Comments on: Obama Slashes Spending, Increasing Massively!

By: Dennnis Neylon

Dennnis Neylon — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:45:28 +0000

I will believe they expired when they actually expire and are not renewed. Remember how Clinton's plan to hire vastly more beat cops was temporary? And Obama's new budget plan includes funding for (drum roll) more beat cops (rim shot). Government spending may be scheduled to expire, but more often programs are renewed. Programs develop constituencies and lobbyists who work to keep them alive, no matter what the original intent was (and me thinks the original intent is often just that -- call it temporary, knowing that once in place, it will be nearly impossible to let it die).

By: odograph

odograph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:35:39 +0000

Dennnis, you don't need to "cut" things that "expire." When you talk about "farm aid, Medicare/Medicaid payments" you are talking about things that are continuing funding. Those don't expire, tend to get adjusted upward, and all the bad stuff.

By: Dennnis Neylon

Dennnis Neylon — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:41:36 +0000

Spending increases in Washington are nearly always permanent because no one ever actually seems to cut any spending, with the exceptions of defense spending, which Democrats always believe is too high and Republicans always believe is not high enough and foreign aid, which Democrats always believe is not high enough and Republicans never quite sure if it is or not. The biggest farce is money to states to comply with Congressional mandates which is almost never enough to comply with Congress' rules of what states should spend (Congress always knows best when it comes to how much money any body should spend on anything, because, you know, they're in Congress and they have all the answers). The promised "cuts" in farm aid, Medicare/Medicaid payments, "Tax loopholes" and "eliminating waste" are the boilerplate smoke and mirrors we hear every budget cycle. Farm aid will not be cut (it may not grow as much), Medicare/Medicaid payments may not grow as much, and no member of Congress who wants to be re-elected will vote to raise taxes or cut funding for anything that has a lobbyist to represent it.

By: odograph

odograph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:55:48 +0000

I thought you said "perhaps you'd like to take a whack" Charles? I considered it a change of subject from the big picture to the small. There is no reason I have to follow, especially if I think the change of subject is to move from my original claim. If you think this "unemployment money" is a big picture item, just tell me the percentage of the stimulus committed to it. (Make it Republicans and fellow travelers.)

By: charles austin

charles austin — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:31:04 +0000

I'm not a Republican and you're not responding to the question.

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:44:41 +0000

BTW, I realize Republicans have difficulty with the word "temporary." The are the ones after all who consider the expiration of their own "temporary" tax cut as a "tax increase." Interesting semantics.

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:42:01 +0000

I don't think it is Charles. There are at least two ways to pass tax or spending laws. As temporary increases or decreases, which require a new Congressional vote to continue them, or as continuing law, which requires a vote to stop them.

Here you've got a one-time stimulus bill, with a nicely tailed distribution of spending, without even a hint of "pass a continuing resolution in 2012 to continue."

It is actually structured to tail out.

It's kind of crazy to treat laws that require new votes to start again as equal to laws that require new votes to stop.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:01:48 +0000

It's different Charles, because on the surface it promises a genuine cycle of stimulus spending and recovery.

Surely, you can't be serious. But I'll agree the apparent beauty is only skin deep. As for off budget, perhaps you'd like to take a whack at the partisanship motivating governors to reject additional unemployment money now because of required rule changes that will leave them holding the bag for unfunded mandates later, ubnless Steve is right that the faucet is stuck open.

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:16:54 +0000

But they aren't "in the budget" going forward Steve. We've all seen the graphs of expenditure per year. Some (including you, I believe) don't like that the high point of the curve is in 2010 or 2011, but we've all seen it tail off after that. example graph

By: BernardFinel.com » Trend in Federal Spending: Making Sense of the Deficit

BernardFinel.com » Trend in Federal Spending: Making Sense of the Deficit — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:59:16 +0000

[...] W. Bush is saddled with the blame for our budget imbalances. And of course, many conservatives are gleefully mocking Obama’s pledge to be fiscally responsible. But I am going to take this opportunity to try to [...]

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:56:43 +0000

I wont believe that all of the current increases under the umbrella of "countercyclical" are temporary until they are no longer in the budget. In other words, temporary spending increases seem to have a way of becoming permanent.

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:43:36 +0000

It's different Charles, because on the surface it promises a genuine cycle of stimulus spending and recovery. In the old dark days of Democratic entitlement expansion, it was all in permanent expenditures.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:30:58 +0000

Years back, Democrats succeeded in popularly defining a cut to government largesse as anything less than what they proposed. How is this any different?

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:04:09 +0000

As long as everyone understands what countercyclical spending is, we can begin the discussion on a good foot