How do you think losing the AAA rating will effect you on a personal level?

[OceanAnnie]

I'm not arguing about it. I just wanted clarification.

I also think its a stretch to now say that "office expenses" is "personal expenses". But whatever. Its not a big deal.

I agree that $4 million per Senator is a lot to run their office whether it be personnel, personal or office expenses.

Maggie

Agreed.

I don't want to argue either.

They are startling figures to me, no matter how you look at them.

 

[eliza61]

here are two charts that probably explain it better than my convoluted explanations.

This 2nd chart is a breakdown of the 18% other slice

So I think politicians want us to focus on the small "other" slice. That way they can go on campaigning that they were the ones who saved "medicare", "the military" etc, etc. Now through into the pot we're taking in less and less money via various tax breaks. We've discussed that before, almost 40% of the country pays nothing in federal tax.

These charts are a few years old but they are pretty on point.

 

[eliza61]

I agree with everything you said, but just to be clear it's federal income taxes which so many people don't pay. That statistic is generally used to incite outrage and imply that these people are not contributing, but that's not always true. Many of those 48% have jobs and payroll taxes are just as important as income taxes. In 2010 payroll taxes brought in about $865B and individual income taxes brought in about $899B.

But isn't federal income taxes the ones we use to determine the federal budget?

I'm not sure so that was a question. I don't know how much of the payroll taxes contribute to out federal outlay.

 

[eliza61]

Agreed.

I don't want to argue either.

They are startling figures to me, no matter how you look at them.

 

[maggiew]

OK. I did some more research. This is taken from the Congressional Salaries and Allowances Report of June 28, 2011.

"Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account
Senators have three official allowances available to them for personnel and official office
expenses. They are the administrative and clerical assistance allowance, the legislative assistance
allowance, and the official office expense allowance. The administrative and clerical assistance
allowance and the office expense allowance vary among Senators since they are governed by
state population, distance from Washington, DC, to home states, and committee authorized limits.
The legislative assistance allowance is a set amount for all Senators.
The total amount available in each Senator’s Official Personnel and Office Expense Account
(SOPOEA) is the sum of the two personnel allowances (administrative and clerical assistance and
legislative assistance) and the office expense allowance. The components of the SOPEOA can be
interchanged. For example, funds available for office expenses can be used to pay office
personnel salaries, and vice versa. Additional limits pertain to spending on franked mail: mass
mailings may not exceed $50,000 per fiscal year,26 and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration may issue additional official mail regulations.27
The three allowances for all Senators are funded together in a single appropriation subaccount,
“Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account,” within the appropriation account
“Contingent Expenses of the Senate.” The list of total office allowances contained in the Senate
report on the Senate’s version of the FY2011 legislative branch appropriations bill, S.Rept. 111-
294, shows a range of $3,149,536 to $4,967,505, depending on the state.28 The average allocation,
according to this report, was $3,409,093.29 Subsequently, however, the FY2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-10, enacted on April 11, 2011, stated that “each Senator’s official
personnel and office expense allowance (including the allowance for administrative and clerical
assistance, the salaries allowance for legislative assistance to Senators, as authorized by the
Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 (P.L. 95-94), and the office expense allowance for
each Senator’s office for each State) in effect immediately before the date of enactment of this
section shall be reduced by 5 percent.” The law also included an across-the-board rescission of
0.2%. This section will be updated as additional information becomes available.
Appropriations are available to support only the official duties of Senators, and appropriations are
not to be used to defray any personal, political, or campaign-related expenses. Senators are responsible for payment of any expenses incurred in support of official duties that exceed the set
allowances of the individual accounts."

[Bolding is mine.]

Maggie

 

[eliza61]

You know what bothers me about this? I've been a military spouse for 15 years. My Dh will retire in 5. And now we are facing losing the retirement he has sacrificed for because the average citizen always wants to cut military pays first. The govt is not going to just pull out of Iraq overnight. They are planning on taking away retirements and starting 401Ks that are not nearly what was promised. And it saddens me to see so many people agree that the military needs to take the cuts. It's like a slap in the face. Nope, don't cut congress's pay. Cut the military members benefits whose average salary is 35,000. Brilliant.

I think another way to look at it is, look we have to cut the _____ budget by say 15% (that's just a random number I stuck in there, just as an example) and then say to the military. You guys have to cut every thing to the bone prior to touching anyones salary and pension.

Does the military really need those brand new fighter jets that are worthless in the type of combat we are seeing in Afghanistan? why do we need them? every expenditure needs to be question. Things like that.

