President Bush wants balanced budget by 2012

[RegBarc]

Associated Press story (http://Associated%20Press%20story):

WASHINGTON (http://washingtondc.newsvine.com/) ? President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a proposal to balance the budget in five years and exhorted Congress to "end the dead of night process" of quietly tucking expensive pet projects into spending bills.

The president's spokesman, meanwhile, said Bush would talk in his Jan. 23 State of the Union address about making spending on the Iraq war "as transparent as possible."


Lawmakers and the independent, bipartisan Iraq Study Group have criticized the Bush administration for funding the war through emergency supplemental bills, instead of including the costs in the administration's yearly formal budget request for running the government. That means the full cost of the war is not included in the administration's deficit calculations, and are not subject to overall spending caps.There was also talk of cutting pork earmarks by 50%. Lots of lofty goals, but it's far too early to tell the full ranging effectiveness/feasibility of these goals. I'd love to see some really detailed information on it.

[Martin Tupper]

So now that the other party controls both the Senate and the House, Bush pays lip service to balancing the budget. Gee, George, why the change of heart?

[JYoung]

I'd have to agree that he's a little late to the party for this one.

[markz]

The first step towards that goal would require that he step down immediately!

[bigpuma]

My stomach hurts from laughing so hard.

[JustAllie]

My stomach hurts from laughing so hard.Mine too. :2funny:

[Marc]

I miss the balanced budget that we had for such a short time.

Although I know that planning does take time that can cross presidential elections, I still find it sad that the date is so far off that he doesn't have to do anything at this point, and can theoretically feel that he could claim credit for a subsequent President achieving that objective.

I want to know what he is going to do now to the the deficit spending back under control.

[Makita]

if he would have started when first elected, we'd be much closer -Eh?
Now that he sets this up and gets the ball rolling towards this.

This would give the Republicans 'ammo' for the next election, wouldn't it? (the one after this up-coming one). For example, The republicans know they'll loose this next Presidential election, so they set a lofty goal for the next Democrat president, watch it fail, then yell and scream "We Tried, but THEY wouldn't (couldn't) do it!"

One would think that if the Budget was to be balanced, and it was important enough to do so, 'we' would allow The government to bite the bullet and work up a schedule to only spend what came in the year before. For example, let america live paycheck to paycheck (Year by year).
The SIZE of the bullet we'd need to bite would depend on how Fast of a transition we'd want, which would also depend on how much in the hole we'd go each year as well...
...yeah, in an ideal world, I know, but still.

[RegBarc]

The Economic Stimulus Package was one of the smartest things that the President has done domestically, so the balanced budget then I wouldn't have agreed with (especially when entering a recession that started beyond any President's authentic control).

Now, I'd say a balanced budget is well overdue. But I don't think it's something I would have wished for in 2001/2002/2003.

[RegBarc]

President Bush's Op-Ed (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009473) published today in the Wall Street Journal:


Tomorrow, members of the 110th Congress will take their oaths of office here in Washington. I will have the privilege of working with them for the next two years--one quarter of my presidency, plenty of time to accomplish important things for the American people.

Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington. To do that, however, we can't play politics as usual. Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.

I can't remember the last time a President did an op-ed. Not because it hasn't happened (I'm sure it has), but because my memory is shot. Did Clinton do it? Or has Bush done it before?

[aindik]

He wants to balance the budget by increasing spending at a rate slower than the economy (and tax revenue) grows. He's not making any meaningful effort to actually cut spending, or even freeze it.

The level of deficit is not the number to look at when determining how much the government is screwing up the economy. The level of spending is the important figure. Whether it's financed by debt or by taxes is a secondary question. That number has gone in the wrong direction nearly every year, and it's gone up faster under Bush than it ever did under Clinton. IOW, "balance" is not the goal. Shrinking government is the goal. Or should be.

Deficits are bad, but only because they allow license for more spending without voter pain in the form of higher taxes. They're not "bad" inherently. Only politically. A deficit is just a sub species of "taxes on other people."

Someone should tell Bush that government debt is a tax on the unborn. He seems to care deeply about the unborn.

