New deficit reduction plan

[Atreides]

I like liquid assets.

[Enoch]

The thing is, American voters don't really care about deficits. They never have. They care about economic prosperity and jobs, and about national defense, entitlement programs, and other stuff like that.

 

Here's a quote for you:

Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids and shrink our future.

 

Whoever is inaugurated in January, the American people will have to pay [incumbent's] bills. The budget will be squeezed. Taxes will go up. And anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth.

 

I mean business. By the end of my first term, I will cut the deficit by two-thirds.

 

Let's tell the truth: [incumbent] will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

The year was 1984, the incumbent was Ronald Reagan, and the speaker was Walter Mondale. That was from his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination. The Reagan deficits were a centerpiece of his campaign-- a campaign that went on to lose one of the worst landslides in American history. Reagan then did nothing of note to address the deficit in his 2nd term. Nor did Bush the Elder in his. The combination of the '90s boom years and the Clinton tax increases brought them down, briefly, but that was a momentary digression from the overall trend. And voters didn't really care when the surplus went away in W's first term.

 

 

@GD, I think you've hit upon one of the chief things that bug me about the libertarian wing of American politics: smug certitude based on an understanding of economics that is "basic" and "common sense." Demand curves drawn on the blackboard in Econ 101 may look alot like the F=MV stuff drawn on the blackboard in Physics 101, but the two really have nothing in common. There are some incredibly complicated reasons why Sowell and his ilk might be correct about their core prescriptions, but there are also some incredibly complicated reasons why the intelligent modern economists who disagree with him might be correct, too. If a tough question about an economy larger than few thousand people has an answer that is "basic" and "common sense," then that answer is no better than a pure guess. And it's intellectually lazy to pretend otherwise.

 

EDIT: See below.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

First, the man you quoted was Walter Mondale, Dukakis ran against Bush Sr. Second, people do care about deficits, it's just that at times they care about other things more. We've never had deficits this huge. It's quite clear to a lot of people that if we don't do something, the economy will be crushed. Third, the reason Bush and the Republican Congress run up deficits was because of the wars and other extra spending after 9/11. In that environment there were just higher priorities. They'd never get away with unbalancing the budget like that if it wasn't for extraordinary circumstances. Even so, the deficit peaked in 2004 and was declining sharply before the current crisis struck.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Enoch]

First, the man you quoted was Walter Mondale, Dukakis ran against Bush Sr. Second, people do care about deficits, it's just that at times they care about other things more. We've never had deficits this huge. It's quite clear to a lot of people that if we don't do something, the economy will be crushed. Third, the reason Bush and the Republican Congress run up deficits was because of the wars and other extra spending after 9/11. In that environment there were just higher priorities. They'd never get away with unbalancing the budget like that if it wasn't for extraordinary circumstances. Even so, the deficit peaked in 2004 and was declining sharply before the current crysis struck.

'Doh. Not sure why I made that mistake, other than that they're both in the "'80s also-rans" folder in my brain. I'll edit my post for clarity.

 

Also, the deficit increases under W were primarily a result of his tax cuts, which were a campaign promise from back when the economy was still looking rosy and when he still thought "Osama bin Laden" was the punchline to a joke about a camel in Road to Morocco. The wars and security increases sure didn't help, but the tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit are of more import with regard to the long-term federal budget picture.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Enoch

[Humodour]

And yes, Obamacare is supposed to be UHC, since the idea is to cover everyone. It's just not single payer (i.e. government) healthcare most liberals really wanted.

 

The current American healthcare system is NOT UHC, and was never meant to be. Obama rightly wanted UHC, but the idiots on both sides in parliament had other ideas, so Obama had to go with this current crappy system (which, I might add, is still superior to what America had before - at least the regulations on insurance companies).

 

UHC does not need to be single-payer at all, WoD (it largely is in Canada, it largely isn't in Australia).

 

And might I just add it's good to see somebody like Enoch finally get fed up with the type of extremist bull**** espoused by Guard Dog and call him on it for once.

[Enoch]

The NY Times' website has a fun little game: You Fix the Budget.

 

Check off which of the proposals for budget savings currently being discussed that you want implemented, until you bridge the gap. The projections are, of course, huge guesstimates, but it gives the reader a sense of the relative importance of each of the issues.

[Wrath of Dagon]

First, the man you quoted was Walter Mondale, Dukakis ran against Bush Sr. Second, people do care about deficits, it's just that at times they care about other things more. We've never had deficits this huge. It's quite clear to a lot of people that if we don't do something, the economy will be crushed. Third, the reason Bush and the Republican Congress run up deficits was because of the wars and other extra spending after 9/11. In that environment there were just higher priorities. They'd never get away with unbalancing the budget like that if it wasn't for extraordinary circumstances. Even so, the deficit peaked in 2004 and was declining sharply before the current crysis struck.

