WP: What the press isn't telling you about Obama's budget

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/the_budget_headlines_we_need.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Its not "Faux News" so don't start bashing the source if you disagree with the merits of this article

What the press isn't telling you about Obama's budget

The amazing thing about the budget debate is how easily mainstream press coverage is steered toward the conversation our two major political parties prefer to have, as opposed to the debate the country needs. This week, the stenographic coverage our "leaders" count on features the administration's proposed $1.1 trillion in ten years deficit reduction versus the House Republicans' battles to shave up to $100 billion from this year's spending. Any independent look at what the parties are proposing would instead result in screaming headlines like these:

-ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES 1 PERCENT CUT IN PLANNED SPENDING OVER NEXT TEN YEARS: Plan to Trim $400 billion of $45 Trillion Weirdly Touted By President As "Walking The Walk On Fiscal Discipline"

-OBAMA CALLS FOR $7.2 TRILLION IN NEW BORROWING OVER NEXT DECADE: By 2021, Would Double National Debt Accumulated Between Nation's Founding and 2010

-PUNY DEFENSE TRIMS HYPED AS BIG DEAL: Gates Plan to Shave 2 Percent Off Next $3.5 Trillion in Pentagon Spending Somehow Mutes Critics; U.S. To Still Spend Vastly More On Arms Than Rest Of World Combined

-WHITE HOUSE TOUTS EDUCATION "INVESTMENTS" THAT ACCOMPLISH LITTLE COMPARED TO NEED: "Expanded" Pell Grants Cover Much Smaller Portion of Tuition Than They Did in 1970s; Tiny 'Race To The Top' Sequel Assures 'Small Ball' On Schools for Rest of President's Term

-FEDERAL INTEREST EXPENSE TO QUADRUPLE FROM $207 BILLION TO $844 BILLION A DECADE FROM NOW; Amount Diverted to Unproductive Use Could Have Funded Serious American Renewal Agenda

-ROSY SCENARIO LETS WHITE HOUSE CLAIM DEFICIT WILL STABILIZE AT 3 PERCENT OF GDP; Administration's Growth Assumptions Exceed Private Forecasters', But Make Numbers Work Politically

Of course, the charades are bipartisan:

Click link for rest

[mjah]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/the_budget_headlines_we_need.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Its not "Faux News" so don't start bashing the source if you disagree with the merits of this article

Given the last couple of would-be headlines pointing out the equally fable-based nature of the GOP's preferred budget, there's no chance that this article would have appeared on the Fox Commentary Channel. Nice diversion attempt, though.

Since you didn't quote those GOP-unfriendly headlines for whatever reason (I know, I know, they were behind the link), here they are:

-GOP DEBT KING STILL CALLING KETTLE BLACK: Paul Ryan, Whose 'Roadmap' Doesn't Balance Budget for Decades and Adds $62 Trillion In Debt, Still Dubbed "Fiscal Conservative" As He Slams Obama For Spending, Debt

-DEFICIT REVEALED AS MOSTLY REVENUE, NOT SPENDING PROBLEM; Obama Plan to Run Government at 22.7 Percent Of GDP vs. Reagan's 22 Percent, But With Older Population Confirms That Taxes Must Rise To Balance Budget As Boomers Age

Neither party is realistic about our debt problems, largely because it's politically impossible to do anything about them -- thanks to us, the fantasy-world American voting collective. We want fiscally responsible government but nobody can agree on what needs to get cut. We want what we want, we don't want to pay for it, we want someone else to take the entire hit for "balancing the budget" in a way that leaves our individual pet causes largely untouched, and that is why we are screwed. Skuh-roooooed.

This is a bit tangential, but blaming "the politicians" and "the mentality in Washington" -- as if the entire thing somehow is not driven by us in the end -- is just a bunch of BS.

[deejaydana]

look no futher than california where we've voted into law every imaginable form of bond and measure. Now we're gridlocked because it turns out we actually have to pay for them

[TheGreatBuzz]

look no futher than california where we've voted into law every imaginable form of bond and measure. Now we're gridlocked because it turns out we actually have to pay for them

Amen to that. I am not saying Cali is the root of all evil but......CALI IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

Anyways, I have never understood the mentallity of many Americans. "Cut the deficit. Just stay away from my paycheck/foodstamps/medicare/etc. and fix the potholes in my road!". But stop spending so much!!!

[mjah]

By paying for expanded government services through increased personal and corporate tax revenue, even CA could be solvent. If the programs are sufficiently worthy, then they're worth arranging payment for at the time they pass the legislature. And a small portion of that can come in the form of deficits, if need be.

But when entire pieces of $1T-plus federal legislation and various other massive-scale governmental actions go right to the deficit, and collectively we don't make a peep until those decisions are in the rear-view -- but at the same time even the folks who can afford it most are standing there with their hands out expecting tax cuts to go along with their expanded services -- we're already past the point of no return.

Stuff costs money. We need to pay more money if we want to get more stuff. But the logical appeal is worthless because with our nation's general level of decadence, we don't care enough to fix this. We don't have even the thin thread of communal all-in-this-togetherness necessary to fix it. So we won't.

