HMPH! A jolly sight too late for this. Where the hell has it been these past seven years???
Bogey
· 1 year ago
the RNC has lost all sense of reality
if I were a Dem strategist, I would just run this article.. over and over and over and over (and note this does NOT Include the Iraqi sinkhole)
How George Bush, Big Spender, Destroyed Nirvana: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Enlarge Image/Details
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- If you could go back in time to President George W. Bush's inaugural address and add one economic statement, what would it be? For me, there is an obvious answer.
If Bush had promised in January 2001 that the baseline of government spending that he inherited when he took office would be the cap during his term, then we would have a big budget surplus today. It would have been easy to do. He just had to say: ``I will not spend one penny more than President Bill Clinton planned to. I will veto any bill that tries to.''
I have written before in this space that Bush has outspent Clinton by a mile. With government spending still out of control, the gap between where we are and where a disciplined nation could have been is getting bigger and bigger.
With a recession looming, the policy implications of the spending explosion are serious. If a deep recession occurs, we will have less wiggle room.
To see how different the world could have been, I gathered data from a number of sources and ran an alternative history. In that wishful place, government spending was set equal to the spending envisioned by the Congressional Budget Office in the January 2001 long-run forecast, plus the spending for the war in Iraq and to fight terrorism. This simulation assumes that the war would have happened in spite of Bush's spending promise, and wouldn't have induced him to seek cuts elsewhere.
The difference between that spending path and the one we are on is huge. Today, we expect federal spending in 2008 will be $2.9 trillion. According to the alternative history, spending would be $2.5 trillion.
Surplus Fantasy
With spending at the lower level, we would have a surplus of $152 billion if revenue were equal to what it is currently projected to be.
Running the simulation forward, the gap between revenue gets wider and wider. By 2017, we are scheduled to spend almost $1 trillion more than we would have if we had stuck to the Clinton baseline. With the low spending baseline we would have a surplus in 2017 of $1.1 trillion, instead of the $151 billion surplus that's currently forecast.
Think of it this way. If we now had the lower spending levels that Bush inherited, we could extend his tax cuts, repeal the alternative minimum tax, enact the current stimulus package, and still have a 10-year budget surplus of $1.9 trillion. And, remember, that allows spending to be adjusted up for the Iraq war and the war against terrorists.
Many observers might say this scenario is unrealistic. The 2001 long-run forecast covered both discretionary and mandatory spending. No administration, the argument might go, could have held the line on the growth of Medicare and Social Security spending.
Hold the Line
There are two responses to that.
First, a president could always demand that spending be capped and that discretionary spending be reduced to offset unexpected increases in mandatory outlays. Social Security might be the third rail of American politics, but it might not be. It has been changed before. Why couldn't it be changed again? Families do that all the time. If Johnny needs braces, then you take fewer trips to the restaurant.
The second response is perhaps more powerful. Let's see what happens when we allow mandatory spending to go up as it did. This lets Bush have his prescription-drug benefit, which is now part of mandatory spending.
If we had held the line on everything else that is discretionary, we could have had the prescription-drug plan, the Iraq war and the war against terrorists. We could have kept all the Bush tax cuts, made them permanent, repealed the AMT and added the stimulus package and still ended up with a balanced budget from 2008 to 2017.
Bloated Uncle
It makes you sick to think about it. All that money wasted on ethanol and bridges to nowhere has accumulated into a pile that massive. Uncle Sam ate a whopping helping of apple pie every day for seven years, and now he is obese.
This is important to bear in mind as we move forward to the general election. We don't have a deficit because of Iraq, or the tax cuts, or the drug benefit. We have a deficit because the government grew fat. We can't fix that with tax increases. Uncle Sam must go on a diet.
A simple way to start would be this: Whoever is elected president this November should pledge that he or she won't spend $1 more than we currently plan to. If Bush had done that seven years ago, we would be in a different world.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Piggy
· 1 year ago
WOOT WOOT, only $850 billion over 4 years, will cut the current spending rate of the GOP in half.