'Doh. Not sure why I made that mistake, other than that they're both in the "'80s also-rans" folder in my brain. I'll edit my post for clarity.

 

Also, the deficit increases under W were primarily a result of his tax cuts, which were a campaign promise from back when the economy was still looking rosy and when he still thought "Osama bin Laden" was the punchline to a joke about a camel in Road to Morocco. The wars and security increases sure didn't help, but the tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit are of more import with regard to the long-term federal budget picture.

What I'm saying is in that environment deficits weren't a priority, thus they got away with stuff other than strictly wars/security. Under normal conditions, I'd expect a huge outcry over unbalancing the budget, but everyone understood it was inevitable under the circumstances, even though the deficits could've been smaller, but it's a question of the overall narrative rather than the details.

 

The NY Times' website has a fun little game: You Fix the Budget.

 

Check off which of the proposals for budget savings currently being discussed that you want implemented, until you bridge the gap. The projections are, of course, huge guesstimates, but it gives the reader a sense of the relative importance of each of the issues.

How about all of the above?

Edited November 15, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Enoch]

You have an oddly idealized view of what "normal conditions" are. There's always a crisis of one kind or another-- over the last 60 years, the only two periods when the government was run in something other than "we'd like to keep the budget balanced, but there are pressing concerns that we have to deal with" mode was in the mid '50s to early '60s and the mid-to-late '90s. (Which were both periods of huge economic booms, bringing in plenty of tax revenues to fund all the governments' budget priorities.) Even in those rare years when there isn't a crisis, the people can be made to believe that there is one pretty easily (see: the Iraq invasion).

 

The size of the deficit/debt might make it "different this time" from an economic or sound-policy point of view, but I don't see any evidence that it's going to be different from an electoral point of view. It's still an abstract and amorphous concept to the population at-large. Something that they can reliably spout cynical comments about, but not something that they particularly care about when they decide who to vote for.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Enoch

[Rostere]

The NY Times' website has a fun little game: You Fix the Budget.

 

Check off which of the proposals for budget savings currently being discussed that you want implemented, until you bridge the gap. The projections are, of course, huge guesstimates, but it gives the reader a sense of the relative importance of each of the issues.

 

Well, that wasn't very hard!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...hoices=9txl05lv

[Walsingham]

Done!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...hoices=tb8p94k9

 

 

Key points:

 

1. Reduction in government workers, but no reduction in contractors. (Have to be mirrored by reduction in legislation I expect)

2. Getting old will suck. No medicare or retirement until 70. I decided to go for this head on, as I think this needs a big societal solution, rather than papering over the question.

3. Estate tax goes up. 1 million is plenty to inherit without tax.

4. Mid incomes don't get hammered otherwise.

5. Banking reform to drive smaller banks. I believe that smaller banks are more agile, less risk-taking, and deliver better services to grassroots businesses.

6. No sales tax. No carbon tax.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Might finally see some movement on this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48300.html

 

They better do something soon, the Titanic is heading for the iceberg.

[Calax]

The bush tax cuts need to be ended. I don't understand how people expect the government to do more with less money then they had in the 80's coming (proportionally). I mean the news networks started riots when it was suggested that the taxes be raised back to what they were in CLINTON years when we were seeing rapid growth.

[Hurlshort]

I'm fairly optimistic about what I've seen Jerry Brown do with California so far. He's been cutting costs like a madman. It's clear he has set aside party lines and is trying to fix the deficit, hopefully enough legislators can do the same.

[bigcrazewolf]

Fixed it done

[Guard Dog]

@GD, I think you've hit upon one of the chief things that bug me about the libertarian wing of American politics: smug certitude based on an understanding of economics that is "basic" and "common sense." Demand curves drawn on the blackboard in Econ 101 may look alot like the F=MV stuff drawn on the blackboard in Physics 101, but the two really have nothing in common. There are some incredibly complicated reasons why Sowell and his ilk might be correct about their core prescriptions, but there are also some incredibly complicated reasons why the intelligent modern economists who disagree with him might be correct, too. If a tough question about an economy larger than few thousand people has an answer that is "basic" and "common sense," then that answer is no better than a pure guess. And it's intellectually lazy to pretend otherwise.

 

I see, speaking of intellectually lazy, are you actually using the title of a book that I'll wager large you have never read to cast aspersions on it's ideas? Your use of the terms "Sowell and his ilk" makes your opinions of the man pretty plain. You know what bugs me about the left is the smug certitude that economic (and therefore human) behaviour is something that can or should be tightly controlled. The folks who think that way are often the same ones who entertain the hubristic notions that they know better than everyone else how everyone should be living their lives.

