It is currently 04/28/24 8:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 21 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/09 12:20 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Interesting ~ and understandable ~ Sooz



Who is responsible for the projected future deficits?
Image

Center on budget and Policy Priorities

There's been a lot of complaining about the president this week, myself included. But one thing he does not deserve blame for are the projected structural deficits over the next decade.

According to a new report issued by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, and based on figures from the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush43 tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are responsible for a much bigger share of the annual deficit projections than TARP, the stimulus package and even effects of the economic downturn (i.e., lost treasury revenues) combined.

Yes, Tea Party Nation, you read that correctly: All of this big government socialism that has so frightened you is dwarfed by the deficit contributions of those tax cuts for the most wealthly Americans. But please, run out in the streets with your Obama/Joker signs defending those in Jay-Z's tax bracket. Now, more than ever, they need your help.

Sniping aside, look: You can hold Obama accountable for TARP, since he supported it, and of course the stimulus. Though he hasn't withdrawn fully from Iraq and is ramping up in Afghanistan, you can only proliferate or scale back something somebody else started, so even that is at best a push for GWBush. You could even argue that as we move forward the treasury losses of the downturn gradually become Obama's responsibility.

But the tax cuts? That's all on you, George. (Well, W, his fellow Republicans, and the Dems who voted with them.)

The report--the title of which actually says it all: President Obama Largely Inherited Today's Huge Deficits: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers--summarizes its findings as follows:

Quote:

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to astronomical levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration's control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the Presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

While President Obama inherited a bad fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation's deficit problem. But we should all recognize how we got where we are today.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... index.html



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/16/09 1:26 pm • # 2 
Take out the Bush era tax cuts, the economic downturn (on Bush's watch, remember) and the two wars (also on his watch) and it doesn't leave much to Obama.... even TARP and the Stimulus Package don't make much of a dent.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/16/09 1:43 pm • # 3 
Obama's only had a little less than 11 months. He'll make a large contribution to the deficit picture over his eight years.

His policies are doing nothing to reduce a structural deficit. In fact, the health insurance reform bill will contribute mightily to it once the spending kicks in in 2013 or 2014. Over the 10 years starting at that point, it's going to cost an enormous amount and add significantly to the deficit. Spending the first year will be on the order of $250 billion; with increases due solely to inflation, that number will increase significantly over time. Given that tax increases are starting before the spending kicks in, the deficit is guaranteed to be increased once the spending kicks in.

Add to that the fact that he has pledged to redirect the war spending to other programs as the wars wind down, and you can see that ending the wars will not reduce the deficit in an Obama world.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/16/09 1:50 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
LOL gop ~ well, then I'll point at Obama when it's HIS turn ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/16/09 1:57 pm • # 5 
The problem lies less with any individuals than it does with government's inexorable expansion. Once begun, programs are almost never eliminated or reduced to any significant extent, and the bloating process takes over. Programs each have their constituencies, with politicians who count on the support of those constituencies promoting and defending those programs tooth and nail. Trying to change that and control deficit spending resembles an ant trying to tear down Mt. Everest.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/17/09 5:17 am • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
I'd like to see the feds eliminate the Dept of Education and trim/ consolidate and eliminate programs in Health and Human Services. Also, reform federal drug laws and minimum sentencing and eliminate the federal death penalty except in cases of high treason ( or altogether) and that would save a boatload of $$$$ too.

Queen for President 2010


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/17/09 5:42 am • # 7 
Queen... you said: "I'd like to see the feds eliminate the Dept of Education and trim/ consolidate and eliminate programs in Health and Human Services"


At your convenience, I'd be intersted in learning why you feel this way about the Dept of Education and what programs you would trim/consolidate in Health and Human Services.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/17/09 5:43 am • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
What programs would you "trim/consolidate/eliminate" in Health and Human Services, queenie? ~ given the VAST inequities even with the federal Department of Education, I shudder to think of how state-controlled education would play out ~ especially in "creationism"-prone states ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/17/09 6:37 am • # 9 
States rely on federal funds to provide an education to their students. There needs to be a Dept of Ed to disseminate those funds etc. It could be under some other department, but they give out billions a year to states to fund their educational programs.

Take a gander and see what your state receives as part of the federal grants...

