1 With shills like Boehner, Cantor, et al...I don't see any of this happening.

2 First?

Hmmm.. 1998.  I like the sound of that.  My house is just about worth what it was in 1998, so what the heck?

3
(in that unique gravelly voice.....)

See.... ah knewd ya'll'd come around....

4

Will the levels be adjusted for inflation, or, erm, stagflation?

(Wonder why that's not hitting the MFM.)

5
Will the levels be adjusted for inflation, or, erm, stagflation?


Stagflation???  Never heard of it.

6 Back to the Future!

7 The other nice thing about using 1998 as the goal is..  The libtards constantly use Bush's deficits as the reason for the economic collapse in 2008.. which is stupid.. because their solution?  Even higher deficits!

So, how could they complain if we say "Ok.. have it your way.. erase all of Bush's spending and let's go back to Bubba budgets.. " ??

8 I'm for it..  The libtard I know keeps harping about BJ Clinton's level of taxation.. 

9 According to the census bureau, on Jan 1, 1998, the US had a population of 244 million, as compared to the latest estimate of 309 million. We have added 27% to our population, a factor that must be considered in evaluating the benchmark level, if one wishes to be honest.

Also, if no new programs were added after 1998, spending would rise several percentage points of gdp to pay the 77 million boomers who become eligible to receive medicare and social security.

10 Posted by: interested

Fair enough.. but how many more are also working and being taxed, contributing to the revenue side?

11 Don't make me hurt you.

12 The economy in 1998 was the stock market bubble building up. Be that as it may, I'd love to return to 1998 levels, and then we could change the IRS vs. SEC business reporting rules.

13 Will the levels be adjusted for inflation

Just adjust as percentage of GDP - 25% now back down to 18% then.

14

i agree, Ace.

I also think the republicans need to find a way to defuse the relativistic logic that Dems use by saying, "Well Bush did it too."

 

Maybe the Repbulican Leadership could say something like, "We agree Bush's wreckless spending hurt this nation, and Obama is continuing on this course of Bush's spending, therefore we call on the Democrats to go back to pre-Bush spending levels of 2001."

15

Posted by: interested at January 27, 2011 12:10 PM (cZqFI)

What was the % of Population paying taxes in 1998?

16 Don't forget, Clinton also had the benefit of the dotcom boom. Without that, things wouldn't have been as great.

17

RP's $500B plan is very challenging, certainly the biggest cutting plan we've seen so far.  If implemented fully, there would be quite a lot of short-term pain, especially for the million-or-so federal employees who would be promptly fired.  Headline unemployment stats would shoot up.

As aggressive as the $500B plan is, and as politically untenable as it is, it's stunning to realize that it would reduce the annual deficit BY ONLY ONE THIRD!  That's how completely boned we are right now.

18

o/t Creepy Jim Moran to an arab network:

“It [the Republican successes in the 2010 elections] happened for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. It happened because the Southern states, the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.

"In this case, I believe, a lot of people in the United States don’t want to be governed by an African-Amerian, particularly one who is liberal, who wants to spend money and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society….”

Yes, he really said it. How do such morally superior beings as Moran manage to remain among the unenlightened, racist rabble that is "a lot of people in the United States."

It's difficult to hear over the translator, but you can watch the interview below. Note Moran's, uh, creepy reaching out to the woman interviewing him. Anybody know if the penalty under sharia law for touching a woman not related to you in public is chopping off the offending hand, or does the entire arm have to come off?

 Washington Examiner: http://tiny.cc/k3yhs

19 1998? Why don't we just go back to the age of the dinosaurs when the Constitution was written?

20 Ace,

You are laboring under the illusion that the Republican party can stay on message for more than 30 seconds. They have demonstrated again and again that when it comes to a coherent theme, the Democrats will always win.

Why? Because everything is politics with the Dems, and they are better at it!

21 In the Clinton years my parents were absolutely crushed under the burden of taxes.  Yeah he ended with a surplus but on the backs of young American families.  My dad was doing fairly well but the taxation burden was onerous and my parents always say that they would have gone further if Clinton hadn't taxed their generation so much and now, they are being screwed again as their mortgage is larger than their home value.  So, no thank those who think going back to the clinton years is a good idea should talk to people my parents age and they will quickly change their mind.

22

Don't forget, Clinton also had the benefit of the dotcom boom. Without that, things wouldn't have been as great.

There are a ton on nuances on why the ecnomy was good in 1998, but I think Ace is making the argument that praising Clinton will be used as a bludgeon to beat down the Democrats current positions on spending.  It doesn't mean we actually believe that Clinton was responsible for everything great that happened in the 1990s.

It's more about acheiving an end. namely 1998 spending levels or there abouts.

23 That's fine as long we get high-speed snow plows on rails! And hurry!

24 Great idea. Now let's find a video clip of Clinton talking about light rail and windmills to seal the deal.

25 Ah... Yes, well, the GOP's new slogan should be "I just want to cut spending to the Clinton level; the economy did well with that level of spending, didn't it?"

Whenever someone tells you that he wants to return to Clinton-era tax rates, my response is some combination of "let's cut spending, too" and:

(1) "So you agree that taxes under Jimmy Carter were way too high?"
(2) "Can we index those brackets for inflation? $250k in 1998 would be about $330k today?"
(3) "Tell you what: if you let me index the brackets for inflation, I'll let you index spending for inflation and population growth."
(4) "While we're at it, can we repeal half of the regulations promulgated since 1998?"

26

Derivatives for all my guests!

27
re: Clinton, a Democrat ex-president in 'good standing'

Sadly, he is. Yet he committed perjury, was impeached, and disbarred.

And he probably sexually harassed several women.

28 I like that plan and would like to know which senate candidates seeking to replace KBH are on board with it.

29 Royalty does not surrender its perks. Ever.

Therefore, I can't see any of Paul's ideas gaining traction. One or more of the 535 pork-swilling kings and queens in Congress benefits from each of the scams Paul wants to cut.

