StrangeSox

RealClimate's got some brief commentary

I don't think the tea partiers have any problem at all with making this a political issue again in six months. I certainly haven't heard that objection anywhere. It's mostly been about wanting larger cuts. Reid said he wouldn't pass Boehner's bill. Obama's said he'd veto it. Part of the reason is that it's a short term plan guaranteed to make it an even-more difficult election issue fight in a few months, but there are other as Balta pointed out.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) Well I suppose that's true, though do we know whether they wont agree to the plan more because of the timing issues? They want larger cuts and a balanced budget amendment first, or in some cases are happy to let a default happen. edit: what are you specifically referring to as the "timing issue"?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:10 PM) Alright but you're talking about two things that politicians won't drop or change much because of their personal interest in keeping the defense/health care lobbies happy. So again, without anything to force them to do it, what will? If you take off the table the actual drivers of debt, nothing, obviously. And as I said, even with a requirement, they'll simply find ways around it, like not counting spending trillions on wars. It also sets up an extremely easy way to follow the "starve the beast" idea--Republicans cut taxes as much as possible when in control, thus forcing significant government expenditure cuts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) Well, the first answer is: grow the **** economy. As long as we're at 9% unemployment, we'll never close the gap. The second answer is...some still significant additional overhauls to the entire health care system. You do those 2 things, and you've eliminated 95% of the problem. Also those two wars and those tax cuts that account for a huge chunk of the current deficit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) And if you make it any economic crisis, then what you've got is toothless. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were justified because of the economic weakness following the tech bubble and 9/11, and then the wars didn't have to be paid for. Right, which is why I said it's either strong enough such that it's terrible or it's weak enough such that it's meaningless. There's no good that comes out of it, especially not some of the absurd versions proposed lately that cap the budget at arbitrary percentages of GDP.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) Well given the fact that they won't do it on their own, what's your solution? There is no solution. The system is doomed. Enjoy the ride while you can.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:57 PM) This is bulls***. They made concessions regarding an increase in revenues that they didn't want to make. And you can't say this with a straight face when Reid is doing the same thing (which you accurately pointed out a page or two ago) by saying he'd reject the bill before even knowing what will eventually be in it. Boehner made concessions. It's pretty apparent now that they would never have been approved by a large chunk of the House GOP since they rejected something with zero revenues.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) Unless you could have gotten a 60% vote in Congress, that would have required nearly $1 trillion in cuts/tax increases happen between mid-2008 and mid-2009 due to the financial collapse and expansion of unemployment. That version didn't appear to allow for a more generic "crisis," only militaristic threats to national security.

That would have made Keynesian economic policy unconstitutional. It would have required drastic spending cuts as GDP fell off a cliff, amplifying the cycle instead of stopping it. It would make the current struggle to get 217 House votes look like a joke. It incentivizes screwing around with the budget and not counting spending on things like $1B/day in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budgets. In short, it doesn't actually force Congress to follow any reasonable fiscal policy and seriously constrains their ability to react to a crisis.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Then make a rule about timing that wouldn't allow that kind of maneuver to happen. I dunno, just on a basic level I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't have a balanced budget every year, with any surplus either going back to the American people or going to pay down the deficit. Those surplus tax cuts somehow end up being structural tax relief for job creators.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Well no one is proposing a hard rule. And I think you could clearly spell out what to do in situations like that without upsetting the general rule that the budget needs to be balanced. Here's something from the Washington Post that explains some of the potential problems and lack of any real benefits. I don't have a problem with balanced budgets when we're at or near full employment in principle. You shouldn't be running substantial deficits when the economy is performing well because it'll leave you unable to respond adequately to a crisis, both fiscally and politically.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) I think we can all agree that tea party republicans are acting like immature school children in regard to this debate. Any debate you enter and say, no matter what we will not -- instantly makes you a f***ing idiot in the political arena. And this is exactly what some of these idiots are doing. It works if you make the other side believe that you'll let the whole thing go to s*** on principle, get enormous policy concessions and then "compromise" at the last minute to something ever-so-slightly to the right of what you're demanding. The tea partiers forgot the last part or honestly believe that a default* really won't be a big deal or, as some are arguing, would be good in the long run. *ck, you can spare the "it's not a default!" quibble that we technically may not default on bonds, though there's a huge constitutional issue on the ability to prioritize the payments.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) Why is a hard rule terrible policy? A hard rule would mean no exceptions. Well, you can run deficits in perpetuity as long as they don't eclipse a certain ratio of GDP growth. And as you've recognized, there are plenty of situations in which it may be necessary for government to outspend what it brings in. To handcuff the ability to respond to a crisis with either positive action or simply letting automatic stabilizers kick in with the requirement of a supermajority vote of Congress is to essentially have a hard cap in place. Imagine if we had another financial crisis 20 years from now, GDP plummets and bring revenues along with it. In order to let the safety net spending occur or, god forbid, enact fiscal stimulus, one party could hold the entire economy hostage to demand radical (and largely tangential) policy changes. Now, I know that doesn't seem likely...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) Sure there is. In 2030, when China owns 50+% of the US debt, and begins playing fiscal games with that leverage, congress can threaten to force a default and give them the finger...so they can get their phone call.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) I'm not necessarily blaming the democrats in this specific case, when talking about what's been on the table the last few weeks or what's on the table now. Obviously, the tea party asshats of the republican party are sabotaging any sort of 'meet in the middle' agreement here. They're sabotaging substantially pro-Republican agreements here because they live in a fantasy world where the US government failing to pay its bills is somehow a non-issue. Ironically, if this were true, they would have must less bargaining power.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) It makes no sense in forcing the whole issue to come up again 1.5 years down the road, either. This is politics at play. If it's 1.5 years down the road, it's AFTER the general election (how convenient for them), if it's just 6 months, and then another 6 months, it's BEFORE said election. Either fix it long term, or don't quibble about 6 months vs 1 year vs 1.5 years. Because I have some news for you, those are ALL SHORT TERM FIXES. Let me amend my previous statement: Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now because of Republican intransigence. You can't blame the Democrats for not endorsing any longer-term plans. Additionally, there is no need to conflate the debt and the deficit and you can fix long-term fiscal policy (if there is a substantial problem) while still voting to pay for things you already voted for. The long-term fix to the debt ceiling is either a massive cap increase or elimination of the arbitrary cap. The long-term fix to budget deficits is related, of course, but different.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:58 PM) The Democrats didn't have the Senate in 2007? That doesn't seem right. Ah I forgot that Sanders and Leiberman were both I's but essentially D's. It fluctuated between 51 Democrats in effect and a 50/50 split.