[RegBarc]

Deficits are bad, but only because they allow license for more spending without voter pain in the form of higher taxes. They're not "bad" inherently. Only politically. A deficit is just a sub species of "taxes on other people."
Thank God someone else has finally said this. Totally worth repeating until it makes people's ears bleed.

[Michael]

This is the Rove machine in its most basic form. Just postering! Talk about balancing the budget, knowing the dems win back the office in 08. Then use this as a platform in 2012 to show that dems can't be fiscally sound.

[DMHinCO]

This is like Mike Brady saying "I bought extravagant gifts for Greg, Peter and Bobby. Honey, it's time to be sensible about our spending. Just remember that when you are shopping for Jan, Cindy and Marsha Marsha Marsha."

Enormous subsidies to agribusiness, oil, pharmaceuticals and now this? I may have wet my pants a little.

[JYoung]

Mine too. :2funny:


Bucking for a promotion at work? ;)

[bigpuma]

The Economic Stimulus Package was one of the smartest things that the President has done domestically, so the balanced budget then I wouldn't have agreed with (especially when entering a recession that started beyond any President's authentic control).

Now, I'd say a balanced budget is well overdue. But I don't think it's something I would have wished for in 2001/2002/2003.

Not only did he cut taxes, which is fine, he also increased spending. How the hell do you justify increasing spending and reducing taxes at the same time.

Do you believe he really cares about balancing the budget now.

[Mikkel_Knight]

If he thinks (or anyone else for that matter) that Congressmen and Senators are going to voluntarily eliminate their pork-products (even slightly, say by 10%) I have to question their intelligence.

Yeah, it's nice to "think" about and "talk" about but it's all lip service. It's been going on for far too long. Perhaps by 2012, "pork" can be reduced by 10%, but that (IMO) is probably pretty generous - especially since now that Dems have some power, they're going to give to their districts and states what they've been wanting for all the years they've been gone...

[aindik]

If he thinks (or anyone else for that matter) that Congressmen and Senators are going to voluntarily eliminate their pork-products (even slightly, say by 10%) I have to question their intelligence.

Yeah, it's nice to "think" about and "talk" about but it's all lip service. It's been going on for far too long. Perhaps by 2012, "pork" can be reduced by 10%, but that (IMO) is probably pretty generous - especially since now that Dems have some power, they're going to give to their districts and states what they've been wanting for all the years they've been gone...

The check on pork is supposed to be the President and his veto pen. But this President seems to have lost his. He'll probably relocate it now that the pork is for Democratic congresspeople and their districts. Which is fine, but if he had it all along it would be much better.

He wants to cut pork by 50%? 100%? He has all the power he needs to do that without any cooperation from Congress whatsoever. This is the one executive branch power over the legislative branch that he actually, undisputedly has. And he won't use it.

[RegBarc]

Not only did he cut taxes, which is fine, he also increased spending. How the hell do you justify increasing spending and reducing taxes at the same time.

Do you believe he really cares about balancing the budget now.
Increased spending means that more money goes to private companies from the federal government, which in turn means increased tax revenues and productivity by the private sector.

While seeming paradoxical, and I'm relatively sure that Aindik is going to be against this, lowering taxes across the board and increasing spending temporarily during a recession isn't counterproductive.

I don't think it's sound permenant economic policy, but for the shrot term during a recession? I like it.

[JustAllie]

Bucking for a promotion at work? ;)Sadly, they don't promote us for laughing at politicians behind their backs. :(

[aindik]

Increased spending means that more money goes to private companies from the federal government, which in turn means increased tax revenues and productivity by the private sector.

While seeming paradoxical, and I'm relatively sure that Aindik is going to be against this, lowering taxes across the board and increasing spending temporarily during a recession isn't counterproductive.

I don't think it's sound permenant economic policy, but for the shrot term during a recession? I like it.

Yes, it absolutely is counterproductive.

Any time the government borrows money from someone, it is depriving a private person of the opportunity to borrow that money. It is also driving up interest rates (the price of borrowing) by competing in the borrowing market and increasing demand (and unfairly so, by offering the opportunity of tax-free interest to the recipient, something a private borrower can't do (not to mention the risk-free credit risk of a borrower who can point guns at random people to get the money it needs to pay you back)). This higher cost and decreased availability of capital can screw the economy as badly as a tax increase. It's different, but just as bad.

