Home › Blogs › lgm's blog ›

Courage to do the right thing

Submitted by lgm on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 09:01
in

The first year of Obama is looking like the first year of Clinton.  Now the issue is health care.  Then it was raising taxes.  Here’s how it was then.  Reagan tax cuts and spending increases had given us an unsustainable budget deficit that was smothering the economy.  Clinton knew that he had to raise taxes to avoid a meltdown.  Republicans then as now were unanimous in irresponsible opposition. 

Blue dog Democrats knew that their careers were on the line – that a vote for higher taxes would get them voted out in 1994.  Still, lots of them found the courage to do the right thing. They paid for this piece of patriotism with their careers, but America prospered.

Now we have expensive health care choking our economy.  Unsustainable employer health insurance premium growth is holding down wages and making American goods more expensive than European. 

Now Democrats are asking Blanche Lincoln to sacrifice her career for the good of the country.  Let’s hope she has the same courage that congressional Democrats had in 1993.

How does this impact Republicans?  In the short run, they could pick up a Senate seat.  In the long run, Americans will get another demonstration of what the party of Gingrich and Bush is like -- don't trust it to run the country. 

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

You are high...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 09:32.

Spending was controlled under Clinton because Republicans shut down the Federal Government twice instead of passing the budgets Clinton wanted.

Yes, once Bush came in they forgot they were supposed to be fiscal conservatives and didn't raise taxes or cut spending to make up for the growth in Homeland Security spending and NCLB and the Prescription Drug bill.  So the deficits skyrocketed.

I get a real chuckle out of people like you who criticize the deficit spending under Bush and say things like "don't trust Republicans to run the country" when you support MASSIVE spending programs AND tax hikes that won't come close to paying for them AND massive new entitlement programs that will add even trillions more to the deficit.

Reagan tax cuts and spending increases had given us an unsustainable budget deficit that was smothering the economy.

You just described the glorius stimulus bill here.  Did you realize that?  Do you also realize you're describing the Health Care reform bills and Cap and Trade too?   Do you also realize that if you combine the stimulus, TARP (which Obama fully supports), HCR and Cap and Trade, that you are supporting more deficit spending than anyone in American history?

Yes, Republicans are guilty of incredible deficit spending.  But Democrats have taken it to an unprecedented level.  Republican deficit spending definitely smothered the economy.  The Democrat deficit spending you support will kill it.

Could you please post the CBO estimates for deficit increases?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 09:47.

Do you also realize that if you combine the stimulus, TARP (which Obama fully supports), HCR and Cap and Trade, that you are supporting more deficit spending than anyone in American history?

1) You are blaming Obama for TARP, which was enacted by George W. Bush. Which pretty much illustrates what a tool you are.

2) HCR and Cap and Trade - please come back here with the CBO estimates of how much these are going to increase the deficit. Oh, that's right, you can't, becasue the CBO finds that both of these are going to reduce the deficit.

3) The cost of the stimulus bill, in terms of the increase in the deficit,  is $787 billion over ten years.

% change, quarter over quarter, in GDP, according to the BEA:

  • q1 08 = -0.7
  • q2 08 = 1.5
  • q3 08 = -2.7
  • q4 08 = -5.4
  • q1 09 = -6.4
  • q2 09 = -0.7
  • q3 09 = 3.5

Please explain to me how letting GDP continue to fall would have had less of an impact on the deficit.

I didn't "blame" Obama for TARP...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 10:53.

I said he fully supports it.  Does he not?

And the accounting tricks the Dem used to squeeze a projected deficit reduction (i.e. 10 years of taxes with only 6.5 years of spending) are based on pie in the sky growth projections that they couldn't even get right between January and June of THIS YEAR.

You're a tool.  A useful idiot.  You lap up the lies being fed to you by Obama / Pelosi / Reid about these "deficit-neutral" bills without realizing that they're only talking about 10 years (what happens after that?  Do you not realize these entitlement programs never end?) and basing the reduction in spending on PROMISES to reduce spending elsewhere.  That's right... PROMISES.  The cuts need to make these bills deficit-neutral AREN'T in the bill.