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
While I agree that McCain as an individual can beat Obama as an individual can own fiscal discipline, the recent Republican controlled Congress combined with the Bush Administration's lack of it severely (and fairly) damaged public perception of one of the Republican's traditional strong issues. With complete power, they could not resist "making hay while the sun was shining", and McCain (unfairly) and Republican Congressional incumbants (often fairly) and newcomers (unfairly) will now have to pay a price.
McCain will have to run as an individual, and is set to with his maverick public and media image and even with his trouble with the far Right. He can then fairly detail his past as a strong fiscal conservative and his ideas for the future involving lower spending to balance the budget while keeping taxes low. Obama will eventually have to detail how he will pay for all the hope, and there will be more audacity in the numbers than in the hope. He also has a history of votes to justify. Obama's best bet, and he knows it, is to define McCain as a continuation of the Bush Administration(he referenced McCain in his last victory speech as Bush-McCain) . While everyone who follows politics knows this to be absurd, McCain will have to be very clear in making the distinction of how his policies and ideology differ from Bush and the recent Congress, while at the same time not angering those on the Right who still love Bush.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
umm... regardless of how much Obama will drive up spending.
does the RNC and do the Republicans have a SCINTILLA of credibility on this issue now?
No.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
They don't have to, if McCain starts quantifying how much Obama's plans are going to cost the average taxpayer, ears will perk up anyways.
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Yeah... when Republicans are currently spending more than this to keep Iraq together... I'm guessing this "Spend-O-Meter" is not going to resonate as well as they hope.
FedUp
· 1 year ago
Well, Tom... I guess it depends on where your priorities are. I happen to favor spending the money to keep the terrorists on their side of the pond, than to fight them over here. And to be quite frank... I'm not up to supporting global poverty... we have enough poverty here to keep us busy. Keep Obama out of my pockets - we already give the world more money than they are grateful for! If this is what he'll do as president, we don't need him!
Oldcrow
· 1 year ago
Oh yes it will, Obama is talking huge tax increases and massive spending increases contrast with MCcain who is promising to cut taxes and has a record of fighting spending and has promised to veto any bills with earmarks and will continue to support the War on Terror and by the way provide for the common defense is in the Constitution I can't seem to find the article about fighting world wide poverty so sorry that dog don't hunt. Don't even go there about the war in Iraq not defending the country. It is going on seven years WITH NOT A SINGLE MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL OR OUR MAJOR INTERESTS OVERSEAS and that fact is irrefutable and no concidence the reason it is a fact is because we are killing them in Iraq!
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Except that "their irresponsible spending justifies our irresponsible spending" isn't really an argument.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
Democrats in congress voted in favor of spending that money, just as the Republicans did. It requires historical revisionism to try and isolate the blame to the Republican side of the aisle. In fact, the Democrats have continued to vote in favor of that spending even after taking control of congress.
It's revisionism to try and isolate the blame on that. Even the democratic base knows it.
Jack Barnes
· 1 year ago
Only $65 billion for health care? The Democrats in the Washington Legislature have proposed a healthcare bill that would impose taxes of over $8 billion a year for only 6.5 million residents. (Not sure what they would actually spend).
A national plan that is only 8 times bigger than my little old State?
If Obama or Clinton would impose their "universal healthcare" in a similar manner as that proposed by my legislators, the annual bill would be more along the lines of $369 trillion a year ($1230 per person, 300 million people in the U.S.).
Or maybe my State's plan should be closer to $1.5 billion a year.....
jvandahm
· 1 year ago
300 million times $1230 per person is $369 billion, not trillion. Your point still stands that $65 billion is far less than any "comprehensive" health plan offered by any politician would have to be. And then, like all social programs, it would grow and grow and grow, quality would drop and drop and drop, and it would be permanent.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
Indeed. See the veterans health care debacle for how well government run health care systems work.
Jack Barnes
· 1 year ago
Thanks jvandahm. After awhile, all these numbers run together - my checking account doesn't use as many zeroes.