I don't think the Democrats are positioning Reid's proposal as a "long-term solution" to US fiscal policy other than contrasting it against Boehner's obviously short-term solution. Or, if they are, it's bulls***. That still doesn't paint forcing this whole issue again in six months as anything but a bad idea. Obama's "Grand Bargain" or the Simpson-Bowles or Gang of Six plans you could argue were long term solutions, but those are obviously off the table for now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:45 PM) That's the thing, if you look at his last post, you and I would probably both agree with everything in it. The government should be no larger than is necessary for appropriate regulation, maintenance, and defense of the nation and its population. We disagree on the things the government should do, but I don't think anyone here would sensibly argue that government should be larger for the sake of having a larger government, rather than government should be a tool to accomplish a certain goal ss2k5 and I obviously disagree on the definitions of "no larger than is necessary for appropriate regulation, maintenance, and defense of the nation and its population," that's all I was getting it. That a conservative and a left-liberal who have substantial philosophical differences on the role of government can recognize the negative impacts of the policies that are being pushed.

The Democrats didn't take over the Senate or the WH until January 2009, though you can say that the House Democrats voted for short-term increases when it was a non-issue. It's been the same for the AMT, the "doc fix" and I'm sure plenty of other policies and agencies. I'm still failing to see how this is dems putting politics above country but not reps doing the same when there's pretty clear evidence that another fight over the same issue in a few months will only have negative impacts on our economy. I think that, regardless of who benefits politically, pushing this past the 2012 elections benefits is the right move because we really, really don't need an even more difficult fight over this that'll start pretty much as soon as this one ends.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) Medicare still needs to be improved/overhauled somewhat although the PPACA helped the projections significantly, the defense department needs to be cut back significantly, the wars need to end. Those are cuts you'd agree to, right? I do not know enough about Medicare to comment, yes to the other two. I was referring to the very large gap between mine and ss2k5's vision of the proper size and scope of government.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) You must just be used to typing that. Sorry for the lack of clarity (again), we disagree on the necessity of cuts going forward once the economy has recovered.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:26 PM) Assuming they put in some sort of "in extreme circumstances" clause (war, recession, etc), why is a balanced budget amendment a bad idea? They're using the same language that Democrats proposed in the mid-90's. It's either a hard rule and thus terrible policy or you neuter it such that it's essentially meaningless. Especially given the perpetual state of war we find ourselves in.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) It is a bad idea in a bad economy. There already is no confidence in the white house right now. Immediate cuts could really kill things. Once the economy recovers, there needs to be real movement on cuts. And not these pittances being bandied about like they are lots of money. Right, and on that we disagree. I'm just glad that someone I perceive as pretty staunchly conservative is seeing the policy that's being offered up as terrible for the same reasons I do.