 

Speaking of reading you should take a look at Hayeks masterpiece "The Road to Serfdom". It was published in the '40s but is frighteningly relevant now in the age of Obamanomics. It can be had for free on google books.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

@GD, I think you've hit upon one of the chief things that bug me about the libertarian wing of American politics: smug certitude based on an understanding of economics that is "basic" and "common sense." Demand curves drawn on the blackboard in Econ 101 may look alot like the F=MV stuff drawn on the blackboard in Physics 101, but the two really have nothing in common. There are some incredibly complicated reasons why Sowell and his ilk might be correct about their core prescriptions, but there are also some incredibly complicated reasons why the intelligent modern economists who disagree with him might be correct, too. If a tough question about an economy larger than few thousand people has an answer that is "basic" and "common sense," then that answer is no better than a pure guess. And it's intellectually lazy to pretend otherwise.

 

I see, speaking of intellectually lazy, are you actually using the title of a book that I'll wager large you have never read to cast aspersions on it's ideas? Your use of the terms "Sowell and his ilk" makes your opinions of the man pretty plain. You know what bugs me about the left is the smug certitude that economic (and therefore human) behaviour is something that can or should be tightly controlled. The folks who think that way are often the same ones who entertain the hubristic notions that they know better than everyone else how everyone should be living their lives.

 

Speaking of reading you should take a look at Hayeks masterpiece "The Road to Serfdom". It was published in the '40s but is frighteningly relevant now in the age of Obamanomics. It can be had for free on google books.

 

Hold on, GD. I think Enoch's proved his chops in enough debates to warrant a little more civility.

[Guard Dog]

True enough Wals; my apologies Enoch, I had a few too many before I started surfing the web last night.

 

Heck I probably should apologize to somone over at the OOTP boards too, I was a little nasty there too.

[Walsingham]

True enough Wals; my apologies Enoch, I had a few too many before I started surfing the web last night.

 

Heck I probably should apologize to somone over at the OOTP boards too, I was a little nasty there too.

 

Spoken like a gentleman. I was grouchy last night too, so maybe it was the moon or something.

[bigcrazewolf]

True enough Wals; my apologies Enoch, I had a few too many before I started surfing the web last night.

 

Heck I probably should apologize to somone over at the OOTP boards too, I was a little nasty there too.

 

Spoken like a gentleman. I was grouchy last night too, so maybe it was the moon or something.

Admit it Wals....that time of the month again

[Gfted1]

Studies, Polls Rain on First Anniversary Parade of Health Care Law

 

Published March 23, 2011

 

President Obama's health care overhaul turned one Wednesday, but the balloons and candles to mark the occasion were strictly limited to Democratic circles as polls show a nation still splintered over the law and recent reports question its cost-effectiveness.

 

Obama signed the overhaul in a lavish ceremony in the East Room of the White House last March 23 in front of nearly 300 people, including 200 Democratic lawmakers. One year later, he was en route back home from a five-day voyage in South America, facing a crisis in Libya.

 

But that doesn't mean the Obama political engine wasn't in action. First lady Michelle Obama, who accompanied the president on his trip, sang the law's praises in an opinion article published by Yahoo while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and an array of other Democrats hosted events and press conferences marking the anniversary.

 

Obama's campaign arm, Organizing for America, which has since been assimilated into the Democratic National Committee, arranged more than 100 events this week to laud the legislation while Health and Human Services Department officials, including Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, fanned out to town hall and advocacy group events.

 

At the same time, House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell slammed the law in an opinion article published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, and Republicans spent the day tweeting their intentions to return to the repeal mantle.

 

Despite all the activity, the public appears unfazed and entrenched.

 

Results from the monthly Kaiser Health Tracking Poll released Friday showed that 46 percent of Americans oppose the law compared with 42 percent who supported it. Shortly after the law passed last year, 46 percent favored it compared with 40 percent who didn't.

 

Rasmussen polling also consistently shows that since the law's passage a majority of Americans support repealing it. The latest release Monday found 53 percent in favor of overturning it. That's down 9 points, but the number of voters who favor repealing the law has never gone below 50 percent and has been as high as 63 percent, Rasmussen said.

 

"In one year's time, Democrats have managed to destroy every promise they made to the American people about health care reform," said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus on Capitol Hill. "They promised Obamacare would create jobs, lower the deficit and expand health care coverage to those who need it most. Yet on the one-year anniversary of Obamacare, we have seen abject failure in this massive government takeover of our health care system."

 

Prospective Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has been slammed for introducing a universal health care program while governor of Massachusetts, also issued a statement saying how he'd handle the law.

 

"If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them," Romney said in a statement that first appeared in National Review Online.