You're right though. My point is that either Obama's plan is far from "comprehensive", or that my State's plan is overstated.
Either way, the combined tax hits are tremendous.
michaelreynolds
· 1 year ago
You're kidding yourself. Obama can put his own spendometer on 100 years worth of troops in Iraq. He can talk about the interest we'll pay on the trillion dollars we'll have borrowed to finance the war. He has a very long McCain record to comb for any evidence of pork -- and even with McCain there'll be some. And he has the fact that the last Democratic president left a surplus which the GOP president and Congress promptly transformed into an Everest of debt. He can go on to demagogue unregulated financial markets that will cost "average folks" their homes and credit ratings and rail against the cost of bailing out financial institutions that are regular contributors to GOP candidates.
Sorry, but you are whistling past the graveyard.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
Riiiight. . .Obama will be arguing about some theoretical 'trillion dollars', that may or may not occur over the course of decades (since drawdowns are predicted within a year), against a four year total of almost a trillion dollars gleaned from his own campaign promises thus far. Not a position I'd want to be in, if I was running for office.
McCain can respond to any comments about the 'Everest of Debt' with the roll call majority of Democratic congressmen and women who voted for those expenditures as well.
And be serious. Unregulated financial markets didn't cost 'average folks' their homes. Unwise financial decisions are what cost the vast majority of people their homes. Or are you trying to tell me that people are too stupid to calculate interest? What cost these people their homes, is making a home purchase beyond their means based on speculation that the housing market would continue to rise.
I live in the city with the highest foreclosure rate of any in the entire country. Three of my co-workers, and 4 of my friends are facing foreclosure (in only 1 of 7 cases is the foreclosure on a primary residence). Every one of them knew the chances they were taking, and every one of them now expects the government to help bail them out.
What a crock.
michaelreynolds
· 1 year ago
"Theoretical billion?" What do you think the Spendometer will be dealing with? It's all "theoretical." It's all predicated on assumptions, and after seven years of staggering expenditures and a massive increase in the size of government, the GOP has zero credibility with any but those who've OD'd on the Kool-Aid.
Obama will hang the GOP Congress and George (30%) Bush around McCain's neck. get ready to see the infamous McCain-Bush hug photo all over the place.
SDN
· 1 year ago
Of course, McCain can reply that at least national defense spending is Constitutionally required.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Well, the 100 years worth of troops in Iraq (if it takes that long) certainly is preventing loss of life here in America.
Obama has promised to pull them out from a knowledge position that's at or below sea level. If the guy becomes President and gets access, I wonder what his tune will be then? Once you are inside Washington, you are no longer the outsider.
BoWowBoy
· 1 year ago
The DNC will swat this tactic away ............. asking ............... where was the spendometer the last eight years.
Republicans are all talk and no action.
DanO
· 1 year ago
This must be "Pretend We're The Onion" day
edh
· 1 year ago
I'm not so sure about this GOP tactic or timing.
McCain has to distinguish himself on fical discipline first, and point out the reality that Obama's spending plans will, invariably, be on top of the cost of the war.
Meanwhile, isn't there the danger here that such early criticism, rather than comprise effective opposition research to be highlighted later, will instead act as a corrective political consultancy to Obama (that he otherwise would not obtain internally) so that he can either mask or temper his program announcements before he goes before the elecorate?
Monkei
· 1 year ago
I am still trying to remember over the past elections ... has ANY candidate for the presidency ever been specific with policies? No one would understand it or pay attention if they did in either party except for those whom already have their minds made up as they are the real followers of such things and already know where each party already is.
Trying to blame Obama for doing what all candidates do (no specifics) is lame.
Shivering Timbers
· 1 year ago
It's good to remind voters that the Democrats are the "Tax and Spend" party. Republicans are the party of "Spend and Spend."
That's a cheap shot, I know, but let's be serious here. The Republican party has zero credibility when talking about fiscal discipline. Democrats might not be much better, but at least the last Democratic president left us with a surplus, not a deficit. Which was promptly wiped out by the following, ahem, Republican president (and his Republican congress).
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Given the GOP's recent track record on spending, can we credibly make this case to the American people? I think we should shrink government, and government spending, except in fighting the war. Will McCain deliver that?
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
Well, a mere 7 billion increase in federal spending over 4 years would be a much slower rate of budget increase than the historical average. . . so it'd be a start.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
Pay attention to the blank state that Obama is. He has a bill up for vote on February 14 (his own special valentine to the US taxpayer) that takes a nice chunk of the GNP via US taxpayer money to address a UN millennial goal of eliminating poverty worldwide.
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
This is only a segment of Cliff Kinkaid's "Action in Media's" piece. Further information is available either through Kinkaid's newsletter/blog or the link at www.warroom.com.
Doesn't it bother the Obama fans that their messiah is rushing through a bill that has not been subject to scrutiny? that has had no hearings?
An examination of Obama's senatorial record shows rather anemic legislation-- lots of post office namings and recognitions of Black figures .. He's up there in league with John Kerry for inconsequentiality.
This current legislation, however, indicates how dedicated Obama is to his own vision of a new world order and the role of the US in the collectivization and redistribution of our wealth.
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
Every legislator will chafe under the pork ban. If you refuse pork, how can you bring home the bacon?
FedUp
· 1 year ago
Maybe if they don't have pork to sneak through, congress (opposite of progress) will actually have to do something besides naming libraries and post offices... wonder how they'll occupy their time... oh wait... I know this one... They'll just find another way to get their pet piggies fed... and that's on BOTH sides of the aisle!
Duane Lester
· 1 year ago
Maybe it's just me, but it takes a lot of gall for the GOP to be calling out Barack for spending.
They need to take the plank out of their own eye before worrying about the $850 billion speck in Barack's.
US Debt clock - now at $ 9 1/4 trillion. Nice job Repubs.
Nozzle
· 1 year ago
Over 50% of the federal budget is going to entitlement programs brought to us by a democrats over the last 40 years. That is about 1.5 trillion in 2008. When we leave Iraq, the war funding will be over. Entitlements are forever and are on the way to burying future generations. The balanced budget in the Clinton administration was brought to you by the Republican congress and the contract with America legislation spearheaded by Newt Gingrich. Gingrich and Republicans fought for a balanced budget amendment that Clinton opposed and threatened to veto. As it was, the legislation died in the Senate where nearly every democrat opposed it...
Jim,MtnViewCA,USA
· 1 year ago
Back in '04, when the Dems seemed ready to run Gov Dean, a lot of right-bloggers started saying "Are you kidding? That guy is unelectable." And the Dems duly changed from Dean to Sen Kerry (who went on to lose anyway). I don't see a lot of noise about Sen Obama. Perhaps we've learned to wait till the unelectable candidate is the nominee before we begin criticism?
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
I decided to check out a few of Obama's initiatives, and noticed one which immediately caught my eye. It is called the digital electricity grid.
Now, last I saw, electricity came only in analog -- alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC); our current grids transmit only those two types of power (Wikipedia agrees). So this digital electricity grid must be something completely new and revolutionary.
I looked on Google. On Barack Obama's campaign site (which does NOT have a search function, so boy was that hard). On Barack Obama's government site. Nothing indicates what digital electricity is, except that the term comprises one part of a sentence on barackobama.com.
Maybe Al Gore knows. It could be related to the Internet. Obama needs to explain to us technical insophisticates just why we ought to convert to digital electricity.
Jack Barnes
· 1 year ago
digital electricity grid
Probably means that it's either on or off. Californians under Grey Davis know what that is.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Hahaha - ;}
It was never just on or off -- occasionally it was boomeranging off Washington or Idaho.
Davis was not the problem, nor could he have devised a solution in time even had he realized early-on that there was a problem. Note that it took Schwartzenegger a year to fix the Path 15 problems which drove so many power generators out of business and allowed Enron to "boomarang" power trans-state and profit from the arbitrage thereof.
