Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Broder's Fiscal Inanity

Broder is upset that neither candidate said how he was going to trim his proposals to take into account the cost of the Big Bailout.

[Obama and McCain] were even more evasive when Lehrer pressed them to say how they would adjust their ambitious plans to accommodate the budgetary effects of that massive government expenditure.

It was Never-Never Land, as Obama and McCain struggled to avoid the full implications of this economic policy calamity. McCain finally threw out the possibility of a freeze on all federal expenditures except defense, veterans' care and entitlements -- but Obama immediately objected, citing his eagerness to boost early childhood education.

Perhaps the next two debates will offer opportunities to pin these artful dodgers down on how they would operate under the burdens the Bush administration will leave behind. Otherwise, the voters may go to the polls with only the vaguest idea of the truly tough choices the next president will face.

Broder also expressed his deep displeasure that Congress hasn't proposed to pay for the bailout with a tax hike.

Ha ha! Just kidding! Broder, of course, did no such thing. Broder's perfectly OK with this Administration's and this Congress' simply borrowing $700 billion for the Big Bailout, then sticking the next Administration with the bill.

But that Administration, of course, had better be fiscally prudent, on account of the debt that they're being stuck with.

That's how fiscal responsibility works in Broder's universe. If there's any sort of rhyme or reason to this, other than "Democrats are expected to be fiscally responsible, but Republicans aren't," I sure don't see it.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Shorter Broder: Next President, Unlike This One, Will Have To Tame the Deficit First

Yep, after eight years of Bush's and Cheney's wars and tax cuts growing the deficit, Broder says the next President will have to clean up after the elephants, rather than address other national priorities.
the next president, whoever he is, will probably inherit a budget that is at least $500 billion out of balance -- a record sum that will limit his ability to do any of the wonderful things being promised daily in the upbeat rhetoric of the campaign.
It's big, but it's not a record in any sense besides the nominal. The (humongous PDF) FY09 budget historical tables projected a FY09 deficit of about $407 billion, which would have been about 2.7% of GDP. So let's assume that $500 billion will be about 3.4% of GDP. As a percentage of GDP, that's smaller than two of Bush's deficits, smaller than all four of Bush Sr.'s deficits, smaller than five of Reagan's deficits, and smaller than both of Ford's deficits.

On the other hand, it's bigger than all of Carter's deficits and all of Clinton's deficits. Especially since Clinton racked up four surpluses.

There's a lesson there, for anyone with ears to hear. Not that many from the media are likely to point it out.

At any rate, Obama's main goals aren't to provide 'goodies,' even if they will ultimately improve the lives of Americans. He wants to get the U.S. out of Iraq, which will save us about $100 billion a year, starting a couple years down the road. That helps reduce the deficit. He wants to deal with global warming, through fully auctionable cap-and-trade permits. Dealing with global warming is far more urgent than dealing with the deficit (seems worth bolding, since the Broders of the world can't quite grasp this notion), but the cap-and-trade permit auctions will bring money into the Treasury, so they help reduce the deficit too.

Obama also wants to bring us closer to universal health care. With any luck, Congressional Dems will win this debate, and create a genuinely universal system that enables the government to get a handle on costs, just as England, France, Germany, Canada, the Scandinavian countries, etc., etc. have done. So that would also be a twofer.

McCain, on the other hand, wants to hand out even more tax cuts to rich people on top of what Bush has already passed. He would explode the deficit.

So if Broder's all so hep on fiscal responsibility, he's got one pretty good choice, and one absolutely catastrophic choice. But he's too 'evenhanded' to say so.