Any spending that is done by the government comes from money extracted out of the private economy one way or another.

[Mikkel_Knight]

The check on pork is supposed to be the President and his veto pen. But this President seems to have lost his. He'll probably relocate it now that the pork is for Democratic congresspeople and their districts. Which is fine, but if he had it all along it would be much better.

He wants to cut pork by 50%? 100%? He has all the power he needs to do that without any cooperation from Congress whatsoever. This is the one executive branch power over the legislative branch that he actually, undisputedly has. And he won't use it.
Sadly though, the President no longer has the ability to line-item veto parts of bills...

Thank you Supreme Court.:rolleyes:

[doom1701]

You know, I actually believe that Bush really wants this. But I still laugh.

[aindik]

Sadly though, the President no longer has the ability to line-item veto parts of bills...

Thank you Supreme Court.:rolleyes:

The line item veto is pretty clearly unconstitutional. I was talking about the President vetoing the entire bill when it shows up at his desk laden with pork.

[RegBarc]

Yes, it absolutely is counterproductive.

Any time the government borrows money from someone, it is depriving a private person of the opportunity to borrow that money. It is also driving up interest rates (the price of borrowing) by competing in the borrowing market and increasing demand (and unfairly so, by offering the opportunity of tax-free interest to the recipient, something a private borrower can't do (not to mention the risk-free credit risk of a borrower who can point guns at random people to get the money it needs to pay you back)). This higher cost and decreased availability of capital can screw the economy as badly as a tax increase. It's different, but just as bad.

Any spending that is done by the government comes from money extracted out of the private economy one way or another.
I think what's seperating us on this is the right of government to spend vs. how private industry spends. The tax refund is one example of how the government gets to borrow money interest-free from a tax payer. However, I don't really have a problem with this in the way it's utilized today.

[aindik]

I think what's seperating us on this is the right of government to spend vs. how private industry spends. The tax refund is one example of how the government gets to borrow money interest-free from a tax payer. However, I don't really have a problem with this in the way it's utilized today.

Withholding is jacked up and needs to be fixed. It could be fixed fairly simply. (I wrote a piece on that for my law review in law school, but it wasn't chosen for publication).

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the effect of deficit spending on an economy.

[RegBarc]

Withholding is jacked up and needs to be fixed. It could be fixed fairly simply. (I wrote a piece on that for my law review in law school, but it wasn't chosen for publication).

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the effect of deficit spending on an economy.
It revolves back to borrowing by the government which tends to be viewed as unfair by many, because the government is capable of transactions that cost less in the long run compared to transactions in the private industry which cost more in the long run, because borrowing is more expensive. I was using the tax refund as a small example of that.

[aindik]

It revolves back to borrowing by the government which tends to be viewed as unfair by many, because the government is capable of transactions that cost less in the long run compared to transactions in the private industry which cost more in the long run, because borrowing is more expensive. I was using the tax refund as a small example of that.

I'm not even sure the government even considers early and excessive income tax withholding to be borrowing, or spending of that money to be deficit spending.

The objection to government borrowing (at least from me) is not that the government can borrow more easily or more cheaply. It's that the government

a) crowds out private borrowing, increasing demand and therefore increasing the price (i.e. the interest rate) paid by private borrowers, and

b) can offer terms to lenders that are more favorable than terms that can be offered by private borrowers because (i) the government has imposed taxes on the lenders' interest collection but has made its own interest payments exempt from that tax, and (ii) the government has guns and prisons and can legally use them to extract money from people, and is therefore a very good credit risk. These two things raise interest rates even further than they would by the simple extra competition.

High interest rates are a drain on capital investment in the private economy. They're an increase in the cost of doing business, just like a tax is.

[RegBarc]

I'm not even sure the government even considers early and excessive income tax withholding to be borrowing, or spending of that money to be deficit spending.