Further, I don't see any meaningful cuts in all the subsidies Congress and Osama Obama cling to. If they can't reward their supporters, no campaign contributions.

Mathematics and logic don't give a runny shit about politics. When the cupboard is empty, you can't eat. That's where we are now; unfortunately. The "servants of the people" have theirs, and aren't willing to cut a single calorie of their feed.

Of course Congress could enact all of Paul's cuts, repeal OsamaObamaScare and eliminate the handouts to their BFFs, and it could do so this week. That would leave the rest of the year to see how well it works.

But they won't. They're all too busy posturing and preening on the TV talk shows and making speeches about what they're going to do.

The fuckers should all be in jail, not enjoying their obscene power in comfort.

30 ABOLISH $2,050,000,000. (100%)

(1) Affordable Housing Program.
(2) Commission on Fine Arts.
(3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(5) National Endowment for the Arts.
(6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
(7) State Justice Institute.



Nice....

31 Don't tell Hillary, but I'm totally on board with your plan. It's all about the tail...

32 Posted by: Nitty Gritty Soothsayer Band at January 27, 2011 12:21 PM (uFokq)

But it wasn't "rape rape."

33 1998 was an awesome year for keeping blood from running in the streets - like it does today.

34 17 Don't forget, Clinton also had the benefit of the dotcom boom. Without that, things wouldn't have been as great.

Yeah, that's one of the most amazing - and frustrating - things about Clinton: he managed to take office more than a year into a recovery, and left just as the economy was sliding into recession. It was all boom, no bust. All bubble, no pop. And then the left blames Bush for the recession that began in March 2001.

35 Clinton also radically slashed military spending - remember the "peace dividend"?  Isn't this where any agreeable Dems would want to start now?

36

^{(1) Affordable Housing Program.
(3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.}

The Children!

37

How would you get rid of the Bush Medicare prescription benefit?

38 Didn't he decimate the military so much so that Bush had to build it up all over again?

39 >>>I also think the republicans need to find a way to defuse the relativistic logic that Dems use by saying, "Well Bush did it too." I don't think we should defuse it so much as admit it and then repudiate it. We all know Bush way, way overspent. A lot of us were tearing our hair out by 2005. I was. I didn't mind the earlier spending because I figured, 9/11, maybe not a good time to cut and stuff with the economy so fragile and dicey, but by 2005, I was like WHAT THE FUCK? So we all know this. So let's just say it. Let's make it part of the platform. The public knows this too. They know if we attempt to claim Bush didn't overspend we're lying for partisan gain. And we all do actually want Bush's spending repudiated too, laying down a marker for future GOP presidents. So let's just repudiate it. Not run away from it, not evade: Just make that a central platform. Yes, Bush overspent. Greatly. Yes, he was a bad president in this regard and an enemy of limited government. Let's go back to 1998. As for population growth: First of all, not all spending is changed by population growth. A lot of stuff just costs what it costs. Bureaucracies themselves can handle new clients (as they're underworked as it is). NASA shouldn't get more money just because we have more people. But yeah, there's an adjustment to be made. We can make some kind of adjustment, but 1998 in adjusted dollars is the goal.

40

Why do you hate vag?

41 If we go back to 1998 maybe we can get the CIA to prevent 9/11.

42 Ace, the Pentagon Budget was $270 Billion in 1998. It's $700 Billion now. Want to expound on how we cut $500 billion from defense?

43 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at January 27, 2011 12:18 PM (LH6ir)

This.  Republicans keep claiming to be "the Party of ideas," but that doesn't do crap for good if no one knows what those ideas are.

Here's an idea, Congressional Republicans: pick a target.  Isolate it.  Personalize it (wait, I've heard this somewhere before...).  Sun Tzu 101- power to a point.

We can't do everything at once, but by refusing to admit that, you're trying to placate everyone and satisfy no one.  That's not a long-term winning strategy.  So pick something: Social Security would be a good one, but maybe foreign funding, maybe Medicaid or SCHIP, the NEA, whatever.  Set that issue as the Target, set it up so it appears to be in a vacuum (we know it isn't, and so do they, but its easier for people to conceptualize: thus the "Isolate" part), then find some way to make it personal.  Pick someone's sob-story we can use, or (better) pick their very inspirational story to hold up as an example.

When you've knocked down target one, pick a new target, and repeat the steps.

44

This isn't about the details of what made the Clinton economy the Clinton economy.

The purpose of this is to acheive a goal. Reduced spending.

In order to do this, Democrats need to be convinced, cajouled,  or embarrassed into doing so.

45 >>>There are a ton on nuances on why the ecnomy was good in 1998, but I think Ace is making the argument that praising Clinton will be used as a bludgeon to beat down the Democrats current positions on spending. It doesn't mean we actually believe that Clinton was responsible for everything great that happened in the 1990s. Exactly. It's using their claims *for the sake of argument* and then holding them to that.

46 Related, from "Alabama Is Boned" sidebar, they have an unpopular idea to keep the state pension plan funded: raise the retirement age to 60. 60.

47 Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2011 12:22 PM (NmKUg)

And here is a great reason why the Republicans are shitty at politics. That's a two billion dollar savings; cutting touchy-feely shit that makes people feel good in an amorphous way. You and I agree that it's a complete waste of money and probably does far more harm than good. But it's a tiny fraction of what needs to be cut, and the push-back would be huge.

We need to be honest and admit that the cuts have to be deep and wide and have to chop through SS, Medicare and probably some defense. Without that we will be nibbling at the edges of a huge problem.

48 >>>Ace, the Pentagon Budget was $270 Billion in 1998. It's $700 Billion now. Want to expound on how we cut $500 billion from defense? No, that is excepted. We're in a global war and obviously Clinton's peace dividend was, um, not. I don't think the liberals can really even argue too much on this point.