Secondly, they've sectioned off pieces of legislation like "Doc-Fix" which one would think would be included in a HC REFORM BILL to keep the price tag down but when you add it back in THERE IS NO DEFICIT REDUCTION.  And we're still only talking about the next 10 years.  Welfare and Social Security, when initially passed, claimed to only slightly add to the spending.  Guess what?  It now constitutes more than half of the Federal Budget and will be insolvent in the not so distant future.

You're a lemming.  And a troll.

You forgot to say "Wrong!"

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:04.

But congratulations on adding "lemming" to your vocabulary, and if you want to continue to use the "tool" you've borrowed from me, you are welcome to it.

TARP was a Bush Administration program. The stimulus bill prevent the economy from falling off a cliff.

HCR and Cap and Trade have revenue provisions built into them so that they do not increase the deficit. That is good governance. Unlike, say, starting two wars and not making a single provision for paying for them.  Or Medicare Part D, which the CBO said would increase the deficit by $400 billion over 10 years.

The Bush Administration proved that Republicans are the fiscally irresponsible party.

 

 

I don't need to say it...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:12.

... with you, troll, the fact that you're wrong is a given.

Oh, and btw... Democrats wanted to spend MORE on the Prescription Drug plan. So the deficit would have been larger had they gotten their way.

When the Republicans were in control

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:19.

they started two wars without making any provision for paying for them and they enacted a new entitlement program estimated to increase the federal deficit by $400 billion without batting an eye.

And now that Democrats are in control...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:31.

... they've doubled the spending and plan on quadrupling it with HCR, Cap and Trade and God know what else they have planned.  I've heard they're considering extending TARP and even a "Jobs" package which is another way of saying "A second Stimulus Bill since the first one is didn't work".  The first Stimulus bill was supposed to be a Jobs bill.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pic...

See that chart?  That's BEFORE HCR or Cap and Trade.  And the chart is from numbers provided by the Obama White House and the CBO.

You need to cancel your email updates from ThinkProgress and the DailyKos.  It's rotting your brain.

Was it the voices in your head?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:44.

I've heard they're considering extending TARP

That must have come from the voices in your head because even FOX News is reporting that TARP is going to be wrapped up early and the unused money returned to the Treasury to reduce the deficit.

they've doubled the spending and plan on quadrupling it with HCR, Cap and Trade

As you know, the CBO says these two bills will reduce the deficit.

A second Stimulus Bill since the first one is didn't work".

Then why has GDP moved from record negatives into positive territory?

I do not get updates - daily or otherwise - from either ThinkProgress and the DailyKos. In fact, I'm not even sure if such things exist. As you should be aware by now, I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

Here you go...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 12:14.

...troll. From ABC.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/obama-may-extend-tarp-beyond-exp...

The Obama administration has not yet made a final decision on whether to extend the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, a White House official told ABC News today. However, noted a government source familiar with the matter, the administration is considering extending the program beyond its December 31 expiration date.

As to the CBO score if you actually read it, you would see that it is based on assumptions in cost containment in future legislation and also based on the tax increases but they don't measure the impact those tax increases will have on the overall economy.  Again, they couldn't even predict the growth rate from January to June of this year and you're relying on those very same projections over the next 10 years?  What happens after the initial 10 year period? Here's what the CBO says:

In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be small reductions in federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented. Those estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.

Again, in order to estimate what might happen let's look at history, shall we?  Medicare and Medicaid spending is orders of magnitude higher than originally claimed when it was first enacted.  Same with SS.

There is not ONE single entitlement program that hasn't added to the deficit.  Not one. You are arguing against historical fact.  Maybe it's that you're just ignorant of history.  Maybe you actually believe that doing the same things over and over again will lead to different results.  Whatever the case, the CBO's score is admittedly subject to uncertainty and they have a proven track record of lowballing their projections.  The costs always, without fail, turn out to be significantly higher than their initial projections because the government cannot control itself and idiots like you refuse to take away their checkbooks.

 

Here you go

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 12:25.

From FOX News (!):

White House Considers Using TARP Funds to Cut Deficit

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, under pressure to show it is serious about tackling the budget deficit, is seizing on an unusual target to showcase fiscal responsibility: the $700 billion financial rescue.

The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341 billion estimated in August.

