Total impact of cuts over 10 years = $500 BILLION -here's some details of 'The (raw) Deal'

[nashville_brook]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/09/the-ugly-the-ugly-and-the-ugly-a-look-at-the-2011-funding-deal/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The Ugly, the Ugly, and the Ugly: A Look at the 2011 Funding Deal

In the end, the deal to a avert a government shutdown and keep funding going for the rest of the fiscal year amounted to a $38.5 billion cut in appropriations from the 2010 baseline (although WaPo puts it at $37.8 billion, the joint Boehner/Reid announcement used the $38.5 billion number, so that’s what I’m going with). There was a time last December, with the McCaskill-Sessions compromise, promoted by the very conservative Republican ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, when Republicans agreed to a 2011 budget appropriation $20 billion ABOVE the 2010 baseline. If mixed in with the tax cut deal, that level could have been put in place. Therefore, this deal inked late last night cut $58.5 billion from the level of McCaskill-Sessions. This equals all of the tax advantages that didn’t extend current law, outside of the business expensing provisions, in the December 2010 tax cut deal. The entire stimulus is gone.

• From the Los Angeles Times: “The stopgap measure would fund government operations through Thursday, using $2.5 billion in unused transportation funds. Those cuts would be counted toward the overall reductions.” OK, so what does “unused transportation funds” mean? Initially, I was told that $1.5 billion of this comes out of high speed rail, perhaps the unused funds that Florida sent back to Washington. But I have not been able to confirm that. At any rate, when President Obama said in his speech that “infrastructure projects will be delayed,” this is part of what he means. That’s $2.5 billion on the sidelines that could have gone into transportation infrastructure and construction, i.e. jobs.

• Also from the LA Times: “Democrats pursued reductions from one-time cuts and accounts with surpluses. In the end, about half the cuts, nearly $18 billion, come from such areas.” This matters for the future, because agency appropriations end up becoming the new baseline, so the cuts magnify over time.

• From the WSJ: “Includes $513 billion for defense – less than Republicans and President Obama wanted but more than the $508 billion provided in 2010.” So defense actually gets a $5 billion increase above the 2010 baseline. This is equal to what was in McCaskill-Sessions in December. Defense didn’t get touched.

(snip)

• From the Wall Street Journal: “Also in the deal is a provision requiring an annual audit of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had been created by last year’s Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.” Apparently, the GAO and a private company will conduct this annual audit. This might mean a day of spin every year or it might be used as a weapon to undermine CFPB.

[orwell]

1. In the end...

...there was going to be a funding cut. The 2010 slaughter at the ballot box guaranteed that.

The question is what was going to be cut and by how much.

Whatever deal McCaskill and Sessions may have reached isn't relevant. It was pre-2010 bloodbath.

Now if you want to fault the Dens for not getting a better deal when they held more Congressional power, that makes some sense. But that is also with the benefit of hindsight.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

2. only if it's passed in each of the next 10 budgets. Repukes won't control the House for that long.