49 Didn't he decimate the military so much so that Bush had to build it up all over again?

I seem to recall it was cut 40% or so during his two terms.  You will recall that on 9/11, we didn't have a single Arab-speaking operative in Afghanistan, though I'm sure that had nothing to do with the way Bush let it happen on purpose. /sarc

50 Oh, hell. I am a complete loser at sock on...sock off.

51

We all know Bush way, way overspent. A lot of us were tearing our hair out by 2005. I was. I didn't mind the earlier spending because I figured, 9/11, maybe not a good time to cut and stuff with the economy so fragile and dicey, but by 2005, I was like WHAT THE FUCK?

I agree. I was talking about Democrats using Bush as a defense, because they knew republican politicians would attept to defend Bush (see: Bachmann's Obama is to blame speech)

Bush was a terrible President in terms of spending. The Republicans need to stop defending his economic legacy and instead couch Obama into that legacy.

Make the point that Obama is simply Bush on steriods. We heard democrats decry Bush's spending, well then make them justify why spending more than Bush is acceptable.

52 In 1998, Helen Thomas was still an unbiased, media superstar. Good times.

53

In order to do this, Democrats need to be convinced, cajouled,  or embarrassed into doing so.

Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2011 12:28 PM

Sadly, the Republicans need to be convinced as well.

Pathetic hacks like McConnell earn praise for talking. And talking, talking, and more talking. Ditto superannuated sideline-sitters like The Newt.

Oh, excuse me, the House voted on a bill last week. They have to rest now.

54 Well it's a plan

55 I was all smiles until I saw that EPA was only cut 29%, instead of 100%.

56 Make the point that Obama is simply Bush on steriods Obama is Bush on estrogen. Congress does the spending.

57 >>>:When you've knocked down target one, pick a new target, and repeat the steps. I think that's wrong. Picking ONE target just brings out all the sob stories and bullshit about that one target. The right way to go I think is a huge plan, a, um, comprehensive plan, in which almost everything is cut. Pence noted that -- that if one agency's being cut, the caterwauling about unfairness and meanness is insufferable, but if all agencies (or almost all) are being cut, it's hard for any agency to say it's unfair. Plus, give 'em a huge amount of territory to defend simultaneously. See, liberals grow government one step at a time. This works for them. They just say "Well THIS particular goal is so crucial we must spend" and then a month later it's "THIS new goal is so crucial we must spend." That manner of talking about stuff -- piece by piece -- helps them. It's the Big Picture that favors us. You can claim it's necessary and even "Cheap" to "just" increase spending $500 million here and $40 billion there, but when you add all this up... well now you're talking real money. It's the little picture piecemeal strategy that favors the liberal; our strength is Big Picture, total aggregate spending, etc.

58

Your 1998/Clinton plan.  I like it.  It's smart and effective.  I'll get behind that.

So...The question is this:  Why are you  bothering to push it?  Do you actually think it is feasible?  Haven't you said in the past that you can't alter or affect the narative?  If that's the case, why bother with this?

Or do you do this because you think it is a popular topic for your readers?  If that's the case, keep in mind that um... weiner jokes* are pretty popular too.  Don't forget to throw out a few weiner jokes.*

Or do you push this because you enjoy writting about this topic personally?  Even more so than reasearching Busty Lesbians?

Anyway, my point, rambling and poorly argued though it may be it this:  Despite all your disavowals, you do affect the narrative with your writtings and comments.  You ain't as big a Rush or Beck.  Let's be real here. But you affect it.  Otherwise, why the hell else would we even bother to read your political stuff?

Hell, a site meter that reads at over 100 million ain't exactly nothing you know.

*Polite euphamism done for Teh Children^TM.

59 I'd be happy to return to 1998 Bacon prices.

60 No, that is excepted. We're in a global war and obviously Clinton's peace dividend was, um, not.

I don't think the liberals can really even argue too much on this point.

Posted by: ace at January 27, 2011 12:30 PM (nj1bB)

Haha, really? Liberals aren't going to argue to cut defense? hahahahahaha. That's funny ace.

61

I think this is a good idea. Our party is terrible at messaging. Whereas Democrats are so freaking good at it.

Just think of 2004's , "The worst economy since Herbert Hoover".

Or "The Culture of Corruption"

The Democrats hand out a talking points memo to Congressmen, Senators, Pundits, etc and they all stick to it.

I don't think we can every acheive that level of hyperpolitization, but I think we could at least do a little game planning and coordinating on message.

62 Ace, the Pentagon Budget was $270 Billion in 1998. It's $700 Billion now. Want to expound on how we cut $500 billion from defense? Posted by: robtr

We can still cut a lot of that.  We don't need bases in Europe.  Close all of them.  Japan?

Even the bases we keep could be cut back.

Somewhere along the line we forgot what the word "defense" meant..  We don't need to defend every country in the world.

63

"As aggressive as the $500B plan is, and as politically untenable as it is, it's stunning to realize that it would reduce the annual deficit BY ONLY ONE THIRD!"

Let me put it another way.  If this aggressive plan were fully, successfully implemented, the USA federal debt WILL STILL RISE BY ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!

Absolutely completely boned.  Hopeless.

64 "Make the point that Obama is simply Bush on steroids. We heard democrats decry Bush's spending, well then make them justify why spending more than Bush is acceptable."

Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2011 12:31 PM (wuv1c)

Yes! +100

It's a tightrope though, because it will be easy to appear to be disloyal.

65 I think that's wrong. Picking ONE target [sucks]... Strongly agree. The defense they mount is always greater than the targets we pick. That's why nobody gets behind it. Why get invested in a battle over peanuts as your side gets raked over the coals? Make them defend the whole enchilada and we have a chance.

66 Since the GOP controls the house, why don't they just set the overall spending where they want it?  Raise or don't raise the debt limit to suit.

Is it because the President would just shut down the military rather than the NEA?   Let him do it, if he dares.

