Why snuffing Big Bird won't balance the budget - Houston Chronicle (blog) [ournewsa.blogspot.com]

Why snuffing Big Bird won't balance the budget - Houston Chronicle (blog) [ournewsa.blogspot.com]

American drugs policy is a “war on black people” and results in the jailing of too many African Americans, billionaire entrepreneur and drugs law campaigner Sir Richard Branson told Metro Wednesday. Branson, who is a member of the Global Commission on ... Branson labels US drugs policy 'racist'

In light of President Obama's announced agreement to extend troops presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014, The Educated Soldier asks whether or not there is really a difference in John McCain and Barack Obama's foreign policy. www.facebook.com twitter.com References: 1) "Wikileaks disclosure reopens Iraqi inquiry into massacre of family" www.guardian.co.uk 2) "Wikileaks: Iraqi children in US raid shot in head" www.thestar.com 3) US Troop Withdrawal Motivated by Iraqi Insistence, Not US Choice www.nationaljournal.com 4) CNN: "negotiations...strained following...release of a...cable that alleged Iraqi...children, were killed in a 2006 raid" edition.cnn.com 5) Candidate Obama pledges to send 3 more bigades to AFG if elected youtu.be 6) Candidate McCain: "Maybe 100...it's fine with me" youtu.be 7) McCain: "Today We Are All Georgians" youtu.be 8) Ambassador Crocker walks back 2014 withdrawal www.independent.co.uk 9) Hamid Karzai walks back 2014 wi thdrawal www.startribune.com 10) US-Afghan Pact Won't End War or Night Raids original.antiwar.com 11) US-Afghan Pact 'Does Not Rule Out Drone Strikes' www.defensenews.com

What is the difference between Obama & McCain's foreign policy?

---

|

|

In last night’s presidential debate, Republican challenger Mitt Romney offered his plan for reducing the $ 1.1 trillion deficit. He proposed lowering taxes in a way that would be revenue neutral and reducing federal spending. But he offered few specifics on how he would implement it, which is a common problem when politicians discuss deficit reduction. Romney didn’t outline deductions and loopholes he would eliminate to make his tax plan revenue neutral. Certainly, though, there’s wiggle room there, because the U.S. leaves about as much revenue on the table from deductions and loopholes each year â€" $ 1.2 trillion â€" as it collects in taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center.

But revenue-neutral tax reform doesn’t get you a lower deficit. It gets you the hope that revenue will rise in the future and that additional money can be used to lower the deficit.

To battle the deficit on more immediate terms, Romney also proposed spending cuts.

“I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it,” he said. “If not, I’ll get rid of it.”

OK, now let’s set aside for a minute the political reality that Congress has essentially already been doing this. Lawmakers seem to believe everything is worth borrowing from China for. Romney, after all, is on the campaign. He gets to say what he’d like to do, not what Congress is likely to let him do. So what cuts would he make?

Obamacare, he said, was at the top of his list.

“So I’d get rid of that,” he said. Then turning to moderator Jim Lehrer, a PBS newsman, he said: “I’m sorry Jim,  I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things….” And then he went on to qualify that he likes PBS and Sesame Street icon Big Bird. While that set the Twitterverse afire, it ignored the far, far bigger problem with Romney’s statement.

Most of the cost of the healthcare reform isn’t included in the current deficit. So even if you believe that eliminating it would reduce future spending â€" it could actually add to it because the law has projected savings for some healthcare-related costs â€" it does nothing to reduce the deficit. And PBS?

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History and host of Nova Science Now on PBS, tweeted that “cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive.”

The federal subsidy for PBS is $ 444 million. That doesn’t even move the needle on deficit reduction. Later in the debate, Romney also said he’d cut subsidies for Amtrak â€" $ 1.42 billion â€" and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities â€" another $ 146 million. That’s a total of just over $ 2 billion. He hasn’t made enough of a difference for it to even affect the rounding of the deficit number. It would remain at $ 1.1 trillion with the cuts he proposed.

It’s just part of the grand delusion that continues to permeate any discussion about deficit reduction. As a challenger, it’s easy to throw out these sorts of projections, and there’s a place for discussing the wisdom of subsidizing things like public broadcasting and the arts. But let’s not pretend it’s a solution for the deficit problems. If they want to have a better grasp of what we’re up against, all candidates, including sitting presidents, should have to take the Concord Coalition’s Federal Budget Challenge before they hit the campaign trail. Voters deserve more realistic discussions of our serious fiscal problems.

Find More Why snuffing Big Bird won't balance the budget - Houston Chronicle (blog) Issues

---

Question by Flying Pig a.k.a The Fat Lady: As a mom, how do you feel about the "Mexico City Policy"? One of Pres. Obama's first acts in office will be to reverse the Mexico City Policy, which bans US tax dollars from being spent on international groups that support abortion rights or perform abortions. As a mother, how do you feel about your tax dollars being spent on abortions in other countries? Best answer for As a mom, how do you feel about the "Mexico City Policy"?:

Answer by dmg
I supported a woman's right to choose an abortion before I was a mom and I still do now that I am one. The money we're talking about doesn't just fund abortions anyway. Under the Mexico City policy an organization that provided birth control and prenatal care would lose ALL it's funding unless it stopped giving women information about abortion too,.

Answer by Dana R
I pulled this out of the article: "The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion. It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy. Also known as the "Mexico City policy," it has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since GOP President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office." Apparently this is something that has been done and "undone" many times. I don't think it will greatly affect us.

Answer by Lydia
I'm in Canada, and some groups here don't support Unicef, because they fund abortions in third world countries. However, what you say is interesting, seeing as he is so very pro-abortion....

Answer by bugged to death
Your tax dollars will not "fund abortions in other countries". Your tax dollars may help fund agencies overseas which offer reproductive and other health care to women and children. Would that be so awful?

[policy]

12D suggests drug-related harm reduction policy to gov't

Posted in: