The stimulus recovery bill has now passed, for better or for worse. What is on the President's agenda now that he has succeed in having Congress pass the largest spending bill ever? Balancing the budget, of course.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Speaking Friday to business leaders at the White House, the president defended the surge of spending in the stimulus plan, but he made sure to add: "It's important for us to think in the midterm and
long term. And over that midterm and long term, we're going to have to
have fiscal discipline. We are not going to be able to perpetually
finance the levels of debt that the federal government is currently
carrying."Along those lines, White House budget director Peter R. Orszag has
committed to instituting tougher budget-discipline rules — once the
economy turns around. Those include a mandate that any "nonemergency"
spending increases be offset by equal spending cuts or tax increases.
That's all well and good, but I wished I could believe those words. When the American taxpayers are looking down the barrel of the largest spending bill in the history of our nation (even with taking inflation into account), it's hard to hear the words "balanced budget" as anything but words.
Obama's a politician. And like virtually all politicians, regardless of party, they says things that sound good in campaigns but are all but impossible or politically unlikely once you are elected.
It's easy to say that you are going to keep lobbyist from your administration. It's much harder to do. (At least 12 lobbyist on the last count, two of which had to be granted a waiver from Obama's own executive order on lobbyist serving in his administration.)
It's easy to say that you are going to post every bill on the internet and allow five days of public comment before signing it. It's much harder to do (promise broken three times already).
It's easy to say that you are going to balance the budget. It's much harder to do, especially when you begin your promise of doing so by allowing yourself gigantic loopholes.
Look carefully at Orszag's comments. These tougher budget rules will only be attempted "once the economy turns around." Who's to say when that happens? He also limits the restrictions to "nonemergency" bills. As we have seen already, every bill, specifically a spending bill in an economic downturn, can be called an "emergency" and be clear of the tighter regulations.
Republicans and Bush got into political trouble when they began to assert that Americans would die unless every foreign policy and national security bill they proposed was passed. It became almost a joke because it was so over used. If [insert bill here] wasn't passed, then the terrorists would win and kill us all. How can you be so unAmerican as to vote with Osama bin Laden? The constant use of the language undermined the times when that may have been precisely the case, or very close to it.
Obama and the Democrats are already going down that path with economic policy. If [insert spending bill here] isn't passed, then our economy will crater and children will die. How dare you vote against giving people jobs and healthcare for sick children? Are you that heartless and partisan that you could vote against restoring our economy?
How can you make any honest attempt at balancing the budget, if you've already set a precedent that spending bills are classified as emergencies?
I hope I'm wrong about this situation. I hope that Obama will work to cut wasteful spending in Washington and bring some type of fiscal disciple to our government, but none of his actions on spending bills so far give me any hope. Neither does the political (ie flexible) nature of campaign promises.
Where was your concern when Bush was instituting the largest expansion of government and the national debt in history? Under Clinton we were balancing the budget; under Bush we didn't.
But that's okay: Obama's a Democrat after all.
If you will look back over the articles and comments from the Bush administration, you will see that spending and government expansion was one of my biggest criticism of him.
This is a principle issue, not a partisan one.
Look at it this way: Obama's been in office for less than a month. He and the Dems have had one major bill. We are on the edge of a major depression. These problems are left over from years of Republican rule. It's not like there's a pattern of years of exploitation of fear as we saw with Bush. At least, Obama is asserting a policy of budget responsibility once the current crisis is resolved. Can't you give him a break?! Can't you give him the benefit of the doubt with his presidency only just starting?! What's wrong with you anyway?
I know what's wrong. Rush the Demagogue expressed it well: "I want Obama to fail."
btw: I'm still waiting for your retraction on Sullivan.
Hi Aaron:
The thing is, if Bush had been RIGHT about the emergency of invading Iraq his saying so wouldn't have been wrong. The same for Obama and the stimulus package: if it really is an emergency then Obama is right to be honest with the American people. According a most economists the stimulus package we passed was NOT too big, some like Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, University of California's Brad Delong say it's quite a bit too small. That Bush cried wolf so many times doesn't make Obama's dire warnings wrong. Louis is right: Obama has barely been President a month and has not shown himself to be a wolf crier.
your friend
Keith
Keith, you need to get yourself an icon. :)
Again, quoting Krugman and other liberal economists do nothing to convince me, as I said in the other thread. Krugman never met a tax and spending increase he didn't like. He has been proven wrong on numerous economic issues. When I find some time later, I can provide you with those links.
I agree that simply because Bush over used threats does not mean that Obama's has. I also agree that Obama has only been in office for a short time and therefore has not overexaggerated to the extent Bush did, but I do think he has shown that his campaign rhetoric does not make his actual policy decisions as evidenced by the examples I cited and others.
There is also the gigantic loopholes he already placed in his calls for fiscal discipline. Again, if he does it I'll be happy and I'll admit it. If he doesn't I expect many of you to acknowledge that. But I'm not holding my breathe for that one since no one seems to see any problem with the lobbyist exemptions or the lack of giving a five day waiting period on signing bills.
One more thing on this bill, if it is such a huge emergency that we pass it NOW, why is so much of the spending set to start next year or even later and why is Obama signing it on Tuesday instead of last week? He's already broken his waiting period and he's not giving it a full five days, so why not sign it immediately if it is so important that we do it now.
Hi Aaron:
You wrote: Again, quoting Krugman and other liberal economists do nothing to convince me, as I said in the other thread. Krugman never met a tax and spending increase he didn't like. He has been proven wrong on numerous economic issues. When I find some time later, I can provide you with those links.
I'm sure that every economist has been wrong about a lot of things but I'd guess I'd disagree with your implicit claim that Krugman has NO credibility. But that's not really my point; I am not saying that JUST because Krugman says it therefore it must be true. The point is that it is definitely a mainstream notion that we are facing an economic emergency which is to say there is nothing so far to indicate that Obama is over-reacting. If eventually Obama turns out to habitually overstate the problems we face THEN you can justifiably complain that he was practicing Bush-like fear mongering. But such a judgment is premature right now. Obama's been President for about a month.
your friend
keith
If eventually Obama turns out to habitually overstate the problems we face THEN you can justifiably complain that he was practicing Bush-like fear mongering. But such a judgment is premature right now. Obama's been President for about a month.
I've already provided examples of Obama backtracking on campaign promises in his month long presidency, so again I have little hope.
However, it is a good point to not pre-judge so quickly. Again, I hope I'm wrong in my thoughts. I hope he is able to actually balance the budget, not shift some numbers around and say that it is balanced.
A visual presentation of the stimulus bill.
Taking Apart the $819 billion Stimulus Package
And a relevant Calvin and hobbes
Hi Aaron:
I believe you overstated Obama's backtracking on campaign promises, but such backtracking is a far different thing from fear mongering. I can't think of a single President who didn't backtrack on stuff he said on the campaign trail, but it's NOT true that most Presidents deliberately mongered fear in order to pass their agendas. Fear mongering is an extreme behavior and I see no reason to assume from the start that a President would do so. I happen to believe that the neo-cons in the Bush adminsitration DID fear monger wrt the Iraq war, but that's not a charge I toss about lightly. I didn't like Reagan but I didn't think he was fear mongering.
your friend
Keith
Keith I could say the same thing with Clinton – as lousy as I think he was, I didn't think he tried to use fear and manipulation the same way the Obama administration seems to have in their limited time in office.
This is going to be part of the ideological divide. Unfortunately, we see things through our biased lens and tend to assume the worst for with which we disagree and the best for those with which we agree.
I don't trust Obama. You didn't trust Bush. It's how we see things.
Hi Aaron:
I think your aim is a little inaccurate here. Let me explain.
Keith I could say the same thing with Clinton – as lousy as I think he was, I didn't think he tried to use fear and manipulation the same way the Obama administration seems to have in their limited time in office.
Clinton didn't face the same circumstances that we are facing right now economically, one that even conservatives like Alan Greenspan say must be dealt with by using extraordinary measures. I just don't see how you can accuse Obama of manipulating this, not when folks like Greenspan, Bruce Bartlett on the right, Noebl laureates Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman on the left agree that we need to do something drastic. Drastic times sometimes require drastic responses. Even if you don't agree with Obama's plan, I don't see how you can justify the implication that he's making a big deal out of nothing for his own political gain.
This is going to be part of the ideological divide. Unfortunately, we see things through our biased lens and tend to assume the worst for with which we disagree and the best for those with which we agree.
I don't trust Obama. You didn't trust Bush. It's how we see things.
I didn't think that Bush would mislead us into a war, that he would embrace torture and domestic spying, not until that happened. I am definitely biased and was very concerned when Bush took power (mostly because I didn't trust the Tom Delay Republicans who controlled the legislature). But I didn't immediately assume the worst about Bush. hardly anyone on the center/left did.
Your side's response this time seems different. It seems very familiar though when I think about how the right reacted to the VERY IDEA of Clinton becoming President. From Wednesday Nov 4 1992 (I looked up the date on a perpetual calendar; what a nerd I am!) the right wing wailed about the supposed disaster to come.
Anyway, that's how I see it:-)
your friend
keith
Drastic times sometimes require drastic responses.
And that does not apply to terrorist flying airplanes into buildings?
I understand that you are saying the economic picture we currently face is one of the worst ever, whether I agree with it or not, that seems to be your point. It's crazy bad, so we've got to do something crazy big.
But I'm not sure how the same argument can't be made for the actions after 9/11. You are predisposed to disagree with them because of your liberalism and pacifism. Just as I am predisposed to disagree with Obama's plan because of my conservatism and aversion to government spending.
That's my point – all the arguments you make for Obama's spending in this current crisis, can be (and were) made for Bush's war, etc.
The press and liberals say after the fact, that we should have known at the beginning. We should have done more to stop Bush's agenda. We shouldn't have just let it happen. (That's not my thoughts, mind you.)
What I'm saying is that the ramifications and unintended consequences of the largest spending bill in history are going to be gigantic and will out weight the positives. I'm also saying that you can't possible speak of the largest spending bill in history, while at the same time saying you are going to balance the budget. His signature on that bill just ended that discussion.
Again, you saw the right as reacting negatively at the idea of Clinton (and Obama) being President. I saw the same thing with the left and Bush – how dare this unintelligent, drunken frat boy with his Jesus talk be President. How many "He's not MY president" bumper stickers did I see?! I'm sure if I was old enough I would recall the same things with Reagan.
All in all, I think it is a positive for our nation to have two completely different view points engaged in the political process. You see things in Republicans and conservatives that I miss, because of my predispositions. I am going to see things in Democrats and liberals that you will miss because of the same. We are going to disagree about many of those things, but the information and opinions on either side help to inform people. That's a good thing.
Hi Aaron:
I said:
Drastic times sometimes require drastic responses.
To which you replied:
And that does not apply to terrorist flying airplanes into buildings?
Definitely. That’s why nearly every Democrat voted to authorize Bush to use the military against Afghanistan. And even in the build up to the Iraq war, a lot of Dems voted to give Bush what he said he needed: the auhtority to use force as a last resort to disarm Sadaam.
I understand that you are saying the economic picture we currently face is one of the worst ever, whether I agree with it or not, that seems to be your point. It’s crazy bad, so we’ve got to do something crazy big.
But I’m not sure how the same argument can’t be made for the actions after 9/11. You are predisposed to disagree with them because of your liberalism and pacifism. Just as I am predisposed to disagree with Obama’s plan because of my conservatism and aversion to government spending.
yes I AM a pacifist and I DIDN’T support the invasion of Afghanistan (definitely not the invasion of Iraq). But I didn’t accuse Bush of using fear mongering to JUSTIFY Afghanistan. In fact, I gave him props for NOT going all Holy war. Bush explicitly separated radical Islam from the moderate Muslims who he declared to be friends of our nation and the world. I am not bragging about this: a lot of folks on the left were like I was. I didn’t turn on Bush as BUSH until it was clear (it seemed to me) that his administration had deliberately out their thumb on the scales to SELL a war they wanted based on a false connection with terrorism. I was very much opposed to Bush’s policies from the beginning, and I never bought the idea (a lot of the center/left DID buy it) that Bush would govern from the center. But I didn’t think that Bush was off the charts as a politician, willing to use fear mongering to pass his otherwise unpopular agenda. THAT’S what I object to about the current right wing reaction to Obama–it seems to me they are doing just that.
That’s my point – all the arguments you make for Obama’s spending in this current crisis, can be (and were) made for Bush’s war, etc.
The press and liberals say after the fact, that we should have known at the beginning. We should have done more to stop Bush’s agenda. We shouldn’t have just let it happen. (That’s not my thoughts, mind you.)
Among the very liberals who AT THE BEGINNING trusted Bush on the war: Al Franken and my wife. This was quite common among Democrats actually.
What I’m saying is that the ramifications and unintended consequences of the largest spending bill in history are going to be gigantic and will out weight the positives. I’m also saying that you can’t possible speak of the largest spending bill in history, while at the same time saying you are going to balance the budget. His signature on that bill just ended that discussion.
I suppose we could both argue like crazy about the economics, but I for one am not a PhD IN econ and if you aren’t either then the discussion would probably be more moise than insight:-) It might be fun though. However, I’m not going to say your POV is crazy or anything–big plans DO often go awry. I don’t begrudge honest conservatives disagreeing with what I think ought to happen.
