Budget Deal Moving Ahead, Despite Outrage on the Right
The bipartisan deal to suspend the debt ceiling and increase federal spending over the next two years will get a vote in the House on Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said late Tuesday. Leaders in both parties have expressed confidence that the bill will pass before lawmakers leave town for their August recess.
"We're gonna pass it," Hoyer told reporters. "I think we'll get a good number [of votes]. I don't know if it's gonna be huge, but we're gonna pass it."
President Trump announced that he backs the deal, removing one possible hurdle for the bill. “Budget Deal gives great victories to our Military and Vets, keeps out Democrat poison pill riders. Republicans and Democrats in Congress need to act ASAP and support this deal,” he tweeted Tuesday evening.
Despite widespread agreement that the bill will pass, however, not everyone is on board.
Grumbles from the left: Some progressive Democrats have been critical of the deal, portraying it as too easy on Republicans. Worried that the agreement could set up a budget crisis in 2021, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said he was “concerned that it was a two-year deal. Why not a one year deal?... It seems like it’s basically handcuffing the next president.” Other liberals, noting that Democratic leaders have agreed to avoid “poison pill” riders on controversial issues such as abortion and funding for the border wall in the funding bills that must pass this fall, lamented their loss of leverage in those negotiations.
Outrage on the right: Resistance to the deal was more pronounced on the right, with the hardline House Freedom Caucus announcing Tuesday that it would not support the bill due to concerns about the growing national debt. “Our country is undeniably headed down a path of fiscal insolvency and rapidly approaching $23 trillion in debt. … All sides should go back to the drawing board and work around the clock, canceling recess if necessary, on a responsible budget agreement that serves American taxpayers better—not a $323 billion spending frenzy with no serious offsets,” the 31-member group said in a statement.
The deficit hawks at the Committee for Responsible Federal published “Five Reasons to Oppose the Budget Deal,” which include its purported $1.7 trillion cost over 10 years. CRFB noted that the agreement would increase discretionary spending by 21 percent during President Trump’s first term, pushing such spending to near-record levels.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) was more colorful in his criticism, saying, “You don’t have to be Euclid to understand the math here. We’re like Thelma and Louise in that car headed toward the cliff.” Nevertheless, Kennedy said he would consider supporting the deal.
Is the deficit hawk dead? The budget deal represents “the culmination of years of slipping fiscal discipline in Washington,” said Robert Costa and Mike DeBonis of The Washington Post, and it highlights the declining influence of fiscal conservatives in the capital, at least as far as policy is concerned. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said the Republican Party’s credibility on fiscal restraint is “long gone.”
Although it may be too early to declare the fiscal hawk extinct – plenty of critics say the bird will return as soon as there’s a Democratic president – it certainly seems to be in ill health. As the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato said Wednesday: “A battered bird has been named to the list of endangered species. The ‘deficit hawk’ is on the road to extinction. Rarely spotted around Washington, D.C., the deficit hawk’s last remaining habitat is found in some state capitals.”
Some Republicans said that fiscal conservatism was never really a core Republican value, dating back to President Reagan’s tax-cut-and-spend policies, and that Paul Ryan’s emphasis on fiscal issues was an aberration. “It was never the party of Paul Ryan,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told the Post. “He’s a brilliant guy, but he filled a policy gap. The reality here is that Republicans were never going to get spending cuts with Speaker Pelosi running the House, and they didn’t want an economic meltdown or shutdown this summer.”
Is the whole debate missing the point? William Gale of the Brookings Institution, who served on President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, said he wasn’t sure why the budget deal was producing so much hostility, since it basically maintains the status quo and – more importantly – is focused solely on discretionary spending. “There *is* a long-term budget issue,” Gale tweeted Tuesday, “but cutting [discretionary spending] is not the way to go.”
Instead, Gale says that any serious fiscal plan must focus on the mandatory side of the ledger, where the rapidly increasing costs of health care and retirement are straining against revenues reduced by repeated rounds of tax cuts. Gale recommends a combination of entitlement reductions and revenue increases – a standard mix of policy options that faces an uncertain future, with well-entrenched interest groups standing opposed to movement in either direction.
