debt

Politicians are not serious about the deficit

President Obama "will order members to identify a combined $100 million in budget cuts over the next 90 days...".  Granted, as Greg Mankiw says, this is the government equivalent of a cup of coffee, but it does signal that the Obama administration recognizes the public outrage over spending. [UPDATE: I think Heritage gives this budget cut entirely too much credit; in fairness, they probably just don't have a smaller dot]

Is this the first sign that the Tea Party protests are having an impact?  Maybe.  But politicians cannot be allowed to get credit for fiscal responsibility by making trivial noises about spending cuts.  This is a very easy thing to measure.

So, how can we measure how serious Obama is about long term fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction?  Watch how Obama funds programs that are not successful, or that do not have clear metrics for success/failure.  Recall a point that Obama made in his inaugural address.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ... Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

Here's my prediction: programs that Democratic groups are inclined to like will almost never end.  They will be given additional funding.  For those programs, the answer will almost never be "no".

If Democrats cannot make serious sacrifices (actual, significant cuts) in the spending their coalition groups want, then you can be pretty certain that politicians are unwilling to share in the sacrifices they say we all need to make. This is a very measurable thing.  They need to be held accountable, both by the media and by voters.

The same thing goes for Republicans, too.  We can't dig our way out of this fiscal hole by "cutting waste".   We certainly can't afford any significant tax cuts at this point.  Proposals that are not politically viable are not "serious"; they are grandstanding for the base.  If Republicans want to be taken seriously, they need to start talking much more seriously about the trade-offs and innovative approaches necessary to address the long term deficit and tax system.  For starters, that probably involves means-testing entitlements.

The Stimulus scam: In the long run our economy will be, not dead, but worse

Just caught this latest CBO critique of the "stimulus" bill. Problem is, after a decade passes, the U.S. economy is actually smaller than if we passed no bill at all.

Of course, if your sole concern is trying to maximise domestic employment in the first week of November 2012 at all costs, screwing up the economy for your successor probably isn't that big a deal.

Bet Moveon.org won't cite THIS in their astroturf letters.

FYI; The title here is a paraphrase of a famous Keynes quote

 

Republicans for Fiscal Irresponsibility?

Gordon is right, nobody seems to have any idea how to deal with the looming debt cliff towards which we're running.  You can't keep saying "cut taxes" unless you have some reasonable way to bring spending into line with tax revenues.  These deficits are going to be the major issue in forthcoming elections. - Jon Henke

I shore love me some tax cuts, but...

While I hold the highest of respect for former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan, she seems to be missing a vital point, right now.  She's written, IMO, some of the best political speeches of my lifetime.  At times, she's also been willing to criticize the GOP for fiscal irresponsibility. In her most recent Wall Street Journal article, she made some valid points about the Obama stimulus package du jour.  However, it's telling that the following terms are missing from her article: deficit, balanced budget, and debt.

Also at the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh proposes his stimulus plan, which allows Obama to spend $486 billion as he sees fit and for Limbaugh to be able to direct $414 billion toward tax cuts as he sees fit.  To be sure, Limbaugh's suggestion is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is also lacking the same words as Noonan's article: deficit, balanced budget, and debt.

At issue is whether we should spend a lot of money which we don't have on "infrastructure" and a bit on tax cuts, or less money we don't have on "infrastructure" and more on tax cuts.  There is no serious suggestion from either major party to deal with the deficit, decrease government spending, balance the budget, or decrease our debt.  

The National Debt Problem

Crossposted at Right Minds

Everyone knows America faces difficult problems. The war on terror is continues to be an issue, as the Taliban stages a resurgence in Afghanistan. America still has an insupportably high crime rate, and out incarceration rate is one the highest in the world. Drugs and poverty still rule in inner cities. The economic outlook remains rocky, energy prices are high. The national debt is 9.6 trillion dollars.
 
There aren’t easy answers to any of those problems, but (to paraphrase Reagan), there are simple ones. A tough foreign policy will win the war on terror, and tough policing and sentencing should lower the crime rate. Nuclear power and increased drilling would reduce energy prices, and libertarian economic policies would result in a more robust economy.
 
Only one of those problems has no simple solution. Most Americans worry, at least a little bit, about the national debt. All conservatives do. But they don’t worry nearly enough. The national debt is very nearly completely out of control. If something is not done, and soon, it will be impossible for America to ever pay off its debt. Not simply very difficult, but literally impossible.
 
Right now, the national debt is approximately $9,612,925,926,818.94, although given that it increases by 1.86 billion per day, it has probably risen a few hundred thousand dollars while you read this. Paying interest on the national debt is one of the largest federal expenditures, at over four hundred billion dollars per year.
 
The entire federal budget in 2008 (which was the highest ever) was 3.1 trillion dollars, which is less than a third of the national debt. Even if the federal budget doubled, and the extra money used to pay off the national debt, it would still take three whole years to pay off the debt. (And this scenario, of course, could never happen). If the budget was increased by one trillion dollars every year, (which is also nigh impossible), it would still take a decade to pay off.
 
So even with incredibly drastic debt reduction measures, the national debt would be nearly impossible to pay. But Washington (both Democrats and Republicans) isn’t even considering less extreme measures to cut the national debt. The federal budget and debt has skyrocketed in the past quarter century—the national debt is ten times larger than it was in 1980. During George W. Bush’s term, the debt has doubled. The national debt is a crushing problem—and one that our leaders are simply making worse.
 
Even if there was some easy way to pay off the federal debt, the United States faces an estimated $57.3 trillion dollars in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs. Fifty-seven trillion. And that is in addition to regular government expenditures, such as the military, welfare, and interest on the national debt. America’s fiscal situation is frightening, and there is no easy answer.
 
Sadly, neither presidential candidate will do much to solve the national debt problem. Barack Obama, of course, is basically a quasi-socialist, tax-and-spend liberal. Under his watch, the national debt would continue to skyrocket. (Although, on the other hand, Bill Clinton lowered the national debt, which neither Reagan nor either of the Bushes could do).
 
John McCain would be better—but really, not by much. He would probably keep the national debt in control (at least if he keeps his promise to control spending), but he wouldn’t do much to pay it off, or address the crushing weight of future federal liabilities. McCain would be on this issue than Bush, definitely better than Obama—but not nearly good enough.
 
I don’t know what the solution for this problem is (I imagine that a solution would involve cutting spending and benefits, and raising taxes), but it will be a difficult one, and one that will have to be made soon. The national debt is perhaps the most important issue facing America today, and conservatives should demand that Republicans address it.

 

Syndicate content