Truth and Fact

Lewis Black has this one bit about peas.


He starts out by saying that the reason people can’t trust government is because there’s multiple sets of facts; the Democrats have one set, and the Republicans have another. This makes discussion impossible, as before either side can begin to debate what to do about a problem, they start calling each other liars because their facts don’t match.

He goes on to say that the last bastion of truth is an elementary school cafeteria, where- if you find the menu to say that there will be meatloaf and peas- then you’d better believe you’re going to get meatloaf and fucking peas.

I agree with his sentiment, I think he just got a word wrong. It isn’t that political parties (and increasingly, the people that make up their base) have different facts, its that they have different truths. Small change, big difference. But as we learned from Indiana Jones, archaeology is the search for fact, not truth; and if its truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.

If a child has a nightmare and tells me he’s scared because there’s a monster in his closest, he is telling me the truth. But he is (probably) not telling me the facts. The truth is his perception. The fact is the reality of things.

Thus it is with Congress.

When Mitch McConnell tells America that it is a spending problem that is dragging the country down, I have no doubt he is telling me his truth. Sure, he’s influenced by his particular harem of lobbyists and donors, but if he didn’t believe what he says on some level, I think he’d have found a different set of people to fund him- people who hash more naturally with his core ideals. Similarly, when Harry Reid says it’s a revenue problem that we have, he is again telling us his truth. But are they telling us the facts?
Shit no! Facts get people booted out of office. Politicians don’t get elected on facts.

“What about Ron Paul? He speaks facts! You forgot Ron Paul!”

No I didn’t. Ron Paul is consistent in his message, and I would trust him more than most politicians, but I don’t think he has any firmer grasp of the facts than anyone else. Dude wants to abolish how many Departments of the federal government, and has the gall to say nothing bad will come of it? Like nothing bad could come from eliminating national standards set by the Department of Education? No. He speaks his truth, but he does not speak fact.

So why is this the case?

In a hyper-polarized climate such as the one America currently finds itself in, to get noticed, you have to overcome your background noise. This means that people who’re even more absurd than the current stable of frothing-at-the-mouth political zealots will get elevated to a podium from which they can be heard; this is aided by the current process of redistricting, which allows a party to cut a district into an absurd shape (called “Gerrymandering”) which only includes people most likely to vote one way or another. This process eliminates any need to move toward the middle, since each district is overwhelmingly red or blue, and breeds partisanship.

And in that climate, fact is sobering.
If current politics (and all of its “truth”) is a raging kegger, facts are the cops that show up to break up the fun. Why force your electorate, which is engaged and energized and throwing money at you, to stop calling President Obama an anticolonialist Kenyan Muslim antichrist? Why ask your party base to stop demonizing Big Oil/Agra/Pharma as shadowy 99%er hating plutocrats who secretly want to turn America into a brand-name coporatocracy? Putting the brakes on that kind of talk reduces voter enthusiasm, kills donations, and makes the OTHER SIDE more likely to win. And we can’t have that, now can we?

So why am I soap-boxing about this distinction? For a take-away whose brevity is matched only by the preceding paragraphs’ long-windedness: If you want to really be of service to your country in its political endeavors, you have to embrace the typically dry and boring world of facts to establish a common basis from which you can negotiate and compromise with people whose truths are radically different than yours.

(Also because I’m trying to get in the habit of writing more on principle. But whichever explanation makes me seem cooler is the one you can tell your friends about).

I Dream of Gringo

I have a confession to male.
It’s only three days since the election, and I’ve already engaged in my personal self-harming action of choice. No, dear reader, I am not a cutter; I do not binge and purge; I do not engage in fits of manic spending or sexual abandon (except in the case of your mom). No, my demon is a far darker creature, more apt to ignore the immediate gratification of self-mutilation and partake in the soul-crushing long game.

I’ve started reading about the 2016 election cycle.

“How can this be?!” You might ask, and you’d be justified in your confusion. After all, we just got done with the whole blasted mess, how can I be so full of hatred for my sanity that I’m already looking up information regarding an event that won’t take place until I’m 30?
Because, my friend, in four years we may have the chance to see a deathblow leveled against a major political party. I’ll do my best to prognosticate about this with as little bias as possible, even though the claim itself may appear biased to begin with. I’m simply exploring a possibility.