Every thing, every department has to be on the table. Our representatives cannot be exempt. flat out tell them, we are cutting your office budget by 30% (once again just a random number). You want that fancy gym, you start paying for it like every one else who goes to planet fitness.

 

[natenapril]

I think another way to look at it is, look we have to cut the _____ budget by say 15% (that's just a random number I stuck in there, just as an example) and then say to the military. You guys have to cut every thing to the bone prior to touching anyones salary and pension.

Does the military really need those brand new fighter jets that are worthless in the type of combat we are seeing in Afghanistan? why do we need them? every expenditure needs to be question. Things like that.

Every thing, every department has to be on the table. Our representatives cannot be exempt. flat out tell them, we are cutting your office budget by 30% (once again just a random number). You want that fancy gym, you start paying for it like every one else who goes to planet fitness.

But they are NOT looking at cutting spending by not getting new planes or pulling troops out. Military members are "screaming on the news(as another poster said)" because their retirements are on the table to be cut.

 

[OceanAnnie]

OK. I did some more research. This is taken from the Congressional Salaries and Allowances Report of June 28, 2011.

"Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account
Senators have three official allowances available to them for personnel and official office
expenses. They are the administrative and clerical assistance allowance, the legislative assistance
allowance, and the official office expense allowance. The administrative and clerical assistance
allowance and the office expense allowance vary among Senators since they are governed by
state population, distance from Washington, DC, to home states, and committee authorized limits.
The legislative assistance allowance is a set amount for all Senators.
The total amount available in each Senator’s Official Personnel and Office Expense Account
(SOPOEA) is the sum of the two personnel allowances (administrative and clerical assistance and
legislative assistance) and the office expense allowance. The components of the SOPEOA can be
interchanged. For example, funds available for office expenses can be used to pay office
personnel salaries, and vice versa. Additional limits pertain to spending on franked mail: mass
mailings may not exceed $50,000 per fiscal year,26 and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration may issue additional official mail regulations.27
The three allowances for all Senators are funded together in a single appropriation subaccount,
“Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account,” within the appropriation account
“Contingent Expenses of the Senate.” The list of total office allowances contained in the Senate
report on the Senate’s version of the FY2011 legislative branch appropriations bill, S.Rept. 111-
294, shows a range of $3,149,536 to $4,967,505, depending on the state.28 The average allocation,
according to this report, was $3,409,093.29 Subsequently, however, the FY2011 Continuing
Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-10, enacted on April 11, 2011, stated that “each Senator’s official
personnel and office expense allowance (including the allowance for administrative and clerical
assistance, the salaries allowance for legislative assistance to Senators, as authorized by the
Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1978 (P.L. 95-94), and the office expense allowance for
each Senator’s office for each State) in effect immediately before the date of enactment of this
section shall be reduced by 5 percent.” The law also included an across-the-board rescission of
0.2%. This section will be updated as additional information becomes available.
Appropriations are available to support only the official duties of Senators, and appropriations are
not to be used to defray any personal, political, or campaign-related expenses. Senators are responsible for payment of any expenses incurred in support of official duties that exceed the set
allowances of the individual accounts."

[Bolding is mine.]

Maggie

Good sleuthing. I stand corrected.

 

[eliza61]

But they are NOT looking at cutting spending by not getting new planes or pulling troops out. Military members are "screaming on the news(as another poster said)" because their retirements are on the table to be cut.

And see IMO that's a direct reflection of "until it happens to me" itis. We have another thread here where people are blasting the Verizon employees for striking to preserve their pension. Every one is saying how unrealistic they are being because everyone's pensions are being cut.

Well now it's gotten around to the military. Why should they be exempt? Why is your husbands pension anymore important than my husbands pension? If we can scream at the unions that they have to "give" back, the unions members have the right to make the same demands of every one else.

It's like the line in the movies the "Incredibles". I'll make every one super, that way no one will be.

You understand what I'm saying? Everyone feels their "cause" is the one that should not be cut and since our representatives want to keep their jobs, they support whomever is voting for them, which means nothing gets cut and we pass on this headache.

 

[OceanAnnie]

And see IMO that's a direct reflection of "until it happens to me" itis. We have another thread here where people are blasting the Verizon employees for striking to preserve their pension. Every one is saying how unrealistic they are being because everyone's pensions are being cut.

Well now it's gotten around to the military. Why should they be exempt? Why is your husbands pension anymore important than my husbands pension? If we can scream at the unions that they have to "give" back, the unions members have the right to make the same demands of every one else.

It's like the line in the movies the "Incredibles". I'll make every one super, that way no one will be.

