They slimmed the growth of the Defense Budget down to almost nothing, though. On top of that, they tried to shoot projects in the face that the Pentagon doesn't want. You can thank Congress for keeping things funded that the Pentagon says they have enough of, or don't want in the first place. We are a nation run by idiots.

Why approach it from the "cutting down Medicaid and Medicare" angle when it's not the health insurance, but the actual delivery of healthcare that's driving up spending? Medicare/Medicaid are exceptionally efficient programs that pay less to doctors than private insurance due to their massive purchasing power. There's very little fat in their budgets, so cutting the programs means cutting benefits. There are many other areas of the budget where we can look for inefficiency -- why focus on one of the few things the federal government does right?


Getting the second derivative moving in the right direction doesn't change the fact that the funding levels are too high. Why should the defense budget be growing at all now that we're winding down (or trying to wind down) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? We threw both of those wars on the credit card, and now it's time to *shrink* the defense budget, not simply reduce the rate of growth. Saying we just need to reduce the rate of growth from the astronomical levels of growth we had during the last decade is moving the goalposts a bit too far -- and I say that as someone who gets a majority of his project funding from defense and national security budgets.

If the budget situation is as dire as the political nonsense leads us to believe, then nothing should be off the table. If one side is going to propose massive cuts into some portion of the budget like Medicaid, they need to be willing to allow similar deep cuts elsewhere. I don't personally think it's as bad as either side wants to make it out to be, but I do believe there are long term budget issues that need to be addressed soon.

I'm just mostly tired of hearing politicians squabble over very minor aspects of the budget, such as funding to PBS. We just spent 5-6 years worth of federal public broadcasting funding with the opening missile salvo into Libya. Either they argue over these very minor details for hours on end, or they come out and propose major cuts perfectly aligned with their sides ideals. Nothing is ever going to get done if both sides continue the gridlock, while avoiding actual compromises.

I'm totally sympathetic to your arguments that the political process is broken, but you lose me with your insistence that both sides are responsible for it. Do you realize how far to the right the Democrats begin in these negotiations, and how far further to the right the Tea Party has been dragging them?

As but one example, John Boehner's opening bid in FY2011 budget negotiations was around $33 billion in cuts to a list of programs that Republicans didn't like, including the preposterous riders that would defund NPR, EPA, Planned Parenthood, etc. that offer no measurable cost savings, but make wingnut voters happy. The White House countered with an offer that, instead of meeting the opening bid halfway, gave the GOP the full amount of cuts they wanted, but refused the absurd riders about NPR and Planned Parenthood.

Boehner then went back to his caucus, and not only did they not accept the White House's offer, despite it giving them the full amount of cuts they wanted, but they insisted the riders remain in, and then *increased* the amount of cuts they required to $61 billion.

Imagine you're bidding on a house that's listed at $300,000. You place an opening bid of $250k, and require the seller to leave all of their possessions behind, including the appliances, the family dog, and their first-born son. Instead of laughing in your face and walking away, they come back and say they'll give you the house and the appliances for $250k, but they want to keep the dog, and little Johnny is off the table completely. You respond by saying no deal unless Johnny and the dog are included, and, by the way, you want it for $200k now.

Somehow, the Democrats are still negotiating under these very circumstances.

If you pay any attention to congress these days, this "Bad Cop, Insane Cop" approach has served the GOP well, with Democrats generally kowtowing to whatever the most extreme elements of the GOP ask for. To my surprise, Democrats have shown at least a bit of a backbone by not caving to these demands, but the GOP will likely get more in cuts than they initially opened negotiations with.

How can you claim this is a "both sides" problem?

I'm not claiming both sides caused the problem. I'm saying both sides need to address the problem in a way that reflects more then just one sides wishes. Your recent example was something I was unaware of, and continues to irritate me since it is clear the GOP only wants it their way, even when they only hold power in one of two houses of congress, and lack the executive branch. It shows the Democrats are at least trying to find some sort of middle ground (or in this case, well past middle ground and much closer to GOP land), but the GOP doesn't want to budge at all. Hence my initial point about wanting defense spending on the table if the GOP wants Medicare on the table.

Yeah, defense is a real problem because so few in congress actually understand where the money goes, but they all understand how much of the money goes to their districts to create jobs. The contractors and subcontractors spread their operations out across hundreds of congressional districts so that everyone loses something if programs are canceled -- even ones like the completely unnecessary F-35 alternate engine that the military doesn't want but Congress refuses to cancel because it creates a few jobs. We may as well just pay those people to dig a hole and then fill it up when they're done.

I understand the distinction you're making about both sides being responsible for fixing the problem, not necessarily that both sides caused it. But I think it's important to tell the story accurately that Democrats really are trying to meet the Republicans way more than halfway, but if you give these guys an inch, they take a mile. And now they're cheering on the prospect of a government shutdown.

Which might be fine when it's a defense procurement, may or may not be fine if it's an earmark, and is certainly dubious if it's a "stimulus."

Digging more into the current budget situation, why wasn't one passed last year when the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate? I'm finding only vague hints of what happened, as most of the searching I am doing is turning up recent articles, and nothing really specific from last year. Was it one of the many issues the Republicans filibustered on? If so, makes me think this was their game plan all along, to force a shutdown.

I'd love to hang the failure to pass a FY11 budget on the Republicans, and certainly their routine and unprecedented use of the filibuster was a factor, but as best as I can tell, there was plenty of blame to go around.

Budget bills can't be filibustered, so they can be passed with just 51 votes. Unfortunately, Democrats seeking re-election in competitive states didn't want to be on record voting for a budget that increased the deficit by about $1 trillion, so most observers didn't think they'd be able to get to 51 with ConservaDems defecting. With the prospect of the budget passing the senate in doubt, Pelosi punted, choosing to push legislation piecemeal rather than enter a drawn-out fight over the budget that might chew up months of time and end without agreement anyway.

The wisdom of that choice is certainly questionable now, and was predicted then.

And, really, how hard could it be to negotiate with such a reasonable counterparty?