This is a prime example of the need for federal regulation of the energy transmission market.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
I checked Google using the phrase "digital electric grid', and found an article about replacing existing controllers on the electrical grid with digital controllers, whose response time is supposedly faster than existing controllers, and would (in theory anway) reduce the frequency of brownouts or blackouts.
It's not clear whether Obama is referring to this, or whether Obama would understand what this technology is and how well it would work. But who cares whether it works or not? It sounds cool like "hope" and "change" and voters will buy it and pay for it because The Great Anointed One has written it, and anyone who dares question its value, feasibility, or cost is so, like, you know, unenlightened and so, like, you know, 20th Century, and so, like, you know, anti-hope. You gotta see the light, whether or not the lights stay on.
Dixit Oprah-bama: The Kingdom is coming on Earth, and Obama is Da Man, and thou shalt not ask questions to Da Man!
/sarcasm (for Obama dreamers who might not have noticed).
So, with regard to your exposition (;}) you are claiming that Barack is setting up to take credit after the fact for something that's already happened. Sort of like Al Gore inventing the Internet. Got it.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
A possible script for a GOP ad:
Reporter: Senator Obama, how are you going to pay for all your hope and change?
Obama: I haven't ideated that yet. Ask me in 2009.
jharp
· 1 year ago
I'm looking forward to the vast improvement in fiscal responsibility.
Let's hope the 4 trillion deficit in 7 years by W and company is something that will never happen again.
AH_C
· 1 year ago
I'd be interested in a RINO spendometer for pork like the bridge to nowhere, stimulus package etc.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
oh no you don't buddy.
the President of the RINO's, John McCain railed against this stuff for years.
meanwhile the radio rabble rousers, and all the self proclaimed REAL Republicans (like sleazeball De Lay and friends) were voting for all of this and more.
while cutting taxes.
like I said.. Econ 101 and Creationism.. a package 2 for 1 course deal taught at Bob Jones University.
Joe Godfrey
· 1 year ago
I thought this was a pretty good idea at first. Then I realized it could blow up in the GOP's face as Democrats could easily do a Spendometer on Republican spending since Bush took office. Republicans used to own the issue of spending but now they have to earn that issue back and a lot of conservatives are very skeptical.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
McCain can own fiscal discipline in the general election, and it's one reason Obama can't afford to debate specific policy, almost literally.
You can make this statement until the cows come home captain ... the thought process among the rest of the country (those not in the GOP meaning independents and dems) is that the GOP has controlled and ran up spending at an incredible pace ... although McCain is a voice for spending controls, his party did very little and increased spending during their years of control.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
the "thought" process among the rest of the country
Seems to me there's not much "thought" going on at all, if they believe that through lawsuits for all, heavy unionization, taxing corporations far above what Europe does and putting up trade barriers, the Democrats will usher in an era of prosperity.
Sure they will. Well, at least the Democrat pols will remain prosperous, they have all of their huge trust funds in offshore tax havens.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
Simple answer to a very simple question ... how in the hell could the dems do any worse?
robes
· 1 year ago
Keep it up RNC. Maybe the dims are right about republicans being the stupid party.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
The way the Dems leaped onto this thread to shriek that it won't work, is proof positive that it will work.
Keep with it.
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Boy, you can really rationalize anything, can't you?
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Well, what would you have the RNC do? Simply surrender the issue to the Democrats?
Remember, the surrender strategy the Dems trot out regularly for Iraq, is only good for wars you never wanted to win in the first place. So that doesn't apply here.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Kind of neutralizes the Democrats "fiscal responsibility" nonsense, when you can point out that their brilliant new ideas will cost the country almost a trillion more.
The Democrats are anything but the party of fiscal responsibility, but when you can actually enumerate specifically why they are not, it's effective.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
well.. it DOES
but you can't bring up the issue when you are largely responsible for some of the biggest deficit spending in history.
that's when you "lose" the right to throw the first stone.
of course, I suppose they can say we voted for tax cuts (as spending was going thru the roof and they did nothing to rein it in)
could that be because they studied Economics 101 along with Creationism at Bob Jones University?