67 My only caveat about the Clinton years is this:

In 1994 I briefly dated a guy who had this newfangled thing called a "webpage." You see, you had to open Mosaic, type in a bunch of gobbledygook, go to the potty, get some Diet Coke, then come back, and see a yellow page with a picture of Beavis, and a "Hi, my name is XXX and this is my webpage."

Five years later, the e-commerce potential of the internet was getting to the point where dial-up was insufficient for some popular webpages (specifically day-trading sites). While the e-commerce revolution was pumping along, there was a brief dotcom bubble. Between the game-changing e-commerce and the dotcom bubble, a lot of disgruntled Republican voters in 1994 were employed and apathetic again in 1996.

The Clinton years were very unique, and hard to re-create.

68 We can still cut a lot of that.  We don't need bases in Europe.  Close all of them.  Japan?

Oh good!  Jane's and my son will get to come home.

69 Since the biggest period of greatest post-war growth was the Kennedy/Johnson era, why not set the spending goals to 1966 levels?

70

I don't think the liberals can really even argue too much on this point.

 I dunno. It's pretty much how they'd get us to STFU and drop this (very solid) idea. Like this:

"Well, if you're willing to drop defense spending to 1998 levels  then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, not so much. Bush lied us into these wars and there's no reason the Aid to Angry Womyn program should suffer."

71

<sup>See, liberals grow government one step at a time. This works for them...That manner of talking about stuff -- piece by piece -- helps them...

It's the Big Picture that favors us... 

It's the little picture piecemeal strategy that favors the liberal; our strength is Big Picture, total aggregate spending, etc.</sup>

Ace of Spades - Fiscal Ninja Samurai

72

Make the point that Obama is simply Bush on steroids. We heard democrats decry Bush's spending, well then make them justify why spending more than Bush is acceptable."

Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2011 12:31 PM (wuv1c)

Yes! +100

It's a tightrope though, because it will be easy to appear to be disloyal.

Let me put it like this. I have no economic loyalty to George Bush.

I am forever greatful for how he responded to 9/11, I don't question his love of country, and respect that he had a certain degree of pride and dignity that Democratic presidents lack. However, it was an 8 year spending orgy. It was a democrat-lite of entitlements. It was everything that is wrong with the republican party and what caused our epic (and deserved) defeats in 2006 and 2008.

I think the current Republicans should cut Bush loose. He's a corpse banging off their haul. And to be quite frank, I don't our party to be a Bush like party, that's the very reason why I hate Mike Huckabee and don't want him to be our next nominee.

America was fortunate we had Bush win in 2000 instead of Gore, but I'd have any allegience to Douchebag just because the only other option in that election was turd sandwich.

73

How can liberals who have made their hay off Clinton's economy for going on 13 years now argue that 1998's spending levels were harmful to the economy and "evil" in punishing the "most vulnerable" (as Obama now likes to call everyone getting a government check)?

Simple. As President Clinton famously said in one of his debates against Dole, he was building a bridge to the future. Clinton was awesome because he made it possible for us to get to this point. Now, it's up to Obama to get us the rest of the way.

74 Posted by: Sekhmet at January 27, 2011 12:39 PM (gnEPW)

The proposal is not actually about trying to re-create the economy of 1998. The proposal is about getting leftards to agree to federal spending cuts, back to 1998 levels, because that's where they were when they and their hero Clinton were taking credit for his awesome handling of the economy.

75 I think this is a crafty idea, but I honestly don't think this country is ready to do what it takes in order to get this runaway train under control.

Look at the polling on cutting SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Americans just won't accept it. When you show them the facts and the numbers, they stick their fingers in their ears and mumble some non-workable solution that makes them feel better..

I've been beating this drum for 2 years and am aghast at how little impact I've had on friends and acquaintances.

A few of us get it. The rest are unswayed. They want to be deceived. I chalk this up not only to intellectual laziness, but also to personal cowardice.

They want what they want. They want to keep buying shit that they don't need. They want the good times to continue. And that's all they care about. It doesn't matter that it's not sustainable. It doesn't matter that they're enslaving their kids and grandchildren and dooming them to a far less prosperous country.

Collectively, we're gonna ride this train until it crashes. I'm convinced of it.

50 + years of inexorable left-wing propaganda, big government welfare, dumbing down of our educational system, and cultural rot has preordained.

We're fucked. Pray if you're into that kind of thing. I am, but I admit that I wish my faith were stronger.

76

Let's not forget where Bush spent all that money. Part D and 2 wars. Part D is only about the most popular program ever anywhere--which is why he gets no credit for it-- and we like those wars. Or at least I do.

So where did he go wrong? Part D is about it, really.

77 Counting on leftists to have a logical or reasonable reaction to something is a mistake.

78 Now, it's up to Obama to get us the rest of the way.

To where?

79 It's the little picture piecemeal strategy that favors the liberal; our strength is Big Picture, total aggregate spending, etc. Posted by: ace at January 27, 2011 12:34 PM

Agree with everything you've written here, Ace.

But, as some of the commenters are quickly proving, we can be just as petty and piecemeal-ish.

"How can you cut defense?" "Fuck the old people...let 'em die if they expect a penny back from what they've paid the gubmint." "We can't do everything at once...."

Some people spend too much time reading/listening to political hacks and so-called pundits who are, after all, pushing their own self-interests.

The simple, unalterable fact is this: there is no money to spend for all the worthless shit the government has taken on. No money = no spending. Q.E.D.

I guess we won't wake up until the economy has made the total slide from toilet to sewer.

80 Posted by: ace at January 27, 2011 12:34 PM (nj1bB)

You're mixing strategy with tactics.

Strategically, we have to think big picture, and we have to tie our tactical moves into that strategy.  We need to say (over and over and over) that the budget is too big, we're spending too much money.  Then we need to say "To combat that, we believe that defunding X (or cutting it by whatever%) will help us move onto the path of sustainable spending" (or whatever).

By going the "Comprehensive" route, we end up tying success for all to the success for each, and that's where we keep getting shut down.  So that if we say, "We need to cut X, Y, and Z" the Libs in the MFM focus on Y and all the sob-stories it generates.

As a clarification, I'm not suggesting multiple targets can't be targeted at once, but they need to be treated as separate issues.  Absolutely keep them in the public eye at the same time, (overwhelm the MFM so they just don't have time to air enough sob stories to sabotage all of your goals), but within that strategic plan, the tactical plan needs to be very, very focused, so that failure on one does not lead to failure on the others.

The problem is that conservative voters tend to be all-or-nothing types who aren't happy with targeted measures until it's been beaten into their skulls that a "comprehensive" plan just isn't going to fly.

81

One objection that people will raise is that the country is bigger now in terms of population.  12 years ago, we were probably 5 to 10 percent smaller in population.

So we might have to add that fudge to the number.  Say we want 1998 spending on a per capita basis.

Or was this already mentioned?

82

Uh, nice rhetorical device Ace, but Clinton didn't have two huge wars to manage.  In fact, he got away with kicking the Iraq can down the road and ignoring Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the U.S. precisely because he didn't want to have an expensive war while he was President.  He got away with not sending in a lot of expensive ground troops to Bosnia and running a token air war that didn't really fix anything.  Bush had to spend $2 trillion fixing all this.

After Hillarycare failed he also kicked the health care can down the road.  He never addressed the lack of Medicare coverage for prescription drugs or any kind of fix for Medicare even though he knew a reckoning was coming.  Bush had to fix that too, though his big mistake was not paying for it.  He never tried to fix Medicaid which is now swallowing state budgets.

I don't think it is really useful to go back to any particular year as a baseline because of all these changed circumstances.  If we must, let's go back to the last FY before Pelosi took over the House and started the spending spree.  But then we have to take into account TARP, and the unfunded Medicare drug entitlement that had just gotten started.

Clinton also pissed a bunch of money away on things like COPS, which got local governments hooked on the federal teat and allowed many of them to grant the rich pensions and benefits to their employees that are now driving them into bankruptcy.  Clinton sold the country on the idea that it is A-OK for federal taxes and borrowing to pay for local services like police, teachers, emergency responders, and firefighters.  This has been extremely costly for everyone and fostered even more dependency and a bigger constituency for more spending and borrowing to avoid the inevitable.  It opened the door for the massive increases in federal spending on edeucation under both Clinton and Bush, none of which has made our kids any smarter or more competitive but has only made teachers and their unions richer.

So please, don't hold up Bill Clinton as any paragon of responsible spending.

83 Generally I'm an eternal optimist, but in this case I'm rather pessimistic for this reason: So long as Obama is in office he won't be willing to cut any spending, no matter how many times he pays lip service to it. His goal is the reverse Reagan - FEED the beast to such an extent that massive tax increases are necessary (if not req'd). No, the only thing he'd be willing to cut is the time spent with Michelle in the WH residence - and in that context I'd have to agree with him - poor guy. Secondly, I don't think that the GOP has the courage to reduce spending appreciably because they'll be hit with the "if they cust spendi

84

To where?

Future Victory!

85 Or was this already mentioned?

Yes. Do it as a percentage of GDP.

86 75 Posted by: Sekhmet at January 27, 2011 12:39 PM (gnEPW)

The proposal is not actually about trying to re-create the economy of 1998. The proposal is about getting leftards to agree to federal spending cuts, back to 1998 levels, because that's where they were when they and their hero Clinton were taking credit for his awesome handling of the economy.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2011 12:43 PM (TfJx1)

I'm just saying, Democrats are some lucky-ass mothafuckas.

87 See, liberals grow government one step at a time. This works for them. They just say "Well THIS particular goal is so crucial we must spend" and then a month later it's "THIS new goal is so crucial we must spend."

That manner of talking about stuff -- piece by piece -- helps them.

This! Remember how they tried this crap with Obamacare by talking about how individual components (parents' plans covering "kids" under 27, eliminating pre-existing conditions, etc.) polled well.

Sure they did. Because the question wasn't burdened with little details like ... oh, I dunno ... how you're going to pay for all of this shit.

88 Also, I'm assuming this 1998 / Clinton plan doesn't include stuff like Social Security and Medicare? 

89 1998?!! Dream on, bitter clinger.

90 So please, don't hold up Bill Clinton as any paragon of responsible spending. He's not. It's rhetorical ju-jitsu. But it's not working, I see.

91

Don't miss the point here people.

Ace isn't saying Clinton was the AWESOME.

He's simply saying that Clinton is used as the gold standard in the Democratic Party. They were saying during the Bush administration that america needs to get back to Clinton boom times and tax rates.

Well, let's hold them to that, specifically on spending.

92

A few of us get it. The rest are unswayed. They want to be deceived. I chalk this up not only to intellectual laziness, but also to personal cowardice.

I agree. A great many of us our really just children.

Problem is, those who don't have their fingers in their ears but want the benefits to roll on like always believe there are great piles of untaxed money out there they can still get at. It will be tough to talk them away from this since there are lots and lots of people with great piles of money.

Really, the only way to sell Americans on this without getting clobbered in 2012 is to present a plan with truly shared pain, and that does include tax increases. Even if the new taxes don't really bring in much revenue, I don't think we can do much cutting without that symbolic shared pain.

93 >>>So we might have to add that fudge to the number. Say we want 1998 spending on a per capita basis. No that gives away too much. Many agencies are not population-dependent. Amtrack, for one. Most Amtrack trains are under-reserved, not over-reserved. So even with more people they're still not anywhere near capacity. You don't then have to add 25% more trains and staff to Amtrak just beause the population grew 25%. NASA -- we don't send up 25% more satellites or shuttles just because the population grew 25%. Most bureaucracies are underworked as it is. They don't get to grow just because there are more people. In many cases (checks, direct payments to people) yes, the per-capita idea makes sense. BUt in many it doesn't. We should not surrender that; we should make each agency explain why a growth in population requires an growth in their actual funding. Some agencies can make this case easily. Some can make the case for a partial adjustment. Many cannot make a case at all. It's wrong to concede that all agencies must grow directly with the population. It's not true and it creates waste and excess spending.