Again, you saw the right as reacting negatively at the idea of Clinton (and Obama) being President. I saw the same thing with the left and Bush – how dare this unintelligent, drunken frat boy with his Jesus talk be President.
The thing is (IMO) this reaction didn’t happen a month into his first term except among the extreme left. Mainstream Democrats didn’t say anything LIKE that. And I who AM far left also didn’t say such things. Of course that is partly because I was offended by the anti-religious rhetoric of those leftist extremists.
How many “He’s not MY president” bumper stickers did I see?! I’m sure if I was old enough I would recall the same things with Reagan.
Not many if we’re talking about Jan 2001, I’d say.
All in all, I think it is a positive for our nation to have two completely different view points engaged in the political process. You see things in Republicans and conservatives that I miss, because of my predispositions. I am going to see things in Democrats and liberals that you will miss because of the same. We are going to disagree about many of those things, but the information and opinions on either side help to inform people. That’s a good thing.
This I agree with. I think the whole “partisan bickering” complaint is much over-blown. In a democracy, in general, we need vigorous arguments followed by elections, with the winning side governing and the losers acting as the loyal opposition. Post-partisan to me means that we RESPECT those who disagree with us, that we engage their arguments and avoid insulting them personally. Since you disagree completely with the center/left direction our President has mapped out, you should continue to post arguments against it. Full speed ahead, I say.
your friend
keith
I loved the C&H cartoon: it's a great deconstruction of what has happened on Wall Street lately.
btw: Did anyone see this? –
"JUNEAU, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin must pay back taxes on nearly $18,000 in expenses she charged the state for living in her home outside Anchorage instead of at the state capital, officials said Wednesday."
Especially considering the broo-ha-ha from conservatives surrounding back taxes owed by certain Obama nominees, the irony is delicious.
Not many if we're talking about Jan 2001, I'd say.
Keith you do remember Bush v. Gore don't you? That whole mess – selected vs. elected. Bush was a marked man from day one. Again you can argue whether that was deserved or not, but that is the case.
THAT'S what I object to about the current right wing reaction to Obama–it seems to me they are doing just that.
As you say about the left, I say about the right – I think only the nuts react with fear mongering about all the tragedies that are going to happen with Obama as president. I don't like the direction I believe he will steer the nation, but doesn't mean I'm hiding in a cave waiting the end times.
Many people have a principled objection to the gigantic government spending. Many of us said the same things when Bush was expanding the government and increasing the budget.
Especially considering the broo-ha-ha from conservatives surrounding back taxes owed by certain Obama nominees, the irony is delicious.
Louis, I hope you read the Anchorage Daily News story, where all of this came from. In it you find that the person who instructed the state to investigate Sarah Palin's taxes was in fact Gov. Palin herself.
From Anchorage Daily News:
Sure the story would be ironic, if the Democratic appointees had called investigations on themselves to make sure they were paying the taxes properly, instead of, oh I don't know, not paying them for years and only just discovering their "mistakes" when they became nominated for a position or when the press asked them about it.
Of course! I knew you'd explain this away. She's your gal after all. I'm glad you've resolved this to your satisfaction.
Hi Aaron:
Not many if we're talking about Jan 2001, I'd say.
Keith you do remember Bush v. Gore don't you? That whole mess – selected vs. elected. Bush was a marked man from day one. Again you can argue whether that was deserved or not, but that is the case.
I think Bush v. Gore was about the ELECTION, not about the candidate. I think Bush the elder was a decent President (for a Republican:-), but I would have been outraged had HE won Florida the way his son did. I don't think many people on the center/left treated Bush II as illegitimate once the issue was decided.
THAT'S what I object to about the current right wing reaction to Obama–it seems to me they are doing just that.
As you say about the left, I say about the right – I think only the nuts react with fear mongering about all the tragedies that are going to happen with Obama as president. I don't like the direction I believe he will steer the nation, but doesn't mean I'm hiding in a cave waiting the end times.
I think that's a good point. I don't really hear many people in the streets talking trash about our President, the stuff I am talking about I encounter in these on line discussions. That's probably mostly on the far ends of the spectrum.
Many people have a principled objection to the gigantic government spending. Many of us said the same things when Bush was expanding the government and increasing the budget.<?i>
Fair enough, although I would have hoped to have heard more objection from those "many people" about the massive expansion of military spending called the Iraq war:-)
your friend
Keith