February 04, 2011
— Ace Did Congress routinely evade Gramm-Rudman debt limits? Sure.
But much fiscal good was done. Before the recession hit in 1990-91, the deficit had fallen to 2.8 percent of GDP from 5.1 percent, while the rate of annual discretionary spending (excluding social insurance programs) also had declined substantially.
Yes, that's true: Congress cheated its ass off but with Gramm-Rudman in place they were still limited and couldn't spend as much as they would have without it. (Though Pethokoukis ignores the fact that Gramm-Rudman forced Bush the Elder to raise taxes, and raising taxes, not just limiting spending, forced the deficit down -- a scenario Democrats always have in mind which we obviously don't prefer.)
Some other good things:
Based on Congressional Budget Office baseline forecasts, hitting the proposed Corker-McCaskill target would create a small projected surplus.
I'm inclined to ask In what year? 2063? but actually any plan that restores fiscal balance even that far out is preferable to the current plan of not having a plan and just going bankrupt. In fact, I think Ryan's own plan balances the budget... but not until 2063.
But even that reassurance of a year in the future when budgets will be balanced will have a positive impact on business and the economy.
Of course, this is all a big if, as Congress can vote to violate the law, even while claiming to be in compliance with it, whenever they like. As they did with Gramm-Rudman.
One more possible bonus: Because the law includes, for once, entitlements as budgetary areas that are subject to automatic cuts -- instead of how they are always treated, as "off-budget" and always immune to cuts -- this new law could force some sanguinary changes:
Some argue the cap is far too low given an aging U.S. population, rising healthcare costs and higher debt interest payments. Indeed, it would require a hefty 20 percent Medicare cut by 2025. But such reductions arenÂ’t unreasonable, says the CBO, if Medicare was to be turned into a subsidized voucher program for seniors, as some Republicans propose.
... which is a key part of the Ryan Roadmap.
Instapundit wrote to Corker yesterday and Corker defended his plan. About his 20.6% of GDP spending cap:
In addition, he notes that this is a lower number than either the Deficit Commission, or the Ryan roadmap (which he calls “great”) will achieve by 2022. The President’s commission would cut about $4 Trillion from the baseline budget; this would cut $7.8 Trillion. The difference, he says, compounds over time. “If we can do more, I’ll be the first to vote for it.”
It's probably better than I at first thought. I thought it might be useful but, as I said, only in conjunction with other spending cuts to happen now, and not as a replacement for such cuts. Maybe I can upgrade it to more useful than I thought but still we're going to need present action.
Congress has a very bad habit of expecting future Congresses to become all grown-up and serious-minded and courageous and do all the things the present Congress is too compromised and cowardly to do -- but future Congresses are just as compromised and cowardly. Time has proven it -- in fact, Congresses have become less responsible every generation.
Posted by: Ace at
10:55 AM
| Comments (107)
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.
To paraphrase John Roberts, the way to cut spending is to cut spending. Developing stupid rules that will be ignored has never cut a nickle out of the budget.
Posted by: Vic at February 04, 2011 11:01 AM (M9Ie6)
I have a question for the macro economic professionals out there.
If the Debt is 14 Trillion now, and we don't balance the budget til 2063, is it safe to say our debt will be in the 30 Trillion range by then?
Who is still lending money to us at that point?
Posted by: Ben at February 04, 2011 11:05 AM (wuv1c)
You've got Harkin out there lining up the mercenaries and camp followers to go to war on behalf of all the tax-suckers.
Posted by: JEM at February 04, 2011 11:05 AM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Lilikoi at February 04, 2011 11:10 AM (qQU5j)
If the Debt is 14 Trillion now, and we don't balance the budget til 2063, is it safe to say our debt will be in the 30 Trillion range by then?
Not an econ-recon man, but 30 trillion by 2063 seems like a very optimistic number, unless all the gray hairs get up and leave this mortal plane by then. Maybe 10 times more?
Who is still lending money to us at that point?
Nobody, unless they get some damn fine lending conditions from us.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 11:11 AM (9hSKh)
and I loved him when no one even realized the brilliance in that sexy sexy brain!!!