You understand what I'm saying? Everyone feels their "cause" is the one that should not be cut and since our representatives want to keep their jobs, they support whomever is voting for them, which means nothing gets cut and we pass on this headache.

And that is why we have a "super committee" in the works. Sad that it's gotten to this (and unconstitutional).

 

[nunzia]

Oh no, don't get me wrong I totally agree with you. These are definitely cut every thing to the bone times. My problem and I think we see this with this deficiet deal is that what tends to happen is our lovely leaders say:

"Hey, we cut out our perks, aren't you so proud of us" but we're not touching the stuff that is really getting us in debt. You can't say I didn't do my job"

I look at it like this, lets say your 200K in credit card debt and you say, well I'm goging to give up my morning starbucks and try to pay off my debt but I'm totally keeping my biannual disney vacations.

So I worry that we get side tracked on the "cup of coffeee"

Look at it another way (and these numbers are from 2008 so they are probably a little off).
Lets say you make a 1000 week. That's what Uncle sam says is a median income (52k a year)
Out of that $1000 bucks, comes these bills.

~$219.40 for medicare & medicaid
$206.60 for social security (getting higher because the pool is getting smaller)
$197.00 for military (not including the cost of the wars. this is basically salaries and expend)
$180.00 for interest paid on our loans (including interest payments to ourselves for T-bonds)

So already we're at 800 bucks on the biggies that are getting bigger.

Now look what happen, we make cuts in education. Well education only makes up $45 dollars of every thousand. Cutting that isn't going to make a big difference. I laugh when people scream about the pensions on federal workers. That only eats about $30 bucks on that thousand. Same thing with foreign aid. Yes it should be cut but be realistic and realize that out of every $1000 tax dollars only 7 dollars goes to foreign aid. If you had a 1000 credit card bill with zero interest and only chipped away at it at 7 bucks a month, it would take you almost 12 years to pay it off.

see what I mean, we get fixated (sp) on the little stuff when the things that are pulling us down are not addressed.

I agree the big stuff needs addressed..but so does the little stuff..the little stuff adds up..a billion here, a billion there...

 

[ilovemk76]

And see IMO that's a direct reflection of "until it happens to me" itis. We have another thread here where people are blasting the Verizon employees for striking to preserve their pension. Every one is saying how unrealistic they are being because everyone's pensions are being cut.

Well now it's gotten around to the military. Why should they be exempt? Why is your husbands pension anymore important than my husbands pension? If we can scream at the unions that they have to "give" back, the unions members have the right to make the same demands of every one else.

It's like the line in the movies the "Incredibles". I'll make every one super, that way no one will be.

You understand what I'm saying? Everyone feels their "cause" is the one that should not be cut and since our representatives want to keep their jobs, they support whomever is voting for them, which means nothing gets cut and we pass on this headache.

Everything should be on the table. That includes military retirement. Why should taxes go up on people, thus they have less to spend, but retirement should not? Why, because they have less to spend. Guess what, it is the same thing. Retirement is income from somewhere when it is not money your saved yourself.

Charts above.

I really hate the waste we have of 9% just to service the debt.
Entitlements - 21+21+9+6 (retirment) is over 1/2 of the budget. It must be cut along with other thngs. When we are spending only 2% on transportation but 57% on payments to people who are not working where do you think the majority of the dollars cuts have to come from?


Women are in the workforce now in record numbers yet we have a smaller % of the adult population working than we did 50-60 years ago. That is not sustainable.

 

[nunzia]

I think another way to look at it is, look we have to cut the _____ budget by say 15% (that's just a random number I stuck in there, just as an example) and then say to the military. You guys have to cut every thing to the bone prior to touching anyones salary and pension.

Does the military really need those brand new fighter jets that are worthless in the type of combat we are seeing in Afghanistan? why do we need them? every expenditure needs to be question. Things like that.

Every thing, every department has to be on the table. Our representatives cannot be exempt. flat out tell them, we are cutting your office budget by 30% (once again just a random number). You want that fancy gym, you start paying for it like every one else who goes to planet fitness.

