly lie again, could you?
Can you read? I din't say you were for protecting a class. I said you advocated for them to lose their perceived "protected status" which seems to include lower wages and lowering or eliminating pensions.
I'm paraphrasing of course, but here is one of your gems...
And another...
So here are two quotes from you that would seem to be advocating for cuts to salaries and pensions. If that's not what you meant, care to clarify?
As for the salary cuts, if necessary, yes. If private companies are forced to cut salaries, then government should be no different. As I said before you twisted it, they should be no more of a protected class, economically, than the rest of us.
So now I wasn't quite lying, but twisting? Alrighty then. And then you post again about those damned pampered teachers/civil servants ridiculous pensions and cutting their salaries because folks in the private sector have been hit like that. But claim you aren't interested in dragging them down to the lowest common denominator? Hmmmm....
You don't even make sense. And yes, twisting is lying, in your case no biggie. Something you admitted to the other day and something you continue to do on this thread.
If you're proud of that cute little dishonest arguing tactic, then be proud of it.
Who's lying now?
Of course you can't recognize it. See one can advocate for increased salaries and benefits for all rather than calling for those who have succeeded in negotiating good wages and benefits be brought down to the level of those who don't have the same compensation. But you folks worshiping at the alter of $, can't see that. And when an employee in another job is doing better finanicially than you, you get jealous and call for it to end.
Oh and no lie > "by Old_Benjamin (August 06, 2010 5:59 pm ET)
I find that you folks that love to rail against "illegal immigrants" use that term when referring to latin american undocumented workers/immigrants. So I just switched it up"
Oh nevermind. You will now claim I called you a racist (which I didn't). You are back to being your whacky self today. Now pack it in - you've had quite a productive day of posting tripe.
You see, I told you, when you start to layer lie upon lie you only get yourself in trouble. By not only being a liar, but a foolish liar. And you always try and blame me for your failings and your dishonesty.
This can't be easy for you. Try a little integrity next time, far easier.
And you are just upset that I replaced "illegal immigrants" with "brown people". Pretending when you spouted off about securing the border you were referring to the Canadian border and all those udocumented Sweedish immigrants from
crossing or something.
Umm because you accused me of lying and admitting to it...
Which you now claim is..
You get more transparent as your day rolls on.
I'd say your lying, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions, can you point to something that shows you advocating for increased salary and benefits for all?
Psst, your class envey is showing again.
So because they are public service employees, they aren't private citizens? And gee I recall you being irate at the "low level civil servant" Shirley Sherrod (sp?) being thrown under the bus by the WH. Your compassion for those who work in the public sector seems to ummm fluctuate somewhat.
So no, you're wrong yet again. They're taking care of an urgent need now (about 45 states are really struggling) and putting off the increased funding that was to come in 2014 for another fight on another day.
I mentioned that 45 states are really struggling to pay their bills, and he provides a dishonest link to a story about how Federal workers make more money than private sector workers - another debunked myth because it's comparing apples and oranges!
Please don't feed this troll post. He was totally, completely unable to debunk what I said, and so his only option was to try to derail the thread with an off-topic post.
When one actually compares apples to apples, adjusting for better education, etc of the federal workers, they actually make a little LESS than the private sector workers doing similar jobs!
MMFA and Politifact have repeatedly debunked his nonsense.
As MMFA told us that Peter Orszag said
"If you hold education and age constant - and thus have an apples to apples comparison - federal employees earn slightly less than those in the private sector on average, although the difference is not statistically significant."
And I don't believe they should be some protected class of citizens immune from budget cuts or salary cuts - like the rest of us.
Please tell me Sue, how your imaginary scenario can even be addressed? You are so incredibly dishonest it's amazing.
Troll.
And the Republicans are different HOW?
As for having UNION support, I have news for you: That IS working-class people! It's still the REPUBLICANS that get bankrolled by Billionaires and CEO's.
If "UNIONS" is your idea of a "Special Interest," and in a negative way, then you are an elitist by definition.
---------------------------------------
But nice try, anyway.
They're not about criticising a paerticular party, or advocating for or criticising a particular policy.
The is no reason MMFA would run a thread like that unless the MEDIA ran a relevant story.
But I'm not MMFA and YOU are not the media. I was reply to YOU, pointing out YOUR HYPOSCRISY on this matter, putting aside that whether of not the democrats did this or that, has nothing to do with the misleading way that the NYP reported on the issue.
-----------------------------------------
Not to mention that you calling my reply out as "off topic" is hypocritcial as well.
The post stated that:
As the Washington Post reported, the bill "rescinds after 2014 an increase in food stamp payments enacted in last year's $862 billion stimulus package."
If one interprets this properly, it in no way says that anyone's food stamp assistance will be cut off or reduced.
But the dishonest rhetoric coming from right sure wouldn't tell you that, and this NY Post article is yet another example of that dishonesty.
The state aid bill doesn't increase the deficits. We desperately need the stimulus. During recessions and the immediate aftermath, consumer spending is down, mostly because the 90% who are still employed are skittish and aren't spending like they used to! We need more money entering the economy. Since consumers are still pinching pennies, and small business owners have been scared sh!tless by the rantings from the right about their increased taxes (most of whom won't actually see their taxes go up, of course), the only way to get that influx of money is via gov't spending.
They can't seem to honestly address a single issue! Even if this bill DID increase the deficit, it'd STILL be a good thing to do - short-term deficit increases are much preferable to the long-term trouble our economy is going to be in if we can't get it jumpstarted soon! But it doesn't increase the deficit!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Small business in the US lives on lines of credit. EVERY ONE of the small business owners I know has had their line of credit significantly curtailed, regardless of their ability to pay.
If FauxNoise, the GOP and the TeaPartiers really wanted to throw a public tantrum, they should stand in front of banks which traditionally offered small businesses commercial lines of credit.
So RIGHT ON, why are FauxNoise, the GOP and TeaParties SILENT on this? Don't they support small business owners?
It's not an accident that he did that.
He lied about what the study of federal workers' pay found out, and falsely conflated that with all government workers, including school teachers. He asserted that the Dems were dissing the poor by taking money from food stamp funding in 2014 to pay for this today, when there's no evidence that they won't replace that funding some other way. He also asserted that the teachers unions can and did influence the Dems to mistreat the poor.
None of that is accurate, and none of that is on-topic.
He's a paid troll. He made his paycheck today by making a 100+ thread be about EVERYTHING but the actual topic.
Keep checking back, I am going for 150 before I clock out.
I did NOT do that - but, yet again, you LIED that I did!
If speed limits don't stop all people from driving a reasonable speed, and deadly accidents happen as a result, it's a bad idea to have speed limits at all?
Of course not. If bad things are happening despite fair warning of the dangers, then further enforcement is called for, not fewer warnings! If we want the border secure, we need to do lots of different things - even if some of those solutions are not perfect!
And just because at times, you are successful in your paid troll role of derailing threads, that doesn't mean I should STOP cautioning people - in fact, it means that I (and others) should CONTINUE to warn people about your intentions!
But please, note the number of thumbs down your post got, doofus. You DO win a few battles, and that's too bad that others actually HELP you in the goal, but you aren't winning the war.
I'm struggling with how my public schools can attract and recruit good teachers if they're going to be demonized simply because they are teachers. Even my kid's charter school has trouble attracting good teachers because they left the profession due to the constant propaganda.
I long ago advised my kids not to become teachers - even though one would be a superb teacher. Unlike other countries, where the teaching profession is respected, in the US the Republicans disparaged teachers to the point our best students choose not to obtain their teaching credential. Any nation that disparages learning and the profession of teaching is doomed.