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 11:11 AM (p302b)
Posted by: compass and chain at February 04, 2011 11:12 AM (rc5Tb)
A senior U.S. official confirms there is evidence of fracturing and growing fissures within the leadership of the Egyptian government - NBC
/No link, headline from Breaking News Twitter.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 11:12 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: the math at February 04, 2011 11:13 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 11:15 AM (p302b)
The Cold Equations by Tom Godwin ©1954
Posted by: Adriane at February 04, 2011 11:17 AM (dIik4)
If the Debt is 14 Trillion now, and we don't balance the budget til 2063, is it safe to say our debt will be in the 30 Trillion range by then?
Who is still lending money to us at that point?
Posted by: Ben at February 04, 2011 03:05 PM (wuv1c)
No, at the rate we are going right now it will be $30 Trillion by 2024
Posted by: robtr at February 04, 2011 11:17 AM (hVDig)
I saw where there is a link in the sidebar to an article by Peggy Drunkebeforenoonan (I stole that from someone here, BTW) about Reagan in honor of his 100th.
Many of y'all may not have seen this, but to me it exemplefies his character better than anything I've have ever read or heard about him. It gives me a lump in my throat every time I read it.
Posted by: beedubya at February 04, 2011 11:20 AM (AnTyA)
Ace good post. I read InstaPundits comments and also the summary of Corker's proposed bill. It seems to make sense. The key is the supermajority requirements of 3/5ths in both chambers.
What is a little misleading is the 'Emergency Spending' issue. It is great that specific definitions for Emergency Spending will be codified into law under Corker's plan. However, any spending above the cap can be done as long as there are supermajority votes in both chambers. That said, it is a moot point to even really discuss specific definitions of emergency spending and codifying them in statute IF the Above Cap spending's universal qualifier is supermajority votes period - irrespective if if fits the definition of Emergency Spending or not.
Is there a comparison somewhere between Corker's plan and that of Orin Hatch's Balanced Budget Amendment?
Posted by: journolist at February 04, 2011 11:28 AM (iHfo1)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 04, 2011 11:28 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 04, 2011 11:29 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 11:32 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: grognard at February 04, 2011 11:34 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: USS Diversity at February 04, 2011 11:38 AM (DLxD/)
But if you can't borrow, you can't spend more than you take in, and there is a hard limit to taxation.
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 11:40 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 11:41 AM (p302b)
And projections of a balanced budget 50 years out? That alone shows how unserious all this is being.
Posted by: nickless the stil-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 11:41 AM (qdtoY)
We're supposed to be pleased that the government ONLY steals 20.6% from the economy, as opposed to the 25% is currently steals?
Posted by: blindside at February 04, 2011 11:42 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 11:44 AM (GTbGH)
But if you can't borrow, you can't spend more than you take in, and there is a hard limit to taxation.
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 03:40 PM (GTbGH)
True, which is reason enough to do it. It's just not a panacea.
Posted by: grognard at February 04, 2011 11:45 AM (NS2Mo)
If the Debt is 14 Trillion now, and we don't balance the budget til 2063, is it safe to say our debt will be in the 30 Trillion range by then?
Who is still lending money to us at that point?
Posted by: BenThe same type of investors that lend to us now.
Two things to keep in mind.
First, the context to any debt is the ratio of debt to income. So how much money are we making then? How much tax does the government pull in from a dynamic and productive economy of the next 40 years?
Second, a very rough rule of money is that the value of money halves every 18 years. Therefore $30 trillion in 2063 is roughly worth as much as $3 trillion is today. We would be doing great if the debt amounted to only $30 trillion then.
Posted by: goldbricker esq at February 04, 2011 11:46 AM (S59+B)
Posted by: nickless the stil-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 11:47 AM (qdtoY)
Yeah this whole thing ignores the much bigger picture, which is that we're not winning the hearts and minds. Half the country thinks POSOTUS is just dandy. We can speculate about budgets and Palin, and how great it would be if liberals would sut the fuck up, but it's all navel gazing.
We'll never get anywhere when every. single. commonsense approach to life liberty and happiness is a death match.
Posted by: USS Diversity at February 04, 2011 11:51 AM (DLxD/)
Posted by: DavidM at February 04, 2011 11:53 AM (R/e5b)
No, we had to "start somewhere" back in the years when Dubya decided compassionate conservatism demanded an orgy of wild spending that started pumping up the deficit.