Obama killed it with non-whites. No reason trying to call this anything other than what it was; it was an absolute stomping. I could waste my time trying to explain why this took place, but rather than do that I’d like to extrapolate outwards. Let’s look at Latinos, for example. They’re the fastest-growing population in the country; according to Pew research they accounted for 46% of the nation’s growth between 2000 and 2010- this group jumped from contributing about 35,306,000 people to our population… to 50,478,000. That increase is enormous. Latinos increased their number by almost half over ten years, coming to ~16% of our entire population. By contrast? Us white boys only got together with enough white girls to bring the Gringo vote from 194.5 million to 196.8 million (that’s about half a percent increase). While that’s still a huge head start, the gap is closing by leaps and bounds.
Now consider this. Assuming similar rates of population growth over the next ten and twenty years, we could be looking at an American electorate with a Latino population of 112 million or so, compared to a White population only a few million higher than it currently is.

Why is this important?
In an electorate that decides its President by a margin of only a few million votes here or there, any one population that is growing faster that the others must be paid special attention to; pretending that the population growth of Latinos isn’t important is political suicide. Similarly equitable to electoral seppuku is taking a hard-right stance on immigration issues, as Mitt Romney did by supporting “self-deportation”, which is essentially hoping that illegal immigrants find the atmosphere of the country so unfavorable that they get up and leave on their own. Other conservative standpoints, such as building a wall on “every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border” do the Republican brand no favors with people of Latino heritage. (It’s also a completely untenable construction project, but that’s beside the point).

All of these issues for conservatives combine into a possibility that if, within the next four years, immigration reform can be attained? The credit could very easily go to President Obama and the Democrats. I’m not going to speculate about the staying power of the DREAM Act (or something like it) if its passed early in Obama’s second term; nor will I speculate about the number of Latinos (or voters in general) this could net the Democrats come 2016. What I can say is that any cursory inspection of the news will reveal how powerful an issue immigration reform is for the Latino community; a poll conducted by Latin Insights on behalf of Fox News in March of 2012 revealed 90% support for President Obama’s DREAM Act. Pew Research’s Hispanic Center found that 91% of Latinos supported DREAM; 84% supported giving in-state tuition to undocumented students.

TL;DR: This is a big fucking deal.

…Which brings me back to my original claim. I went out on a limb and said that we could witness a deathblow to a major American political party, and I stand by that possibility. Republicans currently stand almost entirely on the wrong side of this issue, politically speaking. Never mind who’s actually right or wrong; the fastest growing population in America says immigration reform is a huge deal, and the Republican party couldn’t trip over itself fast enough to tack further and further to the right on the issue. They very well could have saved their election efforts if they hadn’t have alienated this key demographic. If they continue to talk about border-length fences and self-deportation, or -as some have suggested- if they react to their recent loss by deciding they haven’t been conservative enough, I would think they can expect to continue losing seats in both houses. And that trend, combined with the losses experienced from most other minorities, could spell the deathknell of their party.

Or the Tea Party 2 could come along and prove me wrong. But only time will tell.

Obama Out of the Closet for Gay Marriage

So, earlier today, President Obama said he supports gay marriage. Simply put, these are my thoughts.

First of all: this was politically motivated. Coming on the heels of North Carolina’s state constitutional ban of gay marriage, Obama wanted to shore up some support from his base- support that has been lackluster by many accounts. I believe that he made the determination (correctly so) that a lot of the people that would hate him for supporting gay marriage were also people that weren’t going to vote for him anyway… but that a lot of the people that would appreciate his support of gay marriage were people that might be less likely to vote or donate if he didn’t support it. “My views are evolving”, my ass; he waited for the right time to drop this bomb, and saw an opportunity here.