The objection to government borrowing (at least from me) is not that the government can borrow more easily or more cheaply. It's that the government

a) crowds out private borrowing, increasing demand and therefore increasing the price (i.e. the interest rate) paid by private borrowers, and

I think that while this is an evitable side-effect, I also think there's implementation plans with only spending from tax revenue on-hand or in savings. I think the structure of the federal government (right or wrong) is based off of borrowing. Now can we change that structure? Possibly; but I can feel that changing the structure so that the government spends from assests instead of creating liabilities will be a real sugar-shock to how it does business. A lot of things would have to change as well (the entire 14 trillion, gazillion page tax code for one).

b) can offer terms to lenders that are more favorable than terms that can be offered by private borrowers because (i) the government has imposed taxes on the lenders' interest collection but has made its own interest payments exempt from that tax, and (ii) the government has guns and prisons and can legally use them to extract money from people, and is therefore a very good credit risk. These two things raise interest rates even further than they would by the simple extra competition.
How effective is the government, using the IRS specifically, at actually nailing people who they think owes them money? I agree with part (i), but part (ii), the government has proved itself almost incapable of actually following through with it. Now, the government does have an upper hand since it's guarentee is what our own currency is based off of. When the government guarentees something financially, it's probably one of the greatest form of collateral that exists in our economy. And, I have no problem using the guarentee to borrow, even at the expense of private industry, because changing to a system where we spend out of assests and don't spend out of liabilities (I think) would be the "sugar shock" I refer to. I'm not quite sure the federal government was ever really capable of that ever since this country became the economic hegemony it is.

[aindik]

I pay my taxes every year. I'm afraid of what would happen to me if I didn't. If they were raised, I'd pay those too. There are hundreds of millions of people like me. So, I'm pretty sure the government is fairly effective at using (or threatening the use of) guns and prisons to extract money from people, even if not everyone is like me and the government is not as effective as it should be in catching them.

[RegBarc]

I pay my taxes every year. I'm afraid of what would happen to me if I didn't. If they were raised, I'd pay those too. There are hundreds of millions of people like me. So, I'm pretty sure the government is fairly effective at using (or threatening the use of) guns and prisons to extract money from people, even if not everyone is like me and the government is not as effective as it should be in catching them.
I'm not talking about not paying taxes at all (Wesley Snipes figured that out the hard way). I'm talking about claiming 15,000 miles for business use on the car instead of 5,000. Or claiming XXXX dollars spent on charitable contributions instead of YYYY dollars. That sort of thing. Not just blowing off taxes altogether, but manipulating what is reported to get an upper leg.

[Mikkel_Knight]

The line item veto is pretty clearly unconstitutional. I was talking about the President vetoing the entire bill when it shows up at his desk laden with pork.
Well yeah, but with the way Congress is at this time, I don't see him being able to veto much at all...

My point was, it'd be easier (and IMO better) to line-item veto out pork out of important bills than to just veto the whole thing.

Yeah, it's currently not constitutional, but that's pretty much be the only way for pork to be eliminated... (because it's clear that the congressmen and senators aren't going to police themselves at all)

[aindik]

Well yeah, but with the way Congress is at this time, I don't see him being able to veto much at all...

My point was, it'd be easier (and IMO better) to line-item veto out pork out of important bills than to just veto the whole thing.

Yeah, it's currently not constitutional, but that's pretty much be the only way for pork to be eliminated... (because it's clear that the congressmen and senators aren't going to police themselves at all)

They will police themselves if the President makes a fist and says he will veto every bill that is laden with pork, no matter what else is in it. Congress is then faced with a choice: pass bills not laden with pork or not pass anything at all.

[RegBarc]

They will police themselves if the President makes a fist and says he will veto every bill that is laden with pork, no matter what else is in it. Congress is then faced with a choice: pass bills not laden with pork or not pass anything at all.
Do you think Congress is so full of itself that it will want a veto override?

[JPriller]

Do you think Congress is so full of itself that it will want a veto override?Doesn't it already have one?

[aindik]

Doesn't it already have one?

I think he meant, if Bush vetoes a bill because it's pork-laden, will Congress override the veto. My answer is, I can think of few bills that will be able to muster that large a majority with the current make-up of Congress.

[RegBarc]

I think he meant, if Bush vetoes a bill because it's pork-laden, will Congress override the veto. My answer is, I can think of few bills that will be able to muster that large a majority with the current make-up of Congress.
Yes, my convoluted question was asking this, thanks. ;)