But we didn't.
Two years of the Traitor-in-Chief and his pet Congress have sped the decline in our situation drastically.
Now we can't "start somewhere," at least not in the ways the squishes and those who see this all as some kind of political parlor game -- both conservative and "moderate" -- seem to think we can.
The only "somewhere" to start is by stopping borrowing. What can't be paid for through receipts -- and tax income is still a hefty sum -- must be shut down. And the shutting-down pain needs to start at the top, instead of following the time-dishonored path of letting the fatcats in D.C. go bumbling along with full pay and perks and plenty of goodies in the "stash" to spread among their pals.
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling "Free Nickless!!eleventy!!" at February 04, 2011 11:54 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Trashcan Man at February 04, 2011 11:57 AM (DdFn0)
There's nothing to learn. It knows what it is doing and that is the problem. Yet it keeps doing what it's doing. If any learning is going on, that happens when they are either a) retired by the electorate or b) retired by themselves. It's only then that some of them, usually the most elder, find religion and can speak of the horrors of the institution. They have nothing at stake any more and can appear "statesmanlike" when they are actually nothing of the sort.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 04, 2011 11:57 AM (swuwV)
An Amendment capping spending as a percentage of GDP as well as requiring balanced budgets would handle the issue of spending levels and deficit spending.
I do not know of a way to handle excessive regulation other than vigilance.
Posted by: Holger at February 04, 2011 12:02 PM (YxGud)
TSA Granted ‘Fundamental Human Right’ to Unionizehttp://tinyurl.com/64c62mk
Winning The Failure!
Posted by: Barbarian at February 04, 2011 12:05 PM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:07 PM (DdFn0)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:07 PM (7oMSd)
I know the blog has stopped covering Egypt but things are getting weirder and weirder.
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 12:09 PM (p302b)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:12 PM (7oMSd)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 04:11 PM (p302b)
Fucking Palin!
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:13 PM (DdFn0)
I still think Paul Ryan should have done his rebuttal in front of a bigscreen with the National Debt Clock running in the background.
Posted by: nickless the stil-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 12:14 PM (qdtoY)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at February 04, 2011 12:15 PM (/G5XQ)
Winning The Failure!
Posted by: Barbarian at February 04, 2011 04:05 PM (EL+OC)
Maybe the passengers should unionize too.
Posted by: Oldcat at February 04, 2011 12:15 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) T at February 04, 2011 12:15 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) T at February 04, 2011 12:16 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 03:11 PM (9hSKh)
The Fed. What's going to happen is that the Fed is going to realize that they've blown their balance sheet up by trillions ... and no one cares. It truly was free money - so far as the geniuses can see. They are now convinced that they will be able to add to that balance sheet in perpetuity. All that talk about "draining excess liquidity when recovery is under way ..." was nothing but a blatant lie, as the Fed never intended to drain any liquidity. They have no tool but a ratchet, in addition to the fact that they are gutless cowards.
The only thing that's going to happen is interest rates will go Egyptian and then the printing press will become the US' biggest employer. Then ... hell.
Future deficits are going to have to be measured in googles.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 12:16 PM (N49h9)
Oh they are saying that the president is running a PR offensive and that on monday he's going to the chamber of commerce for a preemptive strike to show his shift to the right is real and that he is pro business (on maria b's show now)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 12:16 PM (p302b)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) T at February 04, 2011 12:18 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 04:12 PM (7oMSd)
You're not the only one smelling bad goat milk. I've had deep suspicions about all of this since it started. And apparantly, from what I'm reading from various blogs, other people are becoming wary. Even Kirsten Powers. Kirsten fucking Powers!
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:19 PM (DdFn0)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:21 PM (7oMSd)
Posted by: Avg. gov't worker with twice your salary and benefits at February 04, 2011 12:23 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 12:23 PM (qdtoY)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) T at February 04, 2011 12:24 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:27 PM (7oMSd)
Fucks News has apparently decided that Hose-Knee must go, too, and is all but blaming him and his "forces" for beating the bejeebers out of "reporters" who decided they had to get a little too close to the action....
Sheppie-Poo has been sounding like he's ready to take up his Whiffle-Ball bat and go after Mubarak himself.