Second, he was not boxed in by Joe Biden. Uncle Joe might have his “Big Effin’ Deal” moments, as well as a horrendously awkward introduction of another Head of State, but he’s not going to paint his boss into a corner on an issue this big. He was the man on point for this issue. I’ve no doubt that he honestly believes what he said about being comfortable with gay marriage, I just believe that his job was to channel that belief into a pragmatic political strategy, stick his neck out and gauge the response. Since there wasn’t enough vitriol spat at him, the plan for Obama to voice his support after the NC vote went forward.

Third, things are going to get ugly. And I mean UGLY. This is one of the biggest battle lines in American politics, and it gets people pissed. Those who support gay marriage have long been without a big-name champion; now they have one, and as far as champions go, you don’t get any bigger name than the President. With presumptive-nominee Mitt Romney still coming out against gay marriage, people have their figureheads to rally around. Expect woefully inaccurate attack ads from both sides in all 50 states. Expect a firestorm.

Fourth: this is, all in all, a good thing. If you’re against same-sex marriage… then, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Allow me to support my position with some handy bullet points, now with 15% fewer calories.

The “research” that says it’s terrible is wrong, wrong, and wrong some more. The idea that kids do better in two-parent homes is correct- but it doesn’t matter which sex the parents are. They just need good parents.

The idea that marriage is something that needs to be defended (by straight people) is ridiculous when nationally, just about half of marriages end in divorce… and is doubly absurd when the states that resist gay marriage the hardest are also the states with the highest individual divorce rates, highest rates of teenaged pregnancies (and the higher rates of teenaged marriage... and divorce). That’s some high and mighty instiution you’re defending, there! (Get off your self-righteous horse, Southern States.)

The idea that it’s against the Bible or God’s Will for the nation or something- tough cookies. There’s that whole separation of church and state deal. (First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It means the government can't pass a law giving preference to any one religion or it's opinions. Not even yours. So essentially, whatever it is you interpret God's opinion to be on gay marriage, it doesn't matter; the issue has to be handled based on its mortal, non-religious merits.)

And lastly, people sure don’t want Big Government getting involved in their lives… until they do. You can’t have it both ways, kids. Either tell the government to GTFO as a whole, and let each state decide… or, have the government come in and accept the results on a national level. But you might want to have Uncle Sam make a ruling on it quickly, because as time goes on, you might not like the results.

Obama’s Failed Economic--- Waaaiiit a Minute!

Mitt Romney has shut up about this issue specifically in recent weeks, and wisely so, though he still bashes the stimulus as a whole. The bailout of the American auto industry was at best an incredibly risky maneuver, and if it hadn’t have worked even a little bit, you can believe that conservatives would have crucified the President on this one. The fact that even the spin machines have gone silent about it, though, shows pretty clearly just how successful it was. Let’s break this down by company.

• Ford: If you’re a George R.R. Martin fan, you could go so far as to call this automaker Dorn; they are the only of the Big Three to remain Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. For those of you unfamiliar with A Song of Ice and Fire, this means that they are the only of the major American automakers that were able to survive the economic crisis without a government bailout. Their brand is down across the world but it’s rising in the States, enough so to offset the other losses. They earned just over 20 billion in 2011, cutting their debt from the past year by about 6 billion dollars and eliminating a tax allowance they’d been given to help them out back in 2006. (Why is a special tax reduction not considered a bailout? Not sure.)
• Chrysler: Uncle Sam shelled out 12.5 billion dollars to keep Chrysler afloat, and of that money, 11.2 billion had been repaid as of July 2011. We’re still out 1.3 billion, but that’s because the automaker actually did too well. Apparently, the government expected them to take until 2017 to pay everything back, and so they set up an interest schedule to match that expectation. Because Chrysler paid the people back too soon, they saved themselves interest payments later on. They just went on to quadruple their quarterly profits over last year’s quarter, putting up a whopping $437 million dollars in the bank- their best quarter in over a decade. They’re on track to post 1.5 billion dollars in profit over the course of the fiscal year, which will be up from 183 million last year. For those of you following along at home, that’s about 8.2 times what they made last year. That’s kind of a big deal. If it means that Chrysler is doing that well, especially considering that during times of $4.00+ gasoline its most popular model is a fucking truck.
• General Motors: GM appears to have had the slowest recovery of the Three. (Their information is also hardest to find). Their increase in stock prices has helped evaporate another 2 billion of the government’s bailout losses, but apparently they’d have to double their worth from this point to completely clear what the American people are out.