Skuh-rooooed.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Skuh-rooooed.

I concur

[CurseReversed]

Unless everyone just votes Ron Paul and we try and cut ALL that crap. Even the stuff we personally think is important, its time to make compromises, even if congress wont.

[Predicto]

look no futher than california where we've voted into law every imaginable form of bond and measure. Now we're gridlocked because it turns out we actually have to pay for them

Amen to that. I am not saying Cali is the root of all evil but......CALI IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

Anyways, I have never understood the mentallity of many Americans. "Cut the deficit. Just stay away from my paycheck/foodstamps/medicare/etc. and fix the potholes in my road!". But stop spending so much!!!

Actually, that is the real problem with Cali. Not simple overspending. We have made it constitutionally impossible to generate reasonable tax revenue, yet also constitutionally require that money be spent on specific things. The real lesson to learn from Cali is that government by initiative and referendum is stupid to the core.

---------- Post added February-14th-2011 at 09:34 PM ----------

By paying for expanded government services through increased personal and corporate tax revenue, even CA could be solvent.

No. California already has relatively high income and corporate taxes, that hurt our competitiveness with other states.

The problem here is abnormally low property tax revenue, mandated by Prop 13.

We need to lower the former and raise the latter.

[Fergasun]

This has been going on for 30 years. I raised this exact issue when they talked about the deficit commission. I believe the commission would've only achieved a zero deficit in 2020 with their plan, but then the national debt would be something like $20T.

Liberals and conservatives both lost sight of the fact that if the country is broke and indebted they can't help out their constituencies. Furthermore, they are both losing the constituency that will matter in 20 years... the youth... (or maybe not... a young people can hope?). Or we could just look at them as catering to the largest mass of voters.

[wantarace17]

We really need a strong independent candidate to come along and slash everything. Unfortunately i don't see that happening

[mardi gras skin]

This is the first I've ever heard Paul Ryan's plan described as fiscally irresponsible.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

This is the first I've ever heard Paul Ryan's plan described as fiscally irresponsible.

Personally, I've heard it described that way quite a bit. :2cents:

[mardi gras skin]

I've heard it described that way quite a bit. :2cents:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I've heard people criticize the plan for cutting social security and medicare, but I haven't heard that his plan doesn't go far enough in cutting the deficit. This article is the first I've heard it criticized for making our debt problem worse.

Edit: From the CBO regarding Ryan's roadmap:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf

"The lower budget deficits under your proposal would result in much less federal debt than under the alternative fiscal scenario and thereby a much more favorable macroeconomic outlook...

...The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path, generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080. According to CBO’s textbook growth model, which incorporates the assumption that economic output is determined by the number of hours of labor that workers supply, the size and composition of the capital stock, and the state of technological expertise, real potential gross national product per person would continue to grow over the entire 75-year period (see Figure 4).10 The economy would" be considerably stronger under the proposal (as analyzed by CBO) than it would be under the alternative fiscal scenario. Real gross national product per person would be about 70 percent higher in 2058 under the proposal than under the alternative fiscal scenario."

Sounds good to me.

[Fergasun]

I liked the Deficit Commission recommendations best . I'm surprised that Obama is not out to cut. Quite frankly he proposed increased spending for Dept. of Education, Dept. of Transportation, and I think Department of Energy. It's hard to tell if those parts were put out there as "sacrificial compromises", which will get taken off the tables by Republicans. Republicans are weary of proposing entitlement reform; they are waiting for Obama to go first? I don't see how we don't get a government shut-down.

The way the Democrats punted on the budget, I'm interested in seeing if the GOP works to be responsible and pass their appropriations bills by October.

The expectations by the far-right regarding cuts are unrealistic.

[mjah]

No. California already has relatively high income and corporate taxes, that hurt our competitiveness with other states.

The problem here is abnormally low property tax revenue, mandated by Prop 13.

We need to lower the former and raise the latter.

Fair enough, but my point was that you have to pay for what you do, which means raising taxes to pay for it if you really want it. If taxation is already too high, then that should have been a signal: no tax hikes = no expanded services. Insolvency is worse than doing a slightly crappy job of serving the people.

I was lumping property taxes in with income as "personal" to call it "low," but I take your point about corporate taxation.

[Popeman38]

No. California already has relatively high income and corporate taxes, that hurt our competitiveness with other states.

The problem here is abnormally low property tax revenue, mandated by Prop 13.

We need to lower the former and raise the latter.

It's funny, here in Loudoun County, VA the BOS keeps using our property tax as an ATM. Economy tanks in 2006? Raise property tax from $.86/$100 to $.96. Economy still in tank in 2007? Raise the rate to $1.12. 2008? $1.20. 2009? $1.28. 2010? $1.30. 2011? $1.30 Now, for 2011, our property values have somehow started to inflate again based on the county "assessments". My townhouse went up $11,000 somehow, even though what they are selling for is at least $25k below what the county states it is worth. And what does the BOS propose for the new tax rate in 2012? $1.32.

