Keep Debt Alive!

by folkbum

Re: Paul Ryan's Roadmap:

The CBO says your road map would put spending at 22.2 percent of GDP in 2020 and 23.5 percent in 2040. With revenue capped at 19 percent, that means Paul Ryan stands for deficits that would be 3 percent to 4 percent of GDP for at least the next 30 years, which would balloon the debt by trillions, to 100 percent of GDP from 53 percent in 2009. If you're supposedly willing to make "the hard choices," why wouldn't you balance the budget as soon as the economy is back on track? What kind of "fiscal conservative" has a half-century plan to balance the budget?

Indeed, CBO projects the deficit in 2020 to be about the same under current continued policies and under Ryan's policies. Roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%, and Obama's policies lower the deficit faster than Ryan's.

The Flip Side of the CIA Bashing Coin

By Keith R. Schmitz

One of the most breath-taking sights in America is the hypocrisy of the right. As a natural wonder it ranks up there with the Grand Canyon.

As recently as today in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Cal Thomas is always ready to shoulder goes after the administration over the currently rising deficit. Never mind that this is back-fill for the economic problems left by the previous administration, or would result in needed changes in our health care system that will eventually save future administrations money -- and lower deficits.

It wasn't too long ago Thomas and others in his cult were tightly zipped over the money for nothing deficits ran up by Bush resulting from the useless invasion of Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy and a drug program clearly for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies.

Don't forget in Bush's world nothing gets done for the country unless it helps our thin, flaky upper crust first, and to ensure that in keeping with the dictums of Grover Norquist, prevent the government from ever doing anything beneficial for the American people.

Now we have the spectacle of the caterwauling over the expected investigations of the CIA over detainee abuses. Many of these guys were poor slubs who were rounded up as a result of bounties to Pakistani warlords and were later tortured to learn about things they knew nothing about.

Good to see that our Attorney General Eric Holder feels that our ideals need to be upheld for the good of the country, and that our country is strong enough to examine the flaws in our system.

But don't worry folks. Like so many investigations over our generation this will probably lead to nothing. So settle down.

So predictably the clowns have tumbled out of the car and are complaining that this investigation will hamper morale at the CIA. Funny that didn't seem to be a concern when Dick Cheney outed a CIA operative with God knows how many of the coverts protecting us lost their lives.

Or when Cheney, who we can be pretty certain was going to put us into Iraq regardless of what the intelligence showed, blamed the CIA for "mistakes." That brought bogus to a whole new level.

Like the Grand Canyon, the gap between reality and their depiction of it is pretty wide.

Two legs good. Four legs bad. GOP "Consistency" on Deficits

By Keith R. Schmitz

Why are the only hard news interviews seemingly on the Daily Show?

The other night Jon Stewart put New Hampshire Senator John Sununu on the griddle over the new found GOP religion on deficits (emphasis mine).

Stewart: I'm not an economist, but let's say I start out with a surplus and I say lets have a tax cut to stimulate the economy, lets make it 1.2 trillion dollars and that surplus turns into a deficit. Why would I at that point go, hey you know what could fix that? A tax cut.

This GOP view seems to change with administrations, and as usual right wing talk radio carries the water.

Remembering back a few years ago a combination of boredom and lack of knowledge about my high blood pressure led me to tune in Mark Belling one afternoon during the Bush administration. He was challenging his listeners to come up with a reason why deficits were bad. Since he was not exactly broadcasting to the Wharton School of Business no answers were forthcoming.

It occurred to me that rewinding to the early years of Bill Clinton when again I was bored and not knowledgeable about high blood pressure Belling was then exhibiting his brand of mental unhinging on deficits.

Clinton goes on to build that surplus $1.2 trillion surplus, despite his "distractions" and GOP railing about "tax and spend" Democrats.

Now rather than tax cuts for the wealthy and a boneheaded invasion of Iraq to bequeath to our grandchildren there is deficit spending intended to help out our economy and average people. GOP defines these deficits as wasteful.

Two legs good. Four legs bad.

Maybe the GOP should change their web site URL address to Expediency.com.

Update: F. Jim proves more of the above point. Someone please explain (and I'm sure someone will) why blowing money out of a confetti cannon at the Defense Department does not constitute reckless spending?

McIlheran Watch: Let's Celebrate Massive Deficits!

(Updated below.)