94

 Part D and 2 wars. Part D is only about the most popular program ever anywhere--which is why he gets no credit for it-- and we like those wars.

Those Wars should have gone on Clinton's tab.

If you order the 7 course dinner and leave after the 6th course, why should the next guy sitting at your table be charged for your Dessert?

 

95

A probable winning strategy but because Ace offered it for free, Pubs won't use it. They'd rather pay idiots millions for bad advice. Plus Ace's idea doesn't have a catchy slogan. And no political idea can be good without a slogan or a ridiculous bill name.

So, as long as I don't have to sign up for the newsletter, I'll use it on my lib friends. They are entering the fallback argument that both parties suck. While I pretty much agree with that sentiment, when they say it , it means so much more.

96 Plus Ace's idea doesn't have a catchy slogan.

What am I, chopped liver?

97 Oh yeah, lib friends. I denounce myself.

98

Back to 1998? 

 I didn't take many physics courses, but that would have to be one fast Train.

99 Plus Ace's idea doesn't have a catchy slogan.

"Back to the Future"!

100 It will never happen.  NEVER.

101 Damn you, toby.

102

There's way too much nuancey criticism of what Ace is trying to accomplish here.  Well, too much nuance for The Nuanced™ to understand.

Our side sucks at messaging because we do this sort of stuff.  What Ace is talking about is coming up with a soundbite that forces Democrats to do what we're always forced to do - craft long defenses that make the eyes of the middle/moderates/undecideds glaze over. 

The only difference is, their defense will be even longer because they have to warp, twist, rationalize, spin and game the numbers in such a way as to make their defense so transparent that if a squish even stays through the whole thing, even the dumbest among them can smell the bullshit.

Putting them on the defense with their own tactics by using their own rhetorical soundbites - brilliant.

103 I'd be willing to forgo my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid if Richard Dawson would host "The Running Congressman". My cable better be free, though.

104 It will never happen.  NEVER.

Don't raise the Debt Ceiling and it happens, perforce.

105

If you like your incrementalism...

 

106 Now if only we could find an intern for the Oh-Bamster.
 
Can you imagine what Michelle would do if she found out Barry was tapping someone else?  Sputnik hell, it'd be more like the Cuban missile crisis.

107 97 Plus Ace's idea doesn't have a catchy slogan.

What am I, chopped liver?

Posted by: Back to the Future! at January 27, 2011 12:53 PM (itFee)

 

What Am I, Chopped Liver? Now that's a slogan.

 

108

Look, I think this plan of ace's is a good one.  BUT... it has to be argued well.  Say you want to cut spending to 1998 levels and stick to that message.  Don't get distracted by minutae or details.

Here is an example of getting distracted

Hey ace!  Do you think we should cut the FBI budget back to 1998 levels?  After all, there is a war on terror going on!  What about border patroling and enforcement?  Etc., etc., etc.

You see, I'll bet ace doesn't want to drop THOSE programs down to 1998 levels.  Just like he already agreed that defense shouldn't be dropped down to 1998 levels too.  The point is, with this strategey, if you have to defend it at each agency/program, it gets nickeled and dimed to death.

You have to just stay on message.  You say "Fund at the 1998 / Clinton levels.  Bring back the good ole days."  They say "But what about the FBI?"  You say "Fund at the 1998 / Clinton levels.  We must bring back the good ole days."  Repeat as necessary.

109 "Back to the Future"!

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2011 12:55 PM (TfJx1)

It's hard to beat Obama's new slogan, the fuckers a genius. "Winning the Future" or the shorter form WTF?

It's golden.

110

We are fucked.  They'll never do it.

OT- did you notice O's little bounce crashed at Rasmussen today post SOTU?

111 How much money is left in the TARP slush fund?  Can the House retrieve it alone, or does Barry have to be shamed into giving it up?

112 It's wrong to concede that all agencies must grow directly with the population. It's not true and it creates waste and excess spending.

Posted by: ace at January 27, 2011 12:51 PM (nj1bB)

OK, fair point.  What do you think about my comment #110? 

113 He's not. It's rhetorical ju-jitsu. But it's not working, I see. Posted by: t-bird at January 27, 2011 12:49 PM

Nope, it's not.

Once again, it's a victory of memes over facts.

Consider the "I'm glad Dubya was strong after 9/11" line. His response was, at best, tentative, and got us into two wars we're still fighting nearly a decade after 9/11. Maybe he went into Afghanistan to get OBL, but the cost in lives and money has been excessive, to say the least. Iraq? I still think his prime motivation was to go after the guy who threatened his Daddy.

The real enablers and abettors of 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, for one) were never targeted.

So, while Dubya was probably a decent guy and far from being the worst president in history -- he can't even be considered in the same breath as the Mohammedan Mouthpiece -- he was no shining star.

What we need to do is stop talking about the past. What was done can't be undone. But the bloated government lovingly created by generations of big-government leeches can be dismantled. Which would take less than a week if Congress had any balls.

That way lies fiscal sanity and a chance for a healthy nation. The current road -- recriminations, talk, and more talk -- leads inevitability to absolute disaster.

114 Looking at the Rand Paul cuts I love the shit out of them and agree with every one except I would have loved to see the EPA on there to be cut as well.

As for cutting back to 1998 levels, I am a firm believer in walking before you can run. I don't think we have ever actually cut the real budget, only reduced the rate of growth. I think cutting it back to 2008 levels would be a good start and would be obtainable. Once we get it there we can go for the 1998 level.

As for Bauchman vs Ryan after watching both a nd factoring in the statement that several Morons had made that those two separate addresses had been planned in advance I though it was a damn good strategy.

Ryan hit them with general stuff while playing nice (although he could have left out the BS safety net stuff).

