Hooray! Mitt Romney has at long last released his deficit reduction plan to get America going on a sustainable path again. He is going to cut Amtrak subsidies, as well as PBS, National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities....

/eyeroll

I think cutting these three things will pay for roughly 1.5 days worth of his desired military expansion.

by Kyle-w on Aug 16, 2012 9:03 am • link • report

Romney would cut

Any politician that talks about cutting the national deficit but does not talk in at least tens of billions is not serious. The deficit is more than a trillion. That's a million million. Cutting items that are expressed in millions are utterly irrelevant.

The fact that the press does not notice this shows how poor their numerical literacy is [no offense to the leadership of this blog - They are nerdy enough to understand orders of magnitude].

[snark]But I'm glad that the Romney campaign is finally serious about the budget now they have budget bustermaster Ryan on board[/snark]

by Jasper on Aug 16, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

Is distracted walking a problem, or overblown?

Cellphonephilia is a problem. Not whether people are walking, biking, driving or filing their taxes while they're sucked into the fantasy world of that little LED screen.

by Jasper on Aug 16, 2012 9:28 am • link • report

So I imagine Mitt Romney wants to "privatize" Amtrak in which privatization doesn't mean you come up with a list of criteria to be met and then let companies figure it out but rather he wants to put Amtrak on the hook for paying for a bunch of stuff he doesn't want the federal gov't to directly pay for. Same like how the Post Office is supposed to be as profitable as UPS but then has these incredible requirements placed on them that have nothing to do with delivering mail.

by drumz on Aug 16, 2012 9:34 am • link • report

Maybe we can get Paul Ryan's highway constructing family another load of government cash by stripping Amtrak of all funding. Unleash the free market on government built highways!

by Thayer-D on Aug 16, 2012 9:40 am • link • report

RE: Klingle Trail
They may have lost their lawsuit but the people who live along the "road" that hasn't been a road in two decades probably won't stop there!

by MLD on Aug 16, 2012 9:48 am • link • report

So, we've got one guy funding fetus disposal and other gettng rich off road construction.

Lovely. Absolutely lovely.

by charlie on Aug 16, 2012 9:50 am • link • report

@Jasper

Totally agree. To add on, ANY politician who talks about reducing the national deficit and does not discuss Medicare/Medicaid/Chip, SS, or Defense, is not being serious.

For Medicare/Medicaid, and SS, talk to me about changing eligibility ages, changing eligibility for certain high income people, changing the way inflation is calculated for the purposes of COLA. Those are real changes.

Paul Ryan has discussed changing Medicare, but these changes really don't take effect for another ten years. That is not serious. In the meantime, he is going to cut discretionary spending, talk about how he cut the deficit, and then get skewered when GDP grows at .5% for the next four years.

For Defense, talk to me about reducing spending, or perhaps limit increases, or just keep spending static. In addition working with the next 21 largest countries (of which 20 are allies.) Further, talk to me about how you are going to keep us out of the next unnecessary billion dollar war.

Anyone who can not take these steps is not serious.

by Kyle-w on Aug 16, 2012 10:16 am • link • report

I am baffled as to why cutting the deficit is considered a priority now at all during a recession. I'm a little weary of having this discussion, but it is safe to say that austerity measures are proving disastrous in Europe and here (state and local cuts, FDR's 1937 decision to focus on the debt). Before someone accuses me of dragging us into a Greek-style situation, we can deal with the deficit after employment significantly improves.

by watcher on Aug 16, 2012 10:42 am • link • report

The Silver Spring transit center doesn't sound very safe. I hope the cracks are fixable, but I would rather start over again than continually repairing a structure that is potentially unsound.

by DC Denizen on Aug 16, 2012 10:51 am • link • report

PG smoking ban. Well, I guess as long as it only affects poor people, it's ok, they don't need to have any rights.

by Kolohe on Aug 16, 2012 10:58 am • link • report

@MLD - This set of plaintiffs was seeking to block the multi-use trail in the hope that they could get Klingle rebuilt as a road for motor vehicle use.

by ah on Aug 16, 2012 11:33 am • link • report

@DC Denizen

The blurb posted (which is late since the article is three days old) is a little sensationalist. There is no safety issue with the Silver Spring Transit Center, just longevity.

It would be an incredible waste if they tore it down and started over. The thing took 4 to build, and it's extremely unfair to Silver Spring commuters to have them wait and be inconvenienced for even more years.

by King Terrapin on Aug 16, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

@Kolohe-I guess...but they are receiving benefits from the taxpayers so it's reasonable to place restrictions for the "common good". Aren't strings attached to most gov't spending? Speaking of the common good, smoking, especially indoors has serious health consequences for people who have to breathe it in. They have rights too.

by thump on Aug 16, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report

@Thump

I look at it more from a dollars perspective. When people smoke in their units, it costs money to remediate. As opposed to allowing people on public assistance to smoke in their homes, we should put the savings towards something much more useful than smoking remediation.