The politics of money are always tricky, because you can’t have two side-by-side economies to study in which one gets the bailout and the other one doesn’t. Because of this, economic policy might be one of the most spin-prone areas in the national discussion, as one side can say “The recovery would have been twice as bad without the bailout!” while the other one screams “It would have been twice as good without it!”. Both provide legitimate-sounding statistics from both biased and impartial-sounding sources (if they cite their sources at all, but that’s another rant).

CNN's Western States Debate

CNN hosted a Republican Presidential nominee debate tonight. I'm trying to watch as many of these as I can, which is enough of a challenge (there's something like 10 of the damn things left- I didn't watch that many when they featured candidates I liked!), but taking detailed and unbiased notes is harder still. Regardless, I'll do what I can. For simplicity's sake, I'll try to break this down by candidate, but not all candidates spoke on every issue, and I missed some of it towards the end.

Undaunted, we continue! Remember that this is a summary, half for my own benefit, so I can write up an over-arching response later on.

Rick Santorum

• On Cain's 9-9-9 plan, raised the issue that this plan will cost as much for a single man as it will for a family; he said this is bad because he wants to encourage people to have families, but Cain's idea would be like taxing people for having children.

Newt Gingrich

• On Taxes: Said that people need to slow down with all this talk about repealing this tax or that tax immediately; tax reform needs to be cautious and measured to ensure its done right.
• On the Environment: Claimed that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, might be the best place to consolidate nuclear waste, but that he wasn't personally a scientist, so he couldn't say for sure. He went on to say that we should listen to the scientific community very carefully when they recommend where to put this waste... stopped short of saying that Nevada should be required to handle it, but said that having America's nuclear waste spread out in little piles around the country is immensely dangerous and that it should be consolidated somewhere.
• On Spending Cuts: Said that Defense shouldn't be arbitrarily cut by a committee that has no idea what's worthwhile and what's not.

Michelle Bachmann

• On Taxes: Claimed Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would actually cost far more than he let on, because of what she called an "Added Value Tax"; essentially, the 9% tax would hit a product every time it moved along a chain of production (example: 9% on raw iron ore, 9% again on its refined product, another 9% federal tax when someone bought the purified iron and worked it... etc).
• On Obama: Claimed that Barack Obama's aunt and uncle are illegal aliens in this country.
• On Foreign Aid: Said that Israel should be exempt from any cost-cutting spree that we hit foreign aid with, because they're our closest allies in the region.
• On Immigration: Wants to build a "double-wide" fence across the border.

Herman Cain

• On Taxes: Defended his 9-9-9 Plan. Again. And again.
• On Health Care: Mentioned HR3400.
• On Occupy Wall Street: Believes the protesters want a handout; doesn't understand why they're not protesting at the White House.

Ron Paul

• On OWS: Challenged Cain's assumption that the protesters want a handout; claimed their anger stems from a lack of prosecution of the people who gamed the system.
• On Foreign Aid: Supported cutting all foreign aid.
• On Spending: Supported cutting from everywhere, Defense included. Claimed that keeping the military so well-funded supports Imperialism, which actually makes us less safe due to the ill will it creates.
• On Taxes: ...Seriously? When has Ron Paul ever liked taxes?

Rick Perry

• On Immigration: Claimed that you could build a fence, if you wanted to, but that it'd take forever to do and cost billions. Supported instead a fence in some areas, Predator drones in the sky for reconnaissance, and military boots on the ground as the primary defense against incursions.
• On Health Care: Responded to Romney's claim that "there are more uninsured children in Texas" by saying it's because illegal aliens surge into the state, and that the Federal government hasn't done its job in keeping them out. Also slammed Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts, calling it the basis for "Obamacare" and that it only worked because of massive Federal backing during the Bush administration.
  
• On the Environment: Said the Yucca Mountain issue was a 10th Amendment (State's rights) issue.