Bauchman followed that up with specific items and attacks on Obama. I thought it was a good one-two punch and that it was good politics. The thing that I would fault Bauchman on was her delivery in staring off to the right. That looked unprofessional for a politician.

And Ace don't you remember the commandment from RR, attack not your fellow Republicans. Ryan could say what he said because he was speaking in general. The message was really "we learned our lesson". Bauchman was speaking specific and blaming Obama. After all the deficit tripled under his watch and it was spent on the endless socialism hole.

115 God, my sockpuppets are usually lame, but I usually spell my own fucking handle correctly.

116 And BTW, the odds of getting RPs budget through are about zero.

117 Posted by: Andy at January 27, 2011 12:48 PM (5Rurq)

True, which means our Strategy needs to be big picture.  But we often get so caught up in the strategy that we forget that each issue is its own tactical battle.

We're not winning on "big picture" arguments either (okay, we are with OCare, because everyone already hated it).  So, instead of "Entitlements" or even "Social Security" we need to break it down: hit SSDI first (if I had my druthers), find someone (or someones) who had debilitating injuries, but refused to allow themselves to become "permanently disabled."  Hold them up as examples.  Have them go on talk-shows and use them for campaign footage.

All along the way, you keep pointing out that "By following the example of X we believe that Y% of SSDI recipients could find remunerative employment to take them off the rolls and reduce overall spending on Social Security by Z."

If you take that narrow a focus on, say, 10 or 20 issues, SOME of them will get through- simply because you'll be able to stay on message, and the MFM only has so many hours in the day, if they try to fight all of them, they'll be too unfocused to make that much of a difference.

The more you succeed at, the more you'll be able to succeed at, and you get the snowball rolling.

118

Putting them on the defense with their own tactics by using their own rhetorical soundbites - brilliant.

Posted by: Burm the Witch at January 27, 2011 12:56 PM (A/oSU)

Exactamundo. And this is the Dems vulnerability on many issues.

The Pubs stupidly do not challenge the President, since he has now beatified himself as the Great Fiscally Responsible Dude, an heir to Reagan, more fiscally responsible then all Pubs combined, to list the things HE would cut. And remind him of that "scalpel" he promised to use on the budget and brandished during the McCain debate. Actually I think he mistook our backs for the budget.

119

Posted by: Burm the Witch at January 27, 2011 12:56 PM (A/oSU)

Shouldn't that be "Burn the Witch", .  

Seriously, I know some political professionals read this site; can anyone tell me why this sort of idea -- Return to 1998's level of spending burden if you want to return to 1998's level of growth -- isn't a good one? Why isn't anyone pursuing this?

Because the growth experienced in the late 90's was in many ways an anomaly, as mentioned several times before.  Not to mention there was a lot of people gearing up for that stupid Y2K scare, which caused certain businesses to expend capital that they wouldn't have otherwise wouldn't have absent the scare. 

And IIRC, the Clinton Administration was monkeying around with some of the growth figures then- overstating corporate profits by a third for example. 

Otherwise, I'm fine with returning to the 1998's spending levels - I just wouldn't use the "growth" argument for it, even it is a rhetorician flourish designed to get people on board. 

120 "I still think his prime motivation was to go after the guy who threatened his Daddy.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 27, 2011 01:00 PM (Ulu3i)"

Are you fucking serious?

121

Make the point that Obama is simply Bush on steroids. We heard democrats decry Bush's spending, well then make them justify why spending more than Bush is acceptable."

Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2011 12:31 PM (wuv1c)

It always drives me right up the fucking wall when Dems criticize spending and deficit increases under Bush. Did he spend too much? Yes, but every step of the way- be it No Child Left Behind, Medicare D, etc- the Dems were clamoring for even higher spending on these programs than Bush proposed.  Fucking hypocrites.

But yeah, I think what Ace is talking about might resonate with voters under the "are you better off now than you were then" meme.

122 Count me in for returning to 1998 fellatio levels.

123

This! is the real reason why the left and MFM (but I repeat myself) went after Rand Paul so hard..and often .

..^{_{sort of like the way they did a certain former governor of Alaska}}

Alas, none of this can possibly happen until 2013 when we toss Ebola out, replace the Maine sisters, the Scott Brown's, etc with actual conservatives. ..and pick up a few other enate seatss

124

The fixes need to be huge. Maybe --

Social Security buyouts. A few trillion now could eliminate tens of trillions in future payments. These could be funded with ...

More Roth IRA–style plans where the government can collect on future taxes now, and ...

New government-affiliated private-sector corporations charged with assuming the some of the government's financial responsibilities. It can raise money with an IPO and would have to be set up something like Freddie or Fannie but would have to be run like Chevron or McDonald's.

The country can't fly out of its problems or blow them up. It has to hit the hyperspace button. But President Obama has to hit that button. By 2013 it'll be too late, as people won't accept any plans by Republican President Evil McCorporate-Stooge O'Duncey [as the media will surely paint him (or her)].

125 124 "I still think his prime motivation was to go after the guy who threatened his Daddy.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 27, 2011 01:00 PM (Ulu3i)"

Are you fucking serious?

Posted by: Burn the Witch sucks at the internet at January 27, 2011 01:07 PM (A/oSU)

Holy smokes.

126

Alas, none of this can possibly happen until 2013 when we toss Ebola out, replace the Maine sisters, the Scott Brown's, etc with actual conservatives. ..and pick up a few other enate seatss

Is that before or after the unicorns and world peace?

You can primary the likes of Brown, or you can pick up more Senate seats.  Not both.

127 Hollowpoint @ 131 - exactly!

You people with the happy fantasy talk about getting rid of Scott Brown for a "real conservative" should spend a little time here in the Commiewealth of MA.

Not gonna happen.

We'll be lucky if he's just able to keep the seat from the Dems in 2012.

128
You guys are making this difficult.

Department of Defense - dissolved

Department of Peace - established

Rainbows, unicorns and free doobies for all!