You know, every time I think about continuing to catch up on stuff I skipped last week, something new crops up. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's resident member of the fantasy-based community is back from his summer vacation. I don't know if he got too much sun, or if he's celebrating Bush's visit to Milwaukee this week, but he has certainly left the rose-colored glasses on.

One post Tuesday is all about how great it is that we're adding $300 billion to our national debt this year. He somehow thinks this is good news.

He's not the only one. New nemesis The Game is exultant:

Conservatives believe that if you lower taxes to a certain point, you actually get MORE in tax revenues because people have more money to spend, they buy more stuff, buisness makes more money, they hire more people to make more stuff, and so on...

But since liberals don't believe that...explain how Bush's tax cuts for the rich have collected MORE taxes FROM the rich?

The comments to that post degenerated into an argument over Social Security, but Game kept begging that his liberal commenters to admit that Bush's tax cuts have been a rousing success.

And that's McIlheran's point, too; the title of his post, after all, is "Argument's Over," saying "The tax cuts didn’t destroy America. Can we move on to the next issue, please?" Well, no, America isn't destroyed. But consider that, even after the good economic news of the week--that the deficit would be but $300 billion, not the close to $400 billion projected--we still learned that the deficit would in fact be the fourth-largest deficit in the history of the country. (Deficits 1-3 are, of course, Bush's from 2004, 2003, and 2005, in that order.) In fact, Bush himself predicted during his first campaign that there would be a surplus of more than $500 billion this year, not a deficit.

I do not understand how a loss of more than 800 billion dollars can be considered anything other than an abysmal failure.

What's more, according to the New York Times, "many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000." So, sure, yeah, the tax cuts haven't destroyed anything, but they certainly haven't shown anything like that graph on the napkin: The argument actually was, to remind the goal-post moving Patrick McIlheran, that cutting taxes would increase revenue faster. That hasn't happened; I suppose we can say that argument's over now, too.

McIlheran isn't done there, though. He completely undercuts his own arguments (or, rather, those of the Heritage foundation, which he cites). He writes,

That is, CEOs got fat paychecks and their investments did well--because, in part, of the tax cuts that spurred the economy. As Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl put it, “Lower tax rates increased the incentives to work, save, and invest, and as a result the economy has grown faster.”

And when it grows, people earn more and pay more in taxes. Of course.

My head hurts from that spin. Let me see if I get this straight: The extra revenue you're celebrating comes "from 'the tippy-top of the income scale,' with Americans who have investments earning handsomely from capital gains"--money grown from money earned by people who have money. Yet you (and Heritage) say that this is evidence of more "people" at "work"? There's no "work" in capital gains. This increase in income is not being enjoyed by the "people" but by the few. It's John Edwards's "Two Americas" personified (and read that link to see how conservtives distort economic figures to pretend tax cuts help cure poverty better than social programs).

Actual economist Brad DeLong has two posts deflating some of the some of the ill-advised celebrating among the likes of McIlheran. First, he notes that even former Bush shills see bad times ahead; next, he takes apart Larry Kudlow, approvingly linked by McIlheran, who is also abusing economic figures to imply that things are moving more hummingly than they are.

Yes, the argument's over. The evidence continues to pour in that Bush's economic policies have neither helped the vast majority of Americans, nor have they done anything close to what they promised to do for us.

Update: Barbara O'Brien reminds me of something I thought I remembered but didn't have tim to check on this morning: The original 2006 deficit estimate was probably inordinately high on purpose. That means when the deficits no one but the Bush spinners expected didn't arrive--as expected--they claimed victory. Reminds me of Lisa Simpson:

Lisa: I could say that this rock keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: I would like to buy your magic rock.

An Imaginary Spin

****FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE****

The Bush Administration's Treasury Department has just completed a study that reports great news. The president's tax cut strategy will result in a decrease in tax revenue of more that $44 trillion dollars.

"This is a great day for America," President Bush said as he unveiled the study. "The government will continue to take less and less of taxpayers' hard-earned money, leaving Americans with the dollars in their pockets to spend as they choose, not as the government chooses."

"In fact," the president continued, "this $44 trillion reduction means that every man, woman, and child in this country receives an average $173,333 tax cut. That's $173,333 to spend on food, automobiles, houses and other products people want and need."

Any questions about the president's tax cut package will be treated with suspiscion and will result in a loss of civil liberties.

****OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE****

[View/Post Comments]