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/10stbystate.pdf


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/17/09 10:38 am • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
As to DOE- I have no problem with the federal government awarding money to states for education, however, I don't think the federal government should administer education. It has always been a local responsibility- there was not even a DOE until Reagan, I believe. Education is done much better on a local basis. Schools can teach students things that fuel the local economy, partner with local colleges and businesses. It is silly to think that everyone from coast to coast needs to know the same things. I think it is silly to believe that all 250,000 students in my county should be taught the same things or tested on the same things. There is too much knowledge available to young people- they should have more of an opportunity to pursue their interests starting at preschool rather than trying to make factory drones out of all of them. Not ot mention this could go a long way in promoting independent thinking, decision making skills, health, and exercise rather than following directions and sitting still and not being disruptive

HHS is just a huge monster with tons of duplication and overlap amongst its many divisions. Many spend too much money on their own research, which I believe would be best used by granting it out to research universities and hospitals. They do that now, but they should do it completely and get out of the business of doing it themselves. I think governemnt should fund stem cell research, not do it. ( for example)

I'm not against most of the things these departments do- just don't think it should be the federal government doing them.

Most of you know my views on education and large government from the old education thread and anyone who has been around the board for awhile knows I am a small federal government advocate and local control advocate


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/17/09 11:36 am • # 11 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
It is silly to think that everyone from coast to coast needs to know the same things.

Localized math? I'm not quite following I guess. Please give me an example.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/17/09 12:48 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
I am (forgive the pun) old school on this. I think there is knowledge that's a pre-requisite to good citizenship

Civics - a basic knowledge of the structure of government, and the basic philosophy that undergirds it. An understanding that there are compteting interests
in our society, and that there are methods of compromise and accomodation to reconcile them.
Math - As much as the student can tolerate
Basic American History - How things got the way they are, however you feel about the way things are.
A World Civics course - A basic understanding of the physical geography of the earth and also its political geography
Physical sciences - as much as the student can tolerate
Economics - Basic business theory and personal money/wealth management
Art/ music/drama - Because it's just so good for them

I think every student needs all of the above.


Last edited by grampatom on 12/17/09 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/17/09 1:24 pm • # 13 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
Ok- so how does the federal DOE do a better and more efficient job than your local authority in seeing that those items are taught?

And Jabra- I'm not saying every jurisdiction has to have some thing different than every other jurisdiction- that's just as silly. I'm just saying that local determination and local administration does it better. There may be slight differnces in the emphasis based on local industry- if you live amongst coal mines perhaps only those kids going to college outside of your jurisdiction need advanced calculus and if you live in silicone valley, perhaps there is a need for people who may only get a HS diploma to have more math centered skills to work in the local economy.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/18/09 4:03 am • # 14 

Actually the reason the feds got involved in the first place is because local administration and local determination DID NOT do it better. So Kansas decides not to teach evolution or Mississippi decides that kids don't need to learn English past the 10th grade. NCLB is a safeguard that students are getting an adequate minimum education. That's about it.

I most definitely do not believe that kids should only learn enough to be coal miners or cocktail waitresses because they are the primarily jobs in your vicinity. I am not against school to work programs or community involvement, but I don't believe you just teach regional interest subject matter. You've just shrunk the world into one little community.

The advanced calculus students are generally there as a result of innate ability and hard work. Even in large high schools they only have a handful of students. That could never be a state/fed requirement. .



Top
  
PostPosted: 12/18/09 5:42 am • # 15 
Take the tax rates back to what they were in the 1950's and the deficit problems disappear.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/09 10:01 am • # 16 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
Kathy, I disagree with you completely that the federal government has made anything better in education. There just isn't any evidence that students who have been educated under federal oversight are any more successful than students who were not. The definition of successful I am using refers to further education, future earnings, decrease in incidence of mental health problems, substance abuse and criminal activity. The only thing that the evidence shows is that they do better on the tests that measure only whether certain reading and math skills have been been acquired. A good education is so much more, and I think some school have managed to provide on in spite of NCLB and other federal initiatives.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/09 10:14 am • # 17 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
Obama's only had a little less than 11 months. He'll make a large contribution to the deficit picture over his eight years.