 

The health care law has had a rough year as studies and the economic realities of implementation have undercut rosy estimates by administration officials and Democratic leaders. The Congressional Budget Office found last month that the overhaul will likely cut about 800,000 jobs over 10 years, or half of 1 percent, because the expansion of Medicaid and other subsidies through health care exchanges, "will effectively increase beneficiaries' financial resources" and remove an incentive to work.

 

That conclusion did not deter Pelosi, who has repeatedly claimed the law will have a positive impact on the workforce, most recently last week when she said the overhaul creates 4 million jobs.

 

On Wednesday, the House Democratic leader praised the law again.

 

"We enacted legislation that extends health care coverage to 32 million more Americans and lowers health care costs, while creating jobs, strengthening the middle class and reducing the deficit," she said.

 

But the CBO report also estimated that the cost of expanding coverage under the law will increase the deficit by $1.13 trillion over 10 years instead of its prior estimate of $1.04 trillion.

 

Last month, the nonpartisan chief actuary of Medicare testified that he's concerned that the $575 billion the law requires in Medicare reductions will make it hard for seniors to find doctors and other providers. He said he believes seniors would force Congress to reverse any policies that harm them.

 

"And if so, then that implies that the actual future costs for Medicare would be quite a bit higher than what we have projected under current law," Foster told the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has acknowledged the health care law will pose a financial burden on states because it will push some 16 million new patients into their Medicaid programs, the cost of which the federal governments shares with the states.

 

"We are committed to working with governors to help them manage their Medicaid costs, their Medicaid programs," Carney said this week.

 

Republicans have also seized on the Obama administration granting 1,040 temporary health care waivers to businesses, labor groups and a few states, allowing them to opt out of the law at least until 2014 so they can develop systems and alternatives to meet the law's strict coverage requirements.

 

 

So our UHC turns one today, is unwanted by the majority, will reduce hundreds of thousands of jobs, will screw seniors and is ALREADY 9 million dollars over budget. Oh, did I mention its not even in effect yet?

 

*sigh* Watching my country go down the tubes is depressing. This has got to be what it felt like to live in the last days of Rome.

[Amentep]

Results from the monthly Kaiser Health Tracking Poll released Friday showed that 46 percent of Americans oppose the law compared with 42 percent who supported it. Shortly after the law passed last year, 46 percent favored it compared with 40 percent who didn't.

 

There's a

[Tale]

The folks who think that way are often the same ones who entertain the hubristic notions that they know better than everyone else how everyone should be living their lives.

I, too, hate it when the left demonizes and tries to control the lives of homosexuals.

[Enoch]

Meh. Polls are funny. Ask people about the "healthcare reform law" or "obamacare" in general, and they come out like that. Ask them about the major reforms that were included in the law, and they are pretty strongly in favor.

 

What eventually passed was pretty thoroughly watered-down, tarted-up, and easy to demonize as a whole. And it is disappointing that the medical industry was pretty effective in kicking out the provisions that would do anything to actually control costs. But wiping it all out and starting over is a glib response to an incredibly complex issue-- what works well on a bumper-sticker almost never makes for cogent policy, and the while it's probably too early to judge the post-HC-reform system, we know that the pre-HC-reform system was unsustainable. Amend the mistakes out, keep the good parts, fill in the gaps, etc. In short, do the work to make things better, rather than indulge the purely political "the other guys won, so now we have to undo it" reflex.

 

 

IMO, The biggest need for reform is end-of-life care. An enormous portion of American GDP is spent on keeping a bunch of 82-year-olds alive to see 83, which has almost no effect in helping the rest of the economy. (In terms of international competitive advantages, healthcare costs in general beyond what is necessary to keep the present and future workforce healthy enough to live, work, and learn are wasted.) I love my grandfather, but the fact that the bill for his $20,000 hip replacement was paid out of the public fisc should be scandalous-- the country is no worse off if that man has to be in a wheelchair.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

I knew it, the government is out to kill grandma!

[Orogun01]

IMO, The biggest need for reform is end-of-life care. An enormous portion of American GDP is spent on keeping a bunch of 82-year-olds alive to see 83, which has almost no effect in helping the rest of the economy. (In terms of international competitive advantages, healthcare costs in general beyond what is necessary to keep the present and future workforce healthy enough to live, work, and learn are wasted.) I love my grandfather, but the fact that the bill for his $20,000 hip replacement was paid out of the public fisc should be scandalous-- the country is no worse off if that man has to be in a wheelchair.

Leaving old people to die is hardly a solution, specially when other countries have sustainable and successful models for free healthcare that we could be following. The biggest problem with healthcare is that is an industry and it's being treated as such, the US could stand to lose a few military contracts in order to actually sustain itself. But we rather spent more money figuring how to put people in wheelchairs rather than how to keep them walking.