Poor bastard. First, Osama Obama decides he's gotta go (no doubt in favor of the Muzzie Bros), and now the "fair and balanced" people want him to bug out today.
Given the roster of those who think Hose-Knee is the Bad Guy, I'm beginning to think maybe the best thing for the real world would be for him to stay.
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling at February 04, 2011 12:28 PM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: t-bird at February 04, 2011 12:29 PM (FcR7P)
That said, we have serious limits to federal spending. The Constitution describes them. How about following the Constitution and cutting out federal Medicaid?
Of course, that would require doing away with ObamaCare ...
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 12:29 PM (N49h9)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 04:21 PM (7oMSd)
My first clue was the side of the issue that Dear Leader took. God, I don't trust that POS. He's been more destructive to this world (especially to this nation and our allies) than any nuclear weapon could ever be. He is our Terrorist in Chief.
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:30 PM (DdFn0)
and raising taxes, not just limiting spending, forced the deficit down -- a scenario Democrats always have in mind
FIFY. The above fails after you cross the sweet spot on the Laffer curve, but the Democrats can't understand that voodoo economics like Laffer. They think if they raise taxes they will always raise income to the Treasury.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 04, 2011 12:31 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 12:31 PM (N49h9)
Ye gods, up 250% in a year?
Posted by: nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 12:33 PM (qdtoY)
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling at February 04, 2011 04:28 PM (Ulu3i)
For the first time in a long time, I'm agreeing with you McScribbler.
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:34 PM (DdFn0)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:34 PM (7oMSd)
Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) T at February 04, 2011 12:35 PM (GTbGH)
Frankly, I'm disappointed in Ryan's figures.
Those cuts will, at best, slow down the upcoming train-wreck, perhaps postponing it six months or so.
It appears that under Ryan's "plan," it's business as usual, letting each department cut what it wants to cut, which is sure to not include giveaways to unions, five-star treatment for the top people, etc. And PBS, EPA, IRS, Homeland "Security" and the rest of the resource-sucking, makework-job agencies get to keep rolling along.
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling "Free Nickless!!eleventy!!" at February 04, 2011 12:35 PM (Ulu3i)
But, but, they know we're on their side, right?
Posted by: Anderson Pooper at February 04, 2011 12:37 PM (6h6W6)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at February 04, 2011 12:37 PM (nRF6+)
Too many people with too many expectations roaming the streets of Cairo right now. This is a powder keg.
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:38 PM (DdFn0)
Too many people with too many expectations roaming the streets of Cairo right now. This is a powder keg.
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 04:38 PM (DdFn0)
Send matches.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 12:39 PM (N49h9)
Even broken clocks, and all that....
It pisses me off that our government keeps a "hands off" stance about the internal affairs of nations where the choices are quite clear, but sticks its Muzzie-loving nose into a situation where neither the players involved nor the results of favoring one side or the other are clear.
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling "Free Nickless!!eleventy!!" at February 04, 2011 12:39 PM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Rob in Katy at February 04, 2011 12:40 PM (PiTBB)
Kinda like congress, no plan, just wing it.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 04, 2011 12:43 PM (xdHzq)
when I first read Ryan's plan I was very disappointed and I so noted said disappointment and you guys (not you guys in particular, the general you guys) jumped all over me. But if you've been paying attention from that thursday night meeting in nanny p's office, you know that they, the political elite, think we, the dumb schlubs (who will eventually accept our entire salary going to satisfy our great debt with meals at the shelter and health care at the clinic and we will be thankful that they allowed us to live) are too stupid and caught up in life to notice.
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 12:45 PM (p302b)
Send matches.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 04:39 PM (N49h9)
Heh. Oh, wait. Didn't I just see Ahmadinnerjacket and Dear Leader on a side street holding the fuse?
Posted by: Soona at February 04, 2011 12:45 PM (DdFn0)
Posted by: grognard at February 04, 2011 12:46 PM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:47 PM (7oMSd)
Gee. Thanks.
Posted by: Israeli Volunteer Fire Department at February 04, 2011 12:47 PM (qdtoY)
Shit, that worked out so well with Iran, Pock-ee-stohn and even Veet-nam, right?