Regarding the CBO: your basic argument is that when the Democrats advocate legislation which the CBO says will reduce the deficit, that is bad; when the Republicans passed legislation which the CBO said would add $400 Billion to the deficit, that was good.

And what provisions did the Republicans, "the party of fiscal responsibility", make for paying for the two wars that they started and the new cabinet-level department which they founded?

Once again...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 12:47.

...  you come back to the "The Republicans spent like drunken sailors so Democrats can spend like drunken sailors on crack" argument.

Deficit spending is killing this country.  Republicans have done it and Democrats are doing 10x more of it.

It's a question of magnitude.  I DID NOT WANT the borrow and spend strategy the Republicans had under Bush and I DO NOT WANT the tax, borrow and spend strategy of the Democrats EVEN MORE.

Is this too difficult for you little mind to comprehend, troll? If I object to someone spending say $20 on something stupid, I'm REALLY going to object to someone spending $200 on something stupid.

Clearer now, troll?

....RBill is wrong.

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 13:19.

You claim that I support the idea:

The Republicans spent like drunken sailors so Democrats can spend like drunken sailors on crack.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have clearly point out in the previous comments, the Democrats are making provisions for paying for the things they enact. The exception was the stimulus, which was an emergency measure to keep the economy from going off a cliff, which would have costs us a lot more than $787 billion.

In comparision. the Republicans started two wars, created a massive new entitlement program, and made a whole new cabinet-level department. While at the same time cutting taxes.

And you sat quietly by. Where were all the voices shouting "deficit spending is killing this country!" before the 2006 and 2008 elections?

How much of the deficit increase that you are blaming Obama for is actually the result of those three things he inherieted?Obama inherieted an economy in free-fall, and the situation has now been arrested. If your side of the political spectrum has the superior economic managment skills, how was this situation allowed to develop - and what would you have done to fix it?

They are not making provisions...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 13:22.

... to pay for these entitlement programs.  That's the entire point.  They're PRETENDING to.  They're using ACCOUNTING tricks and splittling off pieces of legislation to make it look like they're paid for.

You are falling for ACCOUNTING tricks and outright lies, troll.

When the Democrats are in control:

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 13:43.

When the Democrats are in control:

  • If the CBO scores a proposal negatively, it is front-page news for you and it is the gospel truth.
  • If the CBO scores a proposal positively, then you dismiss it as smoke and mirrors.

When the Republicans were in conrol, the CBO said Medicare Part D would add $400 million to the deficit, and you passed it anyway.

The CBO is essentially the only mecanism of its kind that we have. If it is so outragously flawed, as you say, why didn't you fix it during your long term in power?

In the words of Ezra Klein:

The CBO is responsible for producing that best guess. Sometimes, they get it wrong. Sometimes, their underlying assumptions are controversial. But in the aggregate, they do a pretty good job. Their estimates have been at the center of every legislative battle since the late-70s, and they've managed to preserve their credibility and reputation. That's no mean feat.

At least the Democrats are bothering to listen to them.

Barack Obama:

I want to be very clear. “We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration and the next generation.

Bush Administration:

At a cabinet meeting Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill advised Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said. We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told O'Neill he was fired.

 

You can't fix the CBO...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:02.

... troll.  It is what it is.

It is Congress that will massage the bills in order to get a better score knowing full well that the projections will be meaningless after the bills pass and are signed into law.

The administration isn't listening to the CBO.  It is using it to provide cover to get support from morons like you who don't want to look at what will happen beyond the first ten years.

Why is the CBO irrtreivably flawed

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:45.

Why is the CBO irretrievably flawed only when it gives you the answers the Republicans don't want to hear?

Why did you support an administration who said "deficits don't matter" and why do you castigate an administration that, in its first month, clearly stated that reducing the deficit was a top priority?

I did not support...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:50.

...the deficit spending or the attitude that deficits don't matter.

Not only are you a troll, but you're a presumptuous troll too.  You don't know me.  You have no idea what I did or did not support in the previous administration.

You voted for Gore, Kerry & Obama?

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 14:56.

That comes as a surprise!

You are a certifiable idiot.

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:01.

I've already explained that its a matter of magnitude.  Our choices for years have been the lesser of two evils.

If the choice is between someone who will spend X that I don't agree with versus someone who will spend 10X... I'll pick X and work inside the system to keep X as low as possible.