My point is that what you have is WAY too restrictive, and what we have is way to lenient. There needs to be a middle ground established, which sounds like every other political discussion being held today. Hmm, imagine that......

[Fergasun]

It's funny, here in Loudoun County, VA the BOS keeps using our property tax as an ATM. Economy tanks in 2006? Raise property tax from $.86/$100 to $.96. Economy still in tank in 2007? Raise the rate to $1.12. 2008? $1.20. 2009? $1.28. 2010? $1.30. 2011? $1.30 Now, for 2011, our property values have somehow started to inflate again based on the county "assessments". My townhouse went up $11,000 somehow, even though what they are selling for is at least $25k below what the county states it is worth. And what does the BOS propose for the new tax rate in 2012? $1.32.

My point is that what you have is WAY too restrictive, and what we have is way to lenient. There needs to be a middle ground established, which sounds like every other political discussion being held today. Hmm, imagine that......

Why wasn't your BOS opposed in 2008, 2009 or 2010?

[Popeman38]

Fair enough, but my point was that you have to pay for what you do, which means raising taxes to pay for it if you really want it. If taxation is already too high, then that should have been a signal: no tax hikes = no expanded services. Insolvency is worse than doing a slightly crappy job of serving the people.

I was lumping property taxes in with income as "personal" to call it "low," but I take your point about corporate taxation.

I think what we need to to is base spending off revenue, not the other way around. Project expected revenue, and base your spending off that. The way the govt works today (from local BOS all the way to the top) is to project spending and find a way to raise revenue to that level. That has led directly to the budget shortfall we see contribute to the deficit. It really is an "easy" fix. Issue is, politicians need to have the backbone top look the people in the eye and say NO. And the people need to realize that it might hurt for a few years, but the payoff longterm is worth it. Course, instead we will get Ds promising to fix it, and Rs blaming the Ds. Then some Rs will promise to fix it, and the Ds will blame the Rs. =netloss

[Larry]

The way the Democrats punted on the budget, I'm interested in seeing if the GOP works to be responsible and pass their appropriations bills by October.

Note to Bang: We need a smiley that holds his breath until he explodes.

[Popeman38]

Why wasn't your BOS opposed in 2008, 2009 or 2010?

Wasn't an election year. This year is, and half are bailing on reelection. trust me, the populace is not happy that we have been used as an ATM to fund a bloated school system. Loudoun County has 13 high schools, 13 middle schools, and 51 elementary schools. Loudoun County, according to the 2010 census data, is just over 307k residents. We build high schools to a max capacity of 1,800, same for middle schools, and elementary schools to 800. LCPS account for 72% of the entire budget. And in the midst of the worst downturn in my lifetime insisted on expanding every aspect, including adding Mandarin and Pashtu.

[Fergasun]

Here's my quick take from listening to right-wing-radio the past couple of days:

1) GOP/Tea-party expectations are way too unrealistic. Will the GOP stand up and say "hey guy, be realistic here, we don't have the Senate or the Presidency?" Not likely. A lot of the right-wing-talkers are putting more pressure on Congress (note, the non-existence of moderate or left-talk radio kind've sucks here because maybe talk-radio is slanted).

2) I don't see the reconciliation between the House-Senate-Obama. Will the GOP push for a balanced budget Constitutional amendment (they are going to draft one within 1-month and vote on it!?!?). Obama proposed increased spending on Education and Transportation, ludicrous!

3) Here's the fights the GOP has taken since getting more political control. Tax cuts for the rich. Government spending cuts for the poor and middle class. There's the threat of a government shut-down hanging over Federal employees as well... notice how the GOP fought when their rich pals were going to get a tax hike.

It's true, due to talk-radio the Democrats are in a poor position to get their ideas out (I guess I have to wait for the MSM Sunday talk shows?). I was hoping for more triangulation from Obama, or at least more defense of budget policies. I think Obama is putting the Democrats in Congress in a tight spot here. People are going to remember that Obama/Democrats proposed increased spending for high speed rail and department of education...

[mjah]

maybe talk-radio is slanted.

Yeah, maybe. :pfft:

[DieselPwr44]

Anyways, I have never understood the mentallity of many Americans. "Cut the deficit. Just stay away from my paycheck/foodstamps/medicare/etc. and fix the potholes in my road!". But stop spending so much!!!

Here's the thing about budget dealings that tick me off:

Senator A: We should increase funding for this program by 10%

Senator B: Instead of increasing it 10% let's increase it just 4%.

Senator A runs to nearest camera...

"Seantor B and his party are gutting program X!!"

I mean, just what kind of BS are they shoveling up there?

[Major Harris]

\

This is a bit tangential, but blaming "the politicians" and "the mentality in Washington" -- as if the entire thing somehow is not driven by us in the end -- is just a bunch of BS.

unless we're bashing the GOP, in which case, BOMBS AWAYYYYYYYY. lol

[mjah]

unless we're bashing the GOP, in which case, BOMBS AWAYYYYYYYY. lol

Point missed.

...whiff...

LOL