Agreed in a sense..but..and my area is impacted extremely by this..these contracts were written up a long time ago and logistics put in place. They stopped making this jet after the initial group, cancelling many more planned. OK..and that impacts the wings that were to support it and impacts our Air Force base that lost the Stealth and geared up and built up for the new wings that are now reduced, thus impacting our entire community..it's like everything else..it all spirals to more people having to make changes in their lives than would be expected..from the aircraft company workers and those in the area where they live to the military wings and the communities they live in and contribute to. We've had a lot of changes and flux in this military community..we get alot of military retirees because of the miitary services here..so when that decreases so do they. All these changes need to happen, but they need to happen in a thoughtful slow way..
It's ironic that our most reliable base groups are the German training wings that have been here for years.
And I do agree Military retirements need to be on the table and I was in the military. Say you go in at 20..put in your 25 or even 30..you retire at 50 and can draw for 30 more years?? the same amount of time as as you worked? unsustainable. (same as teachers as I see all my teacher friends retiring early and no I won't go down that road again..all early retirment plans should be looked at actually) My DD ex FIL retired from the Navy awhile back at a pretty decent rate..he's 54..he gets that pension and he also gets a pretty big 'stipend' for going to school and school paid for to train for that second career..huh? nice for the person who gets perks, but not a great deal for those who have to pay it. I think money should be focused for military who need extra help due to war..it's horrible to see that groups are having to raise funds to rehabilitate injured vets or refit their home so they can live there..THAT would be a good use of gov't funds.

 

[nunzia]

I agree with everything you said, but just to be clear it's federal income taxes which so many people don't pay. That statistic is generally used to incite outrage and imply that these people are not contributing, but that's not always true. Many of those 48% have jobs and payroll taxes are just as important as income taxes. In 2010 payroll taxes brought in about $865B and individual income taxes brought in about $899B.

Well, yes, they pay in but then get ALL of it back plus more at income tax time..EIC is a big culprit and I will say that my son and family are part of this..He works all year but they get "back" so much more than they put in which is really just a form of charity..not a 'refund'. They make everything sound so rosy you don't understand that you getting government handouts..My son got over 8K back..what did he put in? maybe 1K...they don't call them food stamps..they call it a SNAP card and have radio ads encouraging people to sign up, they don't call it Medicaid, they call in some cute New Mexico KIDS program. Everything in that budget needs to begin a weaning process.
By payroll taxes do you mean SS? and of course everyone contributes to sales tax, etc., but that number of people not contributing comes, I think , from lower incomes getting back far more than they pay in and upper earners who can deduct themselves out of paying in..both of those really need to stop.

 

[Colleen27]

Sorry guys, you could cut every single politicians salary to zero, have them work totally free, get absolutely no perks and it would not make a bit of difference to the long term deficiet, but to maybe make us feel better. I totally agree with you OA, it would definitely amke me feel better.

It might not make a big difference in dollars and cents, but I do think it would make a big difference in how in touch Congress is with the American people. It is a lot easier to talk about cuts to medicaid, medicare, and social security when you're insulated from ever needing/using any of those programs, and a lot easier to spout the modern equivalent of "Let them eat cake" that is coming from a lot of our so-called leaders right now in regards to social programs.

We've got to make cuts in the big expenditures (health care, social security, welfare and the military) and bring in more revenue (get rid of tax cuts) and productivity.

Neither one alone will solve this problem.

The problem is no one wants their stuff cut. No one wants to give up their tax discounts (thanks to everyones various credits & breaks only ~48% of the population pays taxes) and no one wants to give up their entitlements. The military was on tv screaming last night about cuts to its budgets.


So really we all are the problem. We are a nation of 300 million people who feel every one else is the problem.

Truthfully I don't see this problem getting solved any time soon.

I agree. There are too many sacred cows and too many 'cooks' right now, and none of them have the fortitude for making unpopular choices that could alienate their voters or donors. What we have right now is government is the same thing we've had in business through all these bubbles - short term thinking, making it all about this year's budget or this quarter's profit with little to no consideration for the long-term outcome of policies.

 

[fakereadhed]

Well now it's gotten around to the military. Why should they be exempt? Why is your husbands pension anymore important than my husbands pension? If we can scream at the unions that they have to "give" back, the unions members have the right to make the same demands of every one.

It's not more important but it IS what federal taxes were originally intended for- to pay for the defense of our country. While I feel for the public employees, it isn't the same. Those folks lay their lives on the line for each and every one of us and it's the only federal spending that the founders mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Colleen27]

Everything should be on the table. That includes military retirement. Why should taxes go up on people, thus they have less to spend, but retirement should not? Why, because they have less to spend. Guess what, it is the same thing. Retirement is income from somewhere when it is not money your saved yourself.

Charts above.

I really hate the waste we have of 9% just to service the debt.
Entitlements - 21+21+9+6 (retirment) is over 1/2 of the budget. It must be cut along with other thngs. When we are spending only 2% on transportation but 57% on payments to people who are not working where do you think the majority of the dollars cuts have to come from?


Women are in the workforce now in record numbers yet we have a smaller % of the adult population working than we did 50-60 years ago. That is not sustainable.