129 I can't stop thinking about Rahm Emmanuel's "never let a good crisis go to waste" line.

I don't think we are going to be able to avert this disaster.

Reform will only come after the crash ...  after it's abundantly self-evident to all the booger eating "independents" and iPod drones that there's no more fucking money--that we spent all of it, then borrowed a fuck-ton more.

Nothing short of a 2x4 to the head is going to knock America out of its complacency.

A 1.5 trillion projected deficit for 2011 and people don't give a fuck. 1.5 trillion this year alone and this jug-eared fuck of a president goes up there and talks about high speed trains and people think, "Hey yeah! I'd like some of those!"

There's no sense of perspective regarding what we're facing. Shit, people still whine and moan if a local govt shuts down a few rec centers and swimming pools. Like that should be any kind of fucking priority when you're buried under a mountain of debt.

But that's where we are. And that's exactly what the left has been working toward all these years--an ignorant, dependent and complacent citizenry that they can set against one another and retain control over.

130 Between this proposal and his interviews leading up to the SOTU show, Rand Pauls election looks like a big get for the Republicans. Guy has been awesome so far. It makes me feel like I'm represented by 2 space aliens here in CA.

131 Sorry if I'm being a wet blanket pessimist today.

I really like ace's idea.

I just think it's too late. If I could figure out a way to profit from this dysfunctional mess, I'd be a lot more cheerful.

132
It makes me feel like I'm represented by 2 space aliens here in CA.



Now that you mention it.....

133 Rand Pauls election looks like a big get for the Republicans. Guy has been awesome so far.

You know what? I don't give a shit what this guy's negatives may be. I don't even care that his old man is a loon anymore. They make more sense than the rest of the idiots.

134 Why? Because everything is politics with the Dems, and they are better at it!

We also have no effective leadership. We have the FOX bigmouths and talk radio. We have the tea party, whatever the hell that is all about, and they like to pretend they're their own party while speaking for and over Republicans. Boehner, Ryan, Cantor and Coburn are doing great. We also have governors like Daniels, Barbour and Christie, and a new crop of talent. But it's chaotic. I think co-opting the tea party was a strategic mistake.

135

O/t, kinda:  Rand Paul's Aqua Buddha moment.

Rather than hurting Paul, it humanized him.  All at once, half the country went, "Oh, yeah, that guy!  I went to college with that guy."  I know I felt that way. 

136 Iraq? I still think his prime motivation was to go after the guy who threatened his Daddy.

FUCK YOU!!

137 How can Democrats claim that 1998's spending -- their beloved Clinton's spending -- was inhumane and heartless? They can't, really, at least not without admitting that they're committed tax-and-spend liberals who never, ever really supported these policies in the first place. In which case, they can also not claim credit for the 1990's red-hot economy.

Ah, The Leave the Children (tm)? behind to steal what's left of Grannys full price medicine act.

138 I like the idea, it's a good talking target. 

139

Puhleeeezzze,  this post completely misses the obvious.  When Clinton was President, oil went to as low as $7/bbl.  Your kid's pet hamster could have looked good as President with $7/bbl oil.  All spending, government or otherwise, is completely tied to the cost of energy.

http://tinyurl.com/4o6s8mk

The link is to a *.pdf called "Oil Prices and the Business Cycle."

What's worse about this post is it does the thing I despise the most about the left -- which is credit/blame the damn President with everything, and refuse to see how previous Presidents effect the years after their term.  A significant reason why oil prices dropped to $7/bbl in Clinton's term had everything to do with Reagan - specifically, in 1981, including the Tax Act and other steps taken to break up OPEC's power over the marketplace. 

Also note that Reagan's bombing of Libya was so different than Carter's acceptance of American Hostages in Iran that a number of bullies changed their impression of how much to push us around.  Clinton got the benefits of Reagan's policies -- and he did absolutely nothing to offer similar benefits to either Bush or Obama.

And, just to be fair, Reagan's policies also screwed George Bush I in a big way (along with a metric shitload of normal U.S. Citizens) that were burned by the schizophrenic reversal of the 1981Tax Act in 1986 and the subsequent economic damage (best illustrated by the fall of about 1000 S&L's. Remember Whitewater?)  Bush I had to add about $2 Trillion to the national debt because through the Resolution Trust Corp (FDIC & FSLIC), and Perot and Clinton killed him with it -- Remember "It's the Economy Stupid?"

Presidents can only play the chess board as the board existed when they took over the seat.  All moves effect future moves, including the moves available to the next person sitting at the chess board. 

140 There is a good reason for this: Clinton, a Democrat in good standing, was president. Further, the economy was doing gangbusters business (except when it slipped into a small recession at the end of his term, but economies do that, even basically sound ones).

The economy wasn't any more sound in 1998 than in 2007. Artificially cheap credit helped fuel the dot-com boom. Look at Karl Denninger's stuff some time -- he makes a plausible case that, absent credit expansion, real GDP hasn't expanded since the 1950s. Apparent gains have been driven by rising use of credit (just about the same thing as printing money) and the move to two-income households.

141 What Ken said, mostly. I'm not really convinced that US GDP hasn't expanded at all since the '50s - obviously there have been real productivity gains since then. But yes: the private-sector deficit/credit bubble was still expanding back in '98, so the apparent prosperity was based at least partly on borrowed money which could only be paid back by borrowing even more money, which in turn ... Here's a very clear and nice graph that explains it in one. (Here's the source.)
The Republic of Ireland illustrates this beautifully too, by the way. The last ten years or so here were like an accelerated version of the past few decades in the US. We had years of budget surpluses and increasingly low, low public debt right up to 2008: then the construction/credit bubble burst and whoosh: down went the public finances along with the private sector.

142

How about abolishing school busing. Theres a bit of cash to be found funding that horrific program.

143 anonymous irishman@ 146: Actually (and ironically), I prefer Mish to Denninger myself, especially on the policy prescriptions side.

144 altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - zayıflama hapı - ozon yağı