Monkei
· 1 year ago
The way the Dems leaped onto this thread to shriek
It will happen everytime a post is put up here that totally ignores the historic deficits run up by the drunken sailor GOP congress and president. Credibility ... something the GOP has none of in regards to spending.
All Comments
if I were a Dem strategist, I would just run this article.. over and over and over and over (and note this does NOT Include the Iraqi sinkhole)
How George Bush, Big Spender, Destroyed Nirvana: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Enlarge Image/Details
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- If you could go back in time to President George W. Bush's inaugural address and add one economic statement, what would it be? For me, there is an obvious answer.
If Bush had promised in January 2001 that the baseline of government spending that he inherited when he took office would be the cap during his term, then we would have a big budget surplus today. It would have been easy to do. He just had to say: ``I will not spend one penny more than President Bill Clinton planned to. I will veto any bill that tries to.''
I have written before in this space that Bush has outspent Clinton by a mile. With government spending still out of control, the gap between where we are and where a disciplined nation could have been is getting bigger and bigger.
With a recession looming, the policy implications of the spending explosion are serious. If a deep recession occurs, we will have less wiggle room.
To see how different the world could have been, I gathered data from a number of sources and ran an alternative history. In that wishful place, government spending was set equal to the spending envisioned by the Congressional Budget Office in the January 2001 long-run forecast, plus the spending for the war in Iraq and to fight terrorism. This simulation assumes that the war would have happened in spite of Bush's spending promise, and wouldn't have induced him to seek cuts elsewhere.
The difference between that spending path and the one we are on is huge. Today, we expect federal spending in 2008 will be $2.9 trillion. According to the alternative history, spending would be $2.5 trillion.
Surplus Fantasy
With spending at the lower level, we would have a surplus of $152 billion if revenue were equal to what it is currently projected to be.
Running the simulation forward, the gap between revenue gets wider and wider. By 2017, we are scheduled to spend almost $1 trillion more than we would have if we had stuck to the Clinton baseline. With the low spending baseline we would have a surplus in 2017 of $1.1 trillion, instead of the $151 billion surplus that's currently forecast.
Think of it this way. If we now had the lower spending levels that Bush inherited, we could extend his tax cuts, repeal the alternative minimum tax, enact the current stimulus package, and still have a 10-year budget surplus of $1.9 trillion. And, remember, that allows spending to be adjusted up for the Iraq war and the war against terrorists.
Many observers might say this scenario is unrealistic. The 2001 long-run forecast covered both discretionary and mandatory spending. No administration, the argument might go, could have held the line on the growth of Medicare and Social Security spending.
Hold the Line
There are two responses to that.
First, a president could always demand that spending be capped and that discretionary spending be reduced to offset unexpected increases in mandatory outlays. Social Security might be the third rail of American politics, but it might not be. It has been changed before. Why couldn't it be changed again? Families do that all the time. If Johnny needs braces, then you take fewer trips to the restaurant.
The second response is perhaps more powerful. Let's see what happens when we allow mandatory spending to go up as it did. This lets Bush have his prescription-drug benefit, which is now part of mandatory spending.
If we had held the line on everything else that is discretionary, we could have had the prescription-drug plan, the Iraq war and the war against terrorists. We could have kept all the Bush tax cuts, made them permanent, repealed the AMT and added the stimulus package and still ended up with a balanced budget from 2008 to 2017.
Bloated Uncle
It makes you sick to think about it. All that money wasted on ethanol and bridges to nowhere has accumulated into a pile that massive. Uncle Sam ate a whopping helping of apple pie every day for seven years, and now he is obese.
This is important to bear in mind as we move forward to the general election. We don't have a deficit because of Iraq, or the tax cuts, or the drug benefit. We have a deficit because the government grew fat. We can't fix that with tax increases. Uncle Sam must go on a diet.