Mitt Romney

• On Health Care: Defended his Mass. plan as a state taking care of that state's own issues, and said it should never have been forced on the rest of the country. Bashed Perry for having more uninsured kids in Texas than... any other state? I can't remember. Point is, "too many uninsured kids to be proud of your state's health care record".
• On Immigration: Supported a combination of fences, Predator drones, military personnel, an "e-Varify" system to ensure that employers know their workers aren't illegal, and "turning off the magnets" that draw illegal aliens to the country (removing tuition for illegal immigrants, punishing companies that employ them, etc). Blasted Perry for the percentile increase in illegal aliens in the recent past as compared to California and Florida; said those states' levels had plateaued, while Texas' had increased by 60(?) percent.
• On Religion: Claimed that the religiously-based moral character of a candidate is paramount, but that any religion could provide such character; bashed Perry and pastors that have spoken at his events for claiming outright or implying that Christianity would be the only acceptable religion for a President.

Again, this post is more for me to get my ideas in one place, and to summarize things for anyone who might read this. I'll dissect what went down in a later post.

Can I Get an OCC-U-PY

I went to an Occupy D.C. protest this past Friday. It was an interesting experience- I hadn't done any protesting since President Bush's inauguration, and I was only a teenager then. We posed for some pictures (that arial shot of people making a giant "99%" with their bodies? I'm in that. Left-hand side of the second 9. ^^), marched to the US Chamber of Commerce, marched a little more and then headed back to the square we were occupying. I left around the time someone got on stage and started singing about all the great communists he'd known... wasn't really my scene anymore, at that point, but I think it was good that I went.

Anyhow, a lot of talk has been going on about just what the Occupy movement is. So, to find out, I've started poking around their message board to see just what's up. It move pretty fast, so I'd be surprised if any of my original topics generate much in the way of a response yet, but just reading the boards provides a glimpse into the evolution of this group. Amid a lot of the "This movement is terrible!" and "Capitalism is evil!" posts, one of the topics I've seen a couple times is this:
"Occupy needs to work with the Tea Party".

I hope I start hearing that more and more often.

The "Debt Man Walking" Series: Translating WTF Just Passed Congress

Hoo mama, it has been a long time since I wrote anything. Its been a busy year, not only personally but for the country itself. The latest circus we were all just subjected to, as I'm sure you know, was the debt crisis debate.

Now, I have my opinions about this bill that was just passed, but before I mention any of them I want to provide you, my countless (read: two) readers with a copy of the bill in its unabridged, unedited format. This way, if you read my summary and decide "This guy is just full of it", then you can read exactly what Congress wrote and what I was referencing.
After that, I will post on each of the bill's five sections, providing summary on the points that caught my attention. I do condense many pages down into a handful of bullet points in some cases, but this was most often because the bill was setting pages of definitions, or listing nothing but budget limits for each of the next ten years, etc. If I missed something or misinterpreted it, as always, hit me up about it and we'll see if it needs changing.
Lastly, I'll provide my commentary about the bill as a whole.

But! Without further adieu, I give you:The Budget Control Act of 2011. Enjoy.

Debt Man Walking: Translating the Debt Bill's Fifth and Final Title

Title V (p. 71)- Pell Grant and Student Loan Program Changes
Section 501- Federal Pell Grants
Changes to the Higher Education Act of 1965 take place; in order to comment on them I would have to read that specific bill and see what the apparent funding changes actually refer to.

Sec. 502- Termination of Authority to Make Interest-Subsidized Loans to Graduate and Professional Students
Again, one would have to reference the aforementioned Section 501 act, but it seems as if...

• After July 1, 2012, no grad/professional student will be eligible for Federal Direct Stafford Loans (Sec. 502, (a)(1).)
• ...Unless you're studying the right major, which is listed in Paragraph 3 or 4B under 484b of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
• The most you could borrow from Unsubsidized Stafford Loans would be the maximum amount as set by (481(a)(2)) of the Higher Ed Act, plus an amount equal to the amount of Subsidized loans you could have gotten if (502(3)(ii)) hadn't been written into the 2011 Budget Bill. Um, what?