Stop being stupid.  Wait... you can't help yourself.

Which is just your way of saying

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:03.

deficits are OK so long as they are Republican deficits.

No, troll...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:22.

...that is your self-serviing interpretation of what I said.

Wrong!

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:23.

n/t.

Proof of Democrat accounting tricks...

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 15:51.

http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20091119cboscore.pdf

CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $12 billion less than the sum of the effects of enacting the bills separately.

Wait what? So Pelosi pulled Doc-Fix (HR. 3962) in order to get a good score on ObamaCare (HR 3961) but since HR 3962 already passed the net effect is 89 Billion in deficits if HR3961 becomes law.

The same thing is happening in the Senate and eventually will happen in conference.

They, the Democrats are LYING.

Three things.

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 16:29.

First, can I point out that once again you are happy to cite, rely on and generally treat as gospel the CBO when it projects a negative for a Democratic proposal - while ignoring it when it projects a negative for a Republican proposal and castigating it when it projects a positive for a Democratic proposal.

If the CBO is DEFINITELY wrong when it projects a positive for a Democratic proposal, why is it DEFINITELY right when it projects a negative for a Democratic proposal?

Why didn't the Republicans kill Medicare Part D when the CBO projected a $400 billion deficit?

Second, this isn't proof of a "trick", it is evidence of an error. And given that it was uncovered by the CBO, it means you have to retract your earlier claim about their uselessness, given that they were the mechanism by which the problem was uncovered.

Third - this news is a couple of hours old, and I'm sure it comes as news to everyone in Congress as well. There is going to have to be a change in order to correct it.

If that change doesn't happen, I'll join you in condemning that fact.

You see, when Dick Cheney said his administration didn't care about deficits, he spoke the truth - history has proven that to be the case. And when Barack Obama says his administration does care about deficits, I believe him. Because, if you don't care about deficits, standing up in front of the cameras one month into your administration and saying "I care about the deficit" is a really stupid thing to do, given the huge number of euphemism one can employ for economic management that don't include the d-word. And if there is one thing that Obama is not, it is stupid.

Pay attention TROLL

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 16:52.

I have said, more than once, that the CBO LOWBALLS it's estimates. Got that? Good.

The Democrats tweaked and tweaked the bill, even split off a portion of it, in order to get a CBO score that shows a reduction in the deficit.  But the CBO has said that the combined impact of BOTH pieces of legislation will be to INCREASE the deficit.

What I'm also saying is that you can bet the house on the fact that the actual impact will be WAY MORE than an 89 Billion addition to the deficit.

EVERY SINGLE entitlement program has added to the deficit and this one will too.  YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

 

Well, actually

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 17:07.

Social Security pays for itself. And will continue to do so so long as the Republicans are out of power.

I have said, more than once, that the CBO LOWBALLS it's estimates. Got that? Good.

So when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, they knew that it would increase the deficit by MORE than the $400 billion that had been projected? Wow. They really took that "deficits don't matter" pep talk to heart.

 

SS does not pay for itself.

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 17:15.

Accounting practices that would get private companies put in jail for fraud are the only way the Gov can claim that SS is paying for itself.

You really are a sucker for accounting tricks aren't you?

And yes, knowing the CBOs track record and moving forward anyway was a huge mistake... That's why they lost the majority.  They abandoned their conservative roots.  They shouldn't have been doing Part D anyway.  We should be phasing OUT medicare, medicaid and SS not adding to it.

Good day, troll.  I'm done with you.

Before you go, some good news

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 17:18.

doc-fix is DOA in the Senate, so you don't have to worry about the combined effect of the two bills. Hurrah!

It is interesting that the same people who say SS does not pay for itself are the same people who wanted to privatize SS in the midst of the biggest asset bubble in our nation's history.

No it isn't.

Submitted by RBIII on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 17:33.

They included one-year of Doc-fix in the Senate version with promises to address it in the future.

Again, accounting tricks.

Two things.

Submitted by John Smith on Fri, 11/20/2009 - 17:35.

One, in that case, the scenario worked up for Paul Ryan by the CBO is moot and therefore you don't have to worry about it any more.

Two, I thought you said you were leaving?