The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.
Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.
A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.
Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.
Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?
On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby. Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.
Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:
Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
1. Mississippi
- Budget Rank: 18
- Health Care Rank: 51
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29
2. Pennsylvania
- Budget Rank: 37
- Health Care Rank: 36
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51
3. West Virginia
- Budget Rank: 13
- Health Care Rank: 48
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50
4. South Carolina
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 43
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49
5. Nevada
- Budget Rank: 39
- Health Care Rank: 35
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46
6. New York
- Budget Rank: 46
- Health Care Rank: 12
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47
7. Louisiana
- Budget Rank: 8
- Health Care Rank: 50
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26
8. Georgia
- Budget Rank: 6
- Health Care Rank: 46
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43
9. Alabama
- Budget Rank: 3
- Health Care Rank: 47
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44
10. Arkansas
- Budget Rank: 12
- Health Care Rank: 49
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37
Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby
1. Vermont
- Budget Ranks: 17
- Health Care Rank: 1
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5
2. North Dakota
- Budget Rank: 10
- Health Care Rank: 14
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10
3. Oregon
- Budget Rank: 38
- Health Care Rank: 2
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14
4. Hawaii
- Budget Rank: 31
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1
5. Minnesota
- Budget Rank: 32
- Health Care Rank: 5
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12
6. Kentucky
- Budget Rank: 1
- Health Care Rank: 33
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20
7. Maine
- Budget Rank: 25
- Health Care Rank: 10
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15
8. Wyoming
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 17
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7
9. Iowa
- Budget Rank: 14
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9
10. Alaska
- Budget Rank: 50
- Health Care Rank: 6
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit
The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.
Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.
If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.
The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.
Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning
While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.
A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- This CEO Makes 1,951 Times More Than Most of His Workers
- Seven Reasons Why the Fed Won’t Hike Interest Rates
- $42 Million for 54 Recruits: U.S. Program to Train Syrian Rebels Is a Disaster
The 15 Most Valuable NFL Teams
The New England Patriots may be reigning Super Bowl champs and have the most successful quarterback-coach pair in NFL history -- Tom Brady and Bill Belichick each have four championship rings with the Pats -- but they’re missing something nevertheless.
As they kick off the season tonight against the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Pats aren’t at the top of the NFL in terms of team value. That title still goes to the Dallas Cowboys, according to an analysis at Forbes.
Related: 10 Big Money NFL Draft Busts
Dallas must be feeling pretty good about beating New England at something. They had the same regular season record as the Patriots last year, with 12 wins and 4 losses, but ended the season with a loss to the Green Bay Packers in the divisional playoffs, while the Pats went on to win Super Bowl XLIX (that’s 49 for all you non-Romans out there).
Even though the Washington Redskins have been playing pretty pathetically for the past decade, they still come in third. Washington’s NFC East rival, the New York Giants, rank fourth at $2.1 billion.
Here are the 15 most valuable NFL teams:
- Dallas Cowboys - $3.2 billion
- New England Patriots - $2.6 billion
- Washington Redskins - $2.4 billion
- New York Giants - $2.1 billion
- Houston Texans - $1.85 billion
- New York Jets - $1.8 billion
- Philadelphia Eagles - $1.75 billion
- Chicago Bears - $1.7 billion
- San Francisco 49ers - $1.6 billion
- Baltimore Ravens - $1.5 billion
- Denver Broncos - $1.45 billion
- Indianapolis Colts - $1.4 billion
- Green Bay Packers - $1.38 billion
- Pittsburgh Steelers - $1.35 billion
- Seattle Seahawks - $1.33 billion
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- After the Fiorina Fiasco, What Insult Will Trump Fling Next?
- $42 Million for 54 Recruits? U.S. Program to Train Syrian Rebels Is a Disaster
- A Military Coup in the U.S.? A Surprising Number of Americans Might Support One