Sec. 503- Termination of Direct Loan Repayment Incentives

• Again, they go and amend the Higher Education Act by changing its language in certain parts, pursuant to their new July 1, 2012 deadline for loan changes. But that notwithstanding, after that date, new applicants for loans will not be eligible for repayment incentives of any kind (including reductions in interest, origination fees (?), etc).
• ...Unless the student agrees to have loan payments automatically withdrawn from a bank account (as opposed to mailing a check). If they agree to that, it seems like incentives like interest rate reduction are still on the table.

Section 504- Inapplicability of Title IV Negotiated Rulemaking and Master Calendar Exception
Certain sections of the Higher Ed Act (482(c) and 492) don't apply to this bill.

Debt Man Walking: Translating the Debt Bill's Fourth Title

Title IV (p.52)- Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction or The Supercongress.
Section 401
Their job is to cut at least 1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021.

• It's going to be a 12-man team; 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, 6 of whom are to come from the House and 6 of whom are to come from the Senate.
• The group is to have two Co-Chairs. The Speaker of the House is to select one of them, and the Majority Leader of the Senate is to select the other one, after the group's membership is chosen. They've got 14 days to do that from the time the Budget Bill is signed- so, by August 16th.
• The House and the Senate have until October 14th, 2011 to give their recommendations to the Supercongress for consideration.

Said Supercongress then has a little over one month, until November 23, 2011 to produce a report on its suggestions, complete with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimations on how much money their plans will save (not only between 2012-2021, but beyond).

• The final version of the report only requires a simple majority of the committee members to sign off on it.
• If a committee member has any further thoughts or beef he/she wants tacked onto it, they've got three days to file it with the head of the committee (Sec 401, (b)(3)(B)(iii). )
• If the committee suggests rules that change the "Rules of the House/Senate", those parts of their report are only "suggestions".
• The final version of this report is due on Obama's desk by December 2, 2011. It's also due to the VP, the Speaker, and the Majority/Minority leaders in Congress. Furthermore, it's to be submitted to the public.

The committee needs 7 members present to hold a quorum, or, to call the session to order and get shit done. Proxy voting is not allowed. The Supercongress can hold hearings and compel witnesses to show up as needed. Public notice will be given at least a week in advance.

Section 402- Expedited Consideration of Joint Committee Recommendations
When the committee agrees on the finalized version of their report, it can be brought up for a vote the next business day. If the Supercongress gives their report to another committee for consideration, that committee has until December 9th to report their views to Congress, or else they can shut the hell up about it. Congress has to vote on the final report by December 23, 2011.

• The final version cannot be amended. Nor can it be postponed or delayed in any way, shape, or form (Sec 402, (c)(4).)
• If one house sends an approved version of the Supercongress' work over to the other, the receiving house can't send it through committee. It has to be voted on.
• ...Unless the case is that the Senate sends it to the house, and the measure sent to them is a Revenue measure. So essentially, if the Senate sends the House a measure about taxes, they can committee it. (Sec 402, (e)(2).)

Section 403- Funding
Both houses pay for the Supercongress' expenses.

Section 404- Rulemaking
The Houses make these rules as per their set and Constitutional powers.

Debt Man Walking: Translating the Debt Bill's Third Title

Title III (p. 31)- Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process
Section 301- Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process
This section amends previous legislation to accommodate the budget bill and it's two-tier debt increase process (once for 400 billion, the second for 500 billion). Additionally states that if we get to within 100 billion of the new limit, the President can ask for an additional 1.2-1.5 trillion in debt ceiling increases- though he'll need the Secretary of the Treasury and/or the Archivist of the United States (really?) to back him up on it (Sec 301, (a)(2)).

• The Congress can block that second 500 billion increase if they pass a resolution of disapproval within 15 days of the 400 billion increase- but those 15 days count whether or not Congress is in session.
• The Speaker is supposed to reconvene Congress within two calendar days of getting notice of the 400 billion increase, I think.
• If the House wants to forge a joint resolution of disapproval, they have to take a vote on it within six days of the resolution being introduced, and by that point there can be no more legislative delay tomfoolery; it gets its up or down vote.
• The Senate works a little differently, but most of the basics are the same. They've got two days to reconvene (if they're on vacation); they have to move on it within six days of it being introduced; they will then have ten hours of debate once the joint motion is brought to the floor, after which time there can be no more delays and they have to vote on it.
• If they don't get a joint resolution going of their own, then whatever the House sends them gets expedited consideration.