A simple way to start would be this: Whoever is elected president this November should pledge that he or she won't spend $1 more than we currently plan to. If Bush had done that seven years ago, we would be in a different world.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
McCain will have to run as an individual, and is set to with his maverick public and media image and even with his trouble with the far Right. He can then fairly detail his past as a strong fiscal conservative and his ideas for the future involving lower spending to balance the budget while keeping taxes low. Obama will eventually have to detail how he will pay for all the hope, and there will be more audacity in the numbers than in the hope. He also has a history of votes to justify. Obama's best bet, and he knows it, is to define McCain as a continuation of the Bush Administration(he referenced McCain in his last victory speech as Bush-McCain) . While everyone who follows politics knows this to be absurd, McCain will have to be very clear in making the distinction of how his policies and ideology differ from Bush and the recent Congress, while at the same time not angering those on the Right who still love Bush.
regardless of how much Obama will drive up spending.
does the RNC and do the Republicans have a SCINTILLA of credibility on this issue now?
No.
It's revisionism to try and isolate the blame on that. Even the democratic base knows it.
A national plan that is only 8 times bigger than my little old State?
If Obama or Clinton would impose their "universal healthcare" in a similar manner as that proposed by my legislators, the annual bill would be more along the lines of $369 trillion a year ($1230 per person, 300 million people in the U.S.).
Or maybe my State's plan should be closer to $1.5 billion a year.....
You're right though. My point is that either Obama's plan is far from "comprehensive", or that my State's plan is overstated.
Either way, the combined tax hits are tremendous.
Sorry, but you are whistling past the graveyard.
McCain can respond to any comments about the 'Everest of Debt' with the roll call majority of Democratic congressmen and women who voted for those expenditures as well.
And be serious. Unregulated financial markets didn't cost 'average folks' their homes. Unwise financial decisions are what cost the vast majority of people their homes. Or are you trying to tell me that people are too stupid to calculate interest? What cost these people their homes, is making a home purchase beyond their means based on speculation that the housing market would continue to rise.
I live in the city with the highest foreclosure rate of any in the entire country. Three of my co-workers, and 4 of my friends are facing foreclosure (in only 1 of 7 cases is the foreclosure on a primary residence). Every one of them knew the chances they were taking, and every one of them now expects the government to help bail them out.
What a crock.
Obama will hang the GOP Congress and George (30%) Bush around McCain's neck. get ready to see the infamous McCain-Bush hug photo all over the place.
Obama has promised to pull them out from a knowledge position that's at or below sea level. If the guy becomes President and gets access, I wonder what his tune will be then? Once you are inside Washington, you are no longer the outsider.
Republicans are all talk and no action.
McCain has to distinguish himself on fical discipline first, and point out the reality that Obama's spending plans will, invariably, be on top of the cost of the war.
Meanwhile, isn't there the danger here that such early criticism, rather than comprise effective opposition research to be highlighted later, will instead act as a corrective political consultancy to Obama (that he otherwise would not obtain internally) so that he can either mask or temper his program announcements before he goes before the elecorate?
Trying to blame Obama for doing what all candidates do (no specifics) is lame.
That's a cheap shot, I know, but let's be serious here. The Republican party has zero credibility when talking about fiscal discipline. Democrats might not be much better, but at least the last Democratic president left us with a surplus, not a deficit. Which was promptly wiped out by the following, ahem, Republican president (and his Republican congress).
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
This is only a segment of Cliff Kinkaid's "Action in Media's" piece. Further information is available either through Kinkaid's newsletter/blog or the link at www.warroom.com.
Doesn't it bother the Obama fans that their messiah is rushing through a bill that has not been subject to scrutiny? that has had no hearings?
An examination of Obama's senatorial record shows rather anemic legislation-- lots of post office namings and recognitions of Black figures .. He's up there in league with John Kerry for inconsequentiality.
This current legislation, however, indicates how dedicated Obama is to his own vision of a new world order and the role of the US in the collectivization and redistribution of our wealth.
They need to take the plank out of their own eye before worrying about the $850 billion speck in Barack's.
