republicans who are interested in defending defense spending. who have been preaching for the past several years how important it was to protect that, to isolate it away from any cuts. and those republicans, while they still occupy the leadership and still hold positions of power don t necessarily represent the base, for whom the financial crisis is really their equivalent of 9/11 now. really the single way they analyze policy. i buy that the new generation of republicans don t care that much about defense spending, i think you re right about that. but going back to the sequester. sure. that leaves one, two, three, and four, there is no doubt you can get more deficit reduction, total money shaved off the deficit if you go to the bigger deal and include tax increases. there is no doubt the two sides can come together, the offer, 1.8 trillion, is significantly larger than what is in the sequester alone. and then second to that, they
i don t think the republican s position on the sequester, and i don t mean the political one we just talked about. the policy one, what we actually want to get done. so i have asked a very smart republican policy wonk to explain it to me. and there was something at the oscar, something so short, the shortest nominated film ever. and you will see it right here, get some chips and sauce and get back here. like an available heads-up display on the 2013 lexus gs. there s no going back. impact wool exports from new zealand, textile production in spain, and the use of medical technology in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it s just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average.
i don t understand why liberals would prefer to fund the government through a mechanism that hit charities, the housing industry and high tax states than by cutting defense spending. and i don t understand why republicans prefer to cut defense spending than to hit charities, high tax, mostly through blue states that get subsidiz subsidized. the sequester is bad policy, terrible economic policy. i would like to get rid of it altogether. but if we keep it, we absolutely have to give the agencies the ability to make decisions about how to make those cuts. but if we did that, and we can t get rid of it, if we gave agencies that discretion, then if you give me a choice between 5 billion by cutting spending on homes and charities and state and local taxes, i think i would take the defense cuts. every other time we ended our wars we have brought defense spending way down. if this time is different, if we allow ourselves to get trapped
that hit charities, the housing industry and high tax states than by cutting defense spending. and i don t understand why republicans prefer to cut defense spending than to hit charities, high tax, mostly through blue states that get subsidized. the sequester is bad policy, terrible economic policy. i would like to get rid of it altogether. but if we keep it, we absolutely have to give the agencies the ability to make decisions about how to make those cuts. but if we did that, and we can t get rid of it, if we gave agencies that discretion, then if you give me a choice between 5 billion by cutting spending on homes and charities and state and local taxes, i think i would take the defense cuts. every other time we ended our wars we have brought defense spending way down. if this time is different, if we allow ourselves to get trapped in a mind set of being in a permanent war and require the
republicans who are interested in defending defense spending. who have been preaching for the past several years how important it was to protect that, to isolate it away from any cuts. and those republicans, while they still occupy the leadership and still hold positions of power don t necessarily represent the base, for whom the financial crisis is really their equivalent of 9/11 now. really the single way they analyze policy. i buy that the new generation of republicans don t care that much about defense spending, i think you re right about that. but going back to the sequester. sure. that leaves one, two, three, and four, there is no doubt you can get more deficit reduction, total money shaved off the deficit if you go to the bigger deal and include tax increases. there is no doubt the two sides can come together, the offer, 1.8 trillion, is significantly larger than what is in the sequester alone. and then second to that, they also believe very strongly, the key is entitlemen