His policies are doing nothing to reduce a structural deficit. In fact, the health insurance reform bill will contribute mightily to it once the spending kicks in in 2013 or 2014. Over the 10 years starting at that point, it's going to cost an enormous amount and add significantly to the deficit. Spending the first year will be on the order of $250 billion; with increases due solely to inflation, that number will increase significantly over time. Given that tax increases are starting before the spending kicks in, the deficit is guaranteed to be increased once the spending kicks in.

Add to that the fact that he has pledged to redirect the war spending to other programs as the wars wind down, and you can see that ending the wars will not reduce the deficit in an Obama world.
gop- would you favor repealing the Bush tax cuts?

if not, how do you reconcile the irresponsibility of the UNPRESCEDENTED combination of cutting taxes and waging war?


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/18/09 10:19 am • # 18 
queenoftheuniverse wrote:
Kathy, I disagree with you completely that the federal government has made anything better in education. There just isn't any evidence that students who have been educated under federal oversight are any more successful than students who were not. The definition of successful I am using refers to further education, future earnings, decrease in incidence of mental health problems, substance abuse and criminal activity. The only thing that the evidence shows is that they do better on the tests that measure only whether certain reading and math skills have been been acquired. A good education is so much more, and I think some school have managed to provide on in spite of NCLB and other federal initiatives.

i agree with this. However, I do believe the basics should be required by every school. The fed hasn't done a thing to improve education. No child left behind. And no, that is not a dig at Bush. Teachers I know say there no longer educated their students but taught them what they needed to pass federal mandated tests.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/18/09 10:55 am • # 19 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I am NOT a fan of NCLB ~ the program has some wonderful [and enormously expensive] goals, but the gwb administration failed miserably by instituting federal mandates withOUT providing the PROMISED funding ~ a significant portion of the mandates are teacher credentialing and the like, NOT focused on real measurable educational goals ~ I agree with Gramps about providing a wide spectrum education ~ while I believe that every child should be taught basic "reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic", children have widely differing "affinities", and those "affinities" should be identified and included in curriculum ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/09 9:21 am • # 20 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
More fact ~ I specifically agree with Steve Benen's comment at the end ~ Sooz


By Pat Garofalo on Dec 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Rep. Price Blames The Short-Term Stimulus For Long-Term 'Unsustainable' Deficits

Since the Obama administration came into office, Republicans have been hypocritically trying to pin it with responsibility for long-term budget deficits, despite the fact that it was the GOP that turned a surplus into record deficits while setting the economy up for a crash (necessitating deficit spending as a response).

But writing on The Hill's Congress Blog, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) took this to a new level, claiming that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e. the economic stimulus package) is somehow responsible for our long-term deficits:

Quote:

The deficits created by the stimulus are not only unsustainable in the long-term, but have grown so large they threaten economic stability today. As the big-government approach has predictably let Americans down, it's time for a new approach. That's why, working with my Republican colleagues, I have introduced a pair of measures that would pull the plug on the ill-fated stimulus.

Economic stimulus is, by definition, short-term, so Price's notion really makes no sense. But if Price is honestly interested in where the long-term deficits come from, he should take a look at this report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). CBPP wrote that "some commentators blame recent legislation - the stimulus bill and the financial rescues - for today's record deficits. But those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit," including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush tax cuts (which are the largest culprit). Here's a nice chart that CBPP prepared:

Image

Notice how little of the 2012-2019 deficits are due to the stimulus. Price wasn't around to vote on the Bush tax cuts or the wars, but would he have exhibited such concern about deficits then?

Image

And since we're on the subject, the stimulus isn't even primarily responsible for this year's increase in spending. As Michael Linden pointed out, only 18 percent of the spending increase from 2008 to 2009 is due to the stimulus. The rest is mostly TARP, the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and increased spending on unemployment benefits and entitlements. Again, the report comes complete with a handy chart (above).

As Steve Benen wrote, "this isn't just about pointing fingers for self-satisfaction or partisan vanity. It's important for the public to realize who's responsible, in large part because it's important for the public to weigh policymakers' credibility. If GOP lawmakers embraced policies that are almost entirely responsible for the deficit those same lawmakers are now complaining about, it's a relevant detail." And maybe The Hill should start fact-checking these pieces before publishing them.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... e-deficit/



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/09 3:15 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
yep. 18%
that is up from 16% according to the last estimate.
i am doubting it will rise over 20% in year 1.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 21 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.