US Debt clock - now at $ 9 1/4 trillion. Nice job Repubs.
And the Dems duly changed from Dean to Sen Kerry (who went on to lose anyway).
I don't see a lot of noise about Sen Obama. Perhaps we've learned to wait till the unelectable candidate is the nominee before we begin criticism?
Now, last I saw, electricity came only in analog -- alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC); our current grids transmit only those two types of power (Wikipedia agrees). So this digital electricity grid must be something completely new and revolutionary.
I looked on Google. On Barack Obama's campaign site (which does NOT have a search function, so boy was that hard). On Barack Obama's government site. Nothing indicates what digital electricity is, except that the term comprises one part of a sentence on barackobama.com.
Maybe Al Gore knows. It could be related to the Internet. Obama needs to explain to us technical insophisticates just why we ought to convert to digital electricity.
Probably means that it's either on or off. Californians under Grey Davis know what that is.
It was never just on or off -- occasionally it was boomeranging off Washington or Idaho.
Davis was not the problem, nor could he have devised a solution in time even had he realized early-on that there was a problem. Note that it took Schwartzenegger a year to fix the Path 15 problems which drove so many power generators out of business and allowed Enron to "boomarang" power trans-state and profit from the arbitrage thereof.
This is a prime example of the need for federal regulation of the energy transmission market.
It's not clear whether Obama is referring to this, or whether Obama would understand what this technology is and how well it would work. But who cares whether it works or not? It sounds cool like "hope" and "change" and voters will buy it and pay for it because The Great Anointed One has written it, and anyone who dares question its value, feasibility, or cost is so, like, you know, unenlightened and so, like, you know, 20th Century, and so, like, you know, anti-hope. You gotta see the light, whether or not the lights stay on.
Dixit Oprah-bama: The Kingdom is coming on Earth, and Obama is Da Man, and thou shalt not ask questions to Da Man!
/sarcasm (for Obama dreamers who might not have noticed).
So, with regard to your exposition (;}) you are claiming that Barack is setting up to take credit after the fact for something that's already happened. Sort of like Al Gore inventing the Internet. Got it.
Reporter: Senator Obama, how are you going to pay for all your hope and change?
Obama: I haven't ideated that yet. Ask me in 2009.
Let's hope the 4 trillion deficit in 7 years by W and company is something that will never happen again.
the President of the RINO's, John McCain railed against this stuff for years.
meanwhile the radio rabble rousers, and all the self proclaimed REAL Republicans (like sleazeball De Lay and friends) were voting for all of this and more.
while cutting taxes.
like I said.. Econ 101 and Creationism.. a package 2 for 1 course deal taught at Bob Jones University.
You can make this statement until the cows come home captain ... the thought process among the rest of the country (those not in the GOP meaning independents and dems) is that the GOP has controlled and ran up spending at an incredible pace ... although McCain is a voice for spending controls, his party did very little and increased spending during their years of control.
Seems to me there's not much "thought" going on at all, if they believe that through lawsuits for all, heavy unionization, taxing corporations far above what Europe does and putting up trade barriers, the Democrats will usher in an era of prosperity.
Sure they will. Well, at least the Democrat pols will remain prosperous, they have all of their huge trust funds in offshore tax havens.
Keep with it.
Remember, the surrender strategy the Dems trot out regularly for Iraq, is only good for wars you never wanted to win in the first place. So that doesn't apply here.
The Democrats are anything but the party of fiscal responsibility, but when you can actually enumerate specifically why they are not, it's effective.
but you can't bring up the issue when you are largely responsible for some of the biggest deficit spending in history.
that's when you "lose" the right to throw the first stone.
of course, I suppose they can say we voted for tax cuts (as spending was going thru the roof and they did nothing to rein it in)
could that be because they studied Economics 101 along with Creationism at Bob Jones University?
It will happen everytime a post is put up here that totally ignores the historic deficits run up by the drunken sailor GOP congress and president. Credibility ... something the GOP has none of in regards to spending.