Posted by: MrScribbler© at February 04, 2011 12:47 PM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 12:48 PM (p302b)
They're not called Molotov Cocktails for nothing.
Posted by: nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 12:49 PM (qdtoY)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 04:45 PM
Good point.
One day, we poor schulbs may find ourselves massing in DC (probably without Molotov cocktails, guns and a desire to stomp us some Peace-Loving Journalists, 'cause we're not like that) and calling for it to be Departure Day for the mindless wastrels in Congress.
We may be somewhat passive (not quite to the Captain Ed level, but still passive) but that changes when you've lost everything, are involuntarily put in hock for more money than you'll see in a lifetime of work, and can't afford food.
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling "Free Nickless!!eleventy!!" at February 04, 2011 12:53 PM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at February 04, 2011 12:55 PM (nRF6+)
I thought it was Molotov not Molitov but when I saw someone else misspell it I thought I was wrong.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:55 PM (7oMSd)
Don't forget me.
Posted by: Food at February 04, 2011 12:57 PM (xdHzq)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at February 04, 2011 01:00 PM (nRF6+)
I thought it was Molotov not Molitov but when I saw someone else misspell it I thought I was wrong.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 04:55 PMDepends on whether you think the name came from V. Molotov, of Soviet fame, or Ike Molitov, the ex-vaudvillian who later ran a bar in the Bronx. His "Molitov Cocktail" was made from, so I'm told, Manischevitz, Yoo-Hoo and gin.
With a twist of pastrami....
Posted by: MrScribbler©, yelling "Free Nickless!!eleventy!!" at February 04, 2011 01:02 PM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at February 04, 2011 01:10 PM (nRF6+)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at February 04, 2011 01:19 PM (nRF6+)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at February 04, 2011 01:20 PM (sZ+lP)
Deficits don't matter when the Republicans control everything. Deficits only matter when the Democrats control everything.
Hypocrite knucklehead.
Posted by: just another stupid knucklehead like you at February 04, 2011 01:40 PM (wW3eK)
And you still got nothin'.
Posted by: nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 01:45 PM (qdtoY)
You're the fucking hypocrite, you trolling bitch.
Posted by: nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 04, 2011 01:47 PM (qdtoY)
Just called my Rep's. office to voice my concerns about spending and budgeting in D.C..
Sure Gabby Giffords is a mite busy nowadays but when was she not?
"Are you calling to complain? "
"Yeah, basically, I am. I should think that that is what you guys are there for. I'm a constituent. It's kind of my job to bitch and moan about things to my Representative!"
"Uhm, can I get your name and number? I can't believe that you are complaining! This is so cool!"
"Yeah. It's me Deety at same addy and same number complaining about the same stuff since Gabby took that vote on the Stimulus two years ago!"
"Wow! You're like the first one to ever call in here to complain!"
---(Off Phone) She's the eighth! Dammit! And if it's who I think she is ,she is serial crank about spending issues! Get rid of her!
"I'm sorry Ms. Burroughs. What exactly can we, at this office help you with, today?"
Not much, practically. But I do wish that you would convey my misgivings and deep concerns about Federal spending to Rep. Giffords just as soon as she is able to hear them. I also think that she is a huge liar about PAY-GO.
"I can't believe you just said that!"
"Well, I mean it. If I can't express my opinions, on these matters, to the staffers working for my Representative, to whom should I express them?"
"No. It's just cool that you called up here with an issue."
--- (Off Phone) That's her, isn't it? She mentioned PAYGO, didn't she? Get rid of her. She thinks she understands Economics. She is a lunatic!
"Meh. I'm an old hand at this. Alls I really want is to be ignored and derided as a constituent, like back in the good old days!
--(Off Phone) Hang up now! She'll try to talk to you. Don't let her. Everything she says is nonsense! It just sounds reasonable.
"Thank you Ms. Burroughs, for expressing your concerns. We have your name and address and as soon as the Representative is able, she will get right back to you about this matter!"
"Thank you, Stephanie. I appreciate your efforts."
Posted by: Deety at February 04, 2011 02:33 PM (Jb3+B)
Posted by: toby928™ at February 04, 2011 03:00 PM (GTbGH)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2917 seconds, 235 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 04, 2011 10:57 AM (c5RQr)