The problem is that the cuts that get the most support aren't sustainable either. Cutting the safety net - whether in the form of social programs or retirement for rank-and-file military - in a consumer-driven economy serves only to further hamper economic growth. Unless there are jobs to replace those social payments - and I think right now we can all agree there aren't - that's taking money directly out of our own economy because those are all dollars that will be spent.

In the current environment where tax increases are taboo, projects like multi-million dollar fighter jets and shoring up profitable corporations at public expense are considered more important than protecting pensions, and no one is willing to really think out of the box (this country could save a fortune by radically rethinking the "war on drugs" and therefore reducing our world-leading prison population, but how much support is there for that?) there's no good option left on the table.

 

[eliza61]

It's not more important but it IS what federal taxes were originally intended for- to pay for the defense of our country. While I feel for the public employees, it isn't the same. Those folks lay their lives on the line for each and every one of us and it's the only federal spending that the founders mentioned in the Constitution.

Yeah, the founding fathers also said Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and as a black person, you can see how that turned out. but I digress.....

I'm not trying to use that as a weapon to beat up on the founding fathers. But it's time to move on, that was 200 some odd years ago and basically the Founding fathers were politicians just like the ones we've got today. The founding fathers would never have imagine 300 million people even living here so going back to some era in the past is not going to happen.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for the military but they are a wasteful agency just like every one else. They are no more deserving of a pension than my dh who supplies oil to this country or a school teacher who teaches our youth. They volunteered, yes I'm grateful of the job they do but they did volunteer. So imo it's exactly the same.

They go on the same chopping block like every one else. just my opinion.

 

[fakereadhed]

Yeah, the founding fathers also said Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and as a black person, you can see how that turned out.

I'm not trying to use that as a weapon to beat up on the founding fathers. But it's time to move on, that was 200 some odd years ago and basically the Founding fathers were politicians just like the ones we've got today.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for the military but they are a wasteful agency just like every one else. They are no more deserving of a pension than my dh who supplies oil to this country or a school teacher who teaches our youth. They volunteered, yes I'm grateful of the job they do but they did volunteer. So imo it's exactly the same.

They go on the same chopping block like every one else. just my opinion.

I agree to disagree.

Actually think this hits the divide in the country on the head- this very disagreement. Some feel that the Constitution is outdated and others feel that 200 years is fairly young for a country and it has served us well and should be amended not thrown out. I'm not touching the slave issue either because it would get too political, but let me say that throwing it out there implies that if you still think the Constitution has teeth that you approved of the way people were treated in this country then. That's a stretch. But I feel like the Constitution issue needs to be talked about more because it's the elephant in the room.

 

[eliza61]

I agree to disagree.

Actually think this hits the divide in the country on the head- this very disagreement. Some feel that the Constitution is outdated and others feel that 200 years is fairly young for a country and it has served us well and should be amended not thrown out. I'm not touching the slave issue either because it would get too political, but let me say that throwing it out there implies that if you still think the Constitution has teeth that you approved of the way people were treated in this country then. That's a stretch. But I feel like the Constitution issue needs to be talked about more because it's the elephant in the room.

No actually what I'm saying, is that an argument can be made to support any cause that is important to us. but here are some really simple facts.

1) We spend ~40% of our gdp on service/entitlement programs. whether you think the constitution has teeth or not is pretty moot because that Genie is out of the box and we are not going back. That's like trying to tell everyone in todays world to go back to rotory phones and typewriters. Whether the constitutions makes provision for social security or not is pretty moot. people have been having that argument since day 1, right along with the argument taxes are unconstitutional. so far we're still stuck with the IRS.

2)the whole concept of "protecting" our country is arguable. some would say that we are not doing that now, that the money we spend on Iraq and other places have done nothing to increase our security (not saying this is my stance, simply saying that this also is a matter of debate).

So for me, I'm more like we've gone way pass the point in time where we can decide how much importance that elephant is going to have.

While I love and am continually amazed by the constitution, I can not in any scenerio real or with my wildest imagination see any budget that gets rid of medicare, medicaid, social security or welfare. Not in my life time.

So for me I'd rather we'd deal with the hand we have, now. So, is medicaid constitutional, maybe, maybe not. I'll let the historians argue that one out. Will I live to see a day where we are not providing medicaid? bet a very hefty paycheck I will not. So that's what I want to see them deal with.

It's like my household budget. I can sit around all day and wish for the days of $1.00 gallon gas and 0.59c bread but they ain't coming back so I have to deal with my budget with the prices I have Today.