If the Congress passes their joint measure of displeasure, and then overcomes Obama vetoing it or otherwise trying to kill it, then further debt increases don't take place, AND spending must be cut by 400 billion to match the ceiling raise of 400 billion that DID pass.

Section 302- Enforcement of Budget Goal
This section amends the Deficit Control Act of 1985 to account for the new limits on discretionary spending both on defense and nondefense categories.

Debt Man Walking: Translating the Debt Bill's First Title

Title I (p. 2)- Ten-Year Discretionary Caps with Sequester
Section 101- Enforcing Discretionary Spending Limits

• If there is a budget breach in any fiscal year, then 15 days after Congress finishes a session, a "sequestration" takes place to fix the breach.
• If there is a breach (i.e., if some area spends too much in a year), then they will get cut by a certain amount. Admittedly, between legalese and math, I don't understand the specifics of what the cutting process will be.

There are, however, categories that are exempt from this.

• It appears as though the President can make some personnel exempt from the "you spent too much" cuts, and if he does, then a compensation has to come out of other peoples' budgets. Those "other people", however, cannot be military.
• If something spends too much by June 30 of any year, then during the next fiscal year that program's budget will be reduced by the amount it went over.
• If a program takes effect on the current fiscal year and goes over, they get nailed with cuts 15 days later.

• As soon as is practical, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will come out with its estimates on each program's financial impact. Around the same time, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will release its own estimates. If there are significant differences between the two reports, the OMB has to step up and explain where the differences lie.
• OMB and CBO estimates will be made using up-to-date calculation methods and definitions (Sec. 101, (a)(7)(C)). This is an example of information I'm not covering, since it's kind of "duh".
• If it is decided that the War on Terror or other battles require extra money, then they get it (Sec 101, (b)(2)(A)).

"Continuing Disability Reviews" and "redeterminations" for Social Security Titles II(2) and XVI (16) are capped at a certain amount of funding by year. This starts at 623 million for 2012 and rises each year until 2021, where it gets 1.31 billion dollars. (Sec. 101, (b)(2)(B)(I-X)).

• CDRs are defined in the Social Security Act under sections 221(i) and 1614(a)(4).
• "Redetermination" means a review of eligibility for services, as defined under the Social Security Act, sections 1611(c)(1) and 1614(a)(3)(H).

• The Department of Health and Human Services has a set amount of money to use for fighting health care fraud; it starts at 270 million in 2012 and rises each year until 2021, when it has 496 million (Sec. 101, (b)(2)(C)(I-X)).
• Disaster Relief can increase its funding to an amount equal to the amount pre-set for it (so, it can double its funding?), as long as that does not come out to be more than the average amount spent on disaster relief for the previous ten years.
• The overall discretionary spending limits are set in Sec. 101, (c)(1-10); in 2012, for example, the government has 684 billion in "security" spending and 359 billion in "nonsecurity" spending approved, for a grand total of 1.043 trillion dollars. That rises to 1.234 trillion dollars in 2021, though that isn't broken down by security/nonsecurity spending.

Section 102- Definitions
Starting on page 16, this section defines the technical jargon we've encountered so far. As I've already tried to translate this document into English, I won't belabor the point; if you want the word for word definitions of the Legalese, pages 16-18 are your friends.

Section 103- Reports and Orders
This section just contains some amendments to older bills, striking out (for instance) dates we've already passed and setting new ones.

Section 104- Expiration
This section nullifies some sections of the Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Section 105- Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

• This section is pretty dense, but from what I can tell, if the House takes action that actively reduces revenue, that effect on the budget won't be counted towards various parts of the Act that titles this section. That sounds like it could be trouble.
• It is now "out of order" for the House or the Senate to try and put forward anything that would exceed the discretionary spending limits set forth in this bill.

Section 106- Senate Budget Enforcement

• This section outlines procedure on how the budget limits will be enforced (obviously), stating dates that certain motions have to be filed and through which mechanisms they will be handled.