I think you could make a pretty good argument that if someone can afford to smoke, they possibly shouldn't be able to receive housing benefits anyways, as $2,000 extra a year on housing helps a lot more than $2,000 a year spent on cigarettes, but I don't think that would fly. This seems like a solid compromise and a step in the right direction.

by Kyle-w on Aug 16, 2012 12:20 pm • link • report

I just wish DC would ban smoking on rowhouse porches so I could open my windows and door on beautiful days like today, and not have to vomit or get a nose-bleed each time I want to leave or enter my house.

by cts on Aug 16, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report

@ Kyle-w:To add on, ANY politician who talks about reducing the national deficit and does not discuss Medicare/Medicaid/Chip, SS, or Defense, is not being serious.

That is true as well, but I was trying really hard to keep my remarks just numerical and not political.

by Jasper on Aug 16, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

@Kyle-w

Social Security does not add to the deficit, it is self-funded. There is a decent explanation of the Trust Fund here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

It ONLY adds to the debt when the US Fed Govt' borrows from its funds, which the Govt' has done on numerous occasions.

As for the other two, I would put cutting (even gutting) defense ahead of playing with the Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP programs, but I agree that these two items are the primary drivers of the deficit.

by gooch on Aug 16, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

RE: Silver Spring Transit Center

I still don't understand the following:
- Is there an actual debate in the construction world about how much concrete to pour in a given situation?
- If yes, is there state or federal law that mandates specific amounts of concrete for this type of application?
- Did the original design of the structure have the thicknesses wrong? If not, where did it go wrong?

I don't get how this was not a simple building to assemble. Building a transit center is not rocket science - there are plenty of others in the country to testify to this fact.

My suspicion is that someone royally screwed up and that all this posturing is covering up either an individual or a committee who is actually to blame; then again, I can be a real cynic sometimes.

by gooch on Aug 16, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report

@thump, I guess it depends on how much paternalism you want to get into with welfare; the thinking (I thought) these days was to actually lessen all the string attached to it.

But the push to spread it to private apartments will definitely be a case of telling lower economic classes what they can and can't do in their own homes. (rich people of course have choices on where and how they want to live)

A very tendentious argument would be "see, urbanist progressives want everyone to live densely, so they then tell them what to do." But that's probably a violation of comment policy (and in any case I don't believe that) so I won't make that argument.

I will say it will be hillarious the day marijuana is legal but smoking isn't.

by Kolohe on Aug 16, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report

@gooch: What I don't get is how this isn't a clear contractual issue. Was the contract written so poorly that the contractor could build something that didn't meet the proposed requirements, but still get paid?

by Gray on Aug 16, 2012 2:38 pm • link • report

@gooch The depth of the concrete would be spelled out in the specs & drawings for the project depending on the intended design load for the floors. Generally the specs will allow some variance (normally an inch or two high in order to level the deck).

Part of what's being investigated to my understanding is if what was put in place meets the structural industry standards for what it will be used for in terms of the load (weight) placed on the deck. That's all industry standard.

@Gray While it may be a clear contractor issue there are still layers of management put in place to try to prevent these. Normally the owner will either have an internal or hire a CM (construction management) team to monitor the contract. Part of that team will be inspectors who pull cylinders for breaks and monitor the pour. IF they missed this as well then the owner will hold some liability. It's all being negotiated and fought (emails, records, daily logs I'm sure are being pulled) to limit each sides exposure to what i'm sure is going to be a HUGE cost.

by jj on Aug 16, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report

t ONLY adds to the debt when the US Fed Govt' borrows from its funds

I don't think this is correct. The Federal Government borrows from Social Security - that's true, but if they didn't they would just borrow from someone else. If any thing, being able to borrow a lot of money from SS means that interest rates have stayed lower and thus DECREASED the deficit/debt.

by David C on Aug 16, 2012 4:40 pm • link • report

Re:Silver Spring Transit Center

What are our options for achieving maximum cost and maximum inconvenience for commuters and residents?
Can we delay the opening until April 2013, have a chunk of concrete drop from the ceiling after the thaw of March 2015, leading to a year long closure to study it some more and finish the decade with a 4-year demolition and rebuild process that leads to a grand reopening in 2020 hosted by newly elected President O'Malley?

by Josey23 on Aug 17, 2012 5:25 pm • link • report

Steven: Bravo on the Rush reference! Much appreciated!

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Aug 23, 2012 4:31 pm • link • report