Wishful Thinking 101: Can We Talk About the Deficit Now?

[Lemur]

I know, I know, I'm a silly little prosimian for thinking that anyone's going to give a hoot about debt, but who knows? Maybe in the new two-party Washington, people might actually pay attention to our outrageous deficit?

Good editorial today in a local paper:

Walker is the nation's comptroller general - basically America's top accountant. And he speaks with all the fervor of an evangelist on his favorite topic: the coming train wreck that is federal finances.

If our government simply keeps conducting business as usual, he argues, our national obligations will grow far larger than the output of the country, creating a gigantic fiscal hole that could cripple the economy.

"In my view, the greatest threat to America's future isn't hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan; it's right here at home," he told an audience in Minneapolis last month.

[snip]

Overall, the total U.S. fiscal burden - that's all of the federal government's liabilities - soared from about $20 trillion in 2000 to about $50 trillion today, according to the GAO. That's about $440,000 for each American household.

What do the Orgahs think? Is there even a vague chance that the new Washington might reign in spending? Or will the big-government wing of the G.O.P. embrace the big-government wing of the Democrats and make sweet love all night long?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh, not the hockey stick again! What people don't realize is that there is a natural surplus/deficit cycle.

[Lemur]

And when exactly are we supposed to be in the surplus part of that cycle again? 'Cause it's been a while ...

[Don Corleone]

The Six in 06 and what they'll do to the defecit: Here's what the Democrats say they'll do

To be fair, if the Democrats would repeal the 'no-negotiation' clause the Republicans put into Medicare Part D, they could reduce the burden on seniors for prescriptions AND reduce the congressional expenditure. I doubt they will have much success though.

Raising the federal mininum wage won't cost Congress anything directly, but it will slow the economy and reduce revenues available to tax.

Ending exploratory money for oil companies will definitely reduce the money Congress pays out each year, but it's going to raise the price of gas.

All the rest are giveaways: more money in Pell grants, stem cell research money, no privitization of Social Security (translation, Congress is going to fund everybody's retirement directly, without trying to employ investment strategies).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't see why Pell grants are any different from tax cuts. I have one, and you can bet I'm spending more money than I would if I didn't. Surely they help the economy.

[Don Corleone]

I don't see why Pell grants are any different from tax cuts. I have one, and you can bet I'm spending more money than I would if I didn't. Surely they help the economy.

As a student, you're not creating wealth, you're absorbing it or transferring it. Tax cuts help grow the economy because people that create wealth spend it, thus multiplying it's affects. What's more, tax cuts have the additional benefit in that people are more willing to generate wealth for themselves and for the government (in the form of taxes) when they know that if they do, they won't be hit by a punitive tax cut in the process. You're not actually generating wealth, just taking what the government gives you, so the net increase in your contribution would be zero.

I'm not trying to single out college students on Pell grants, because sure, they serve a role. But they will increase Congressional spending, with no correlating increase in revenues, because you don't contribute to the economy.

[Don Corleone]

The scary thing about 'more money for education'? There's relatively little correlation between the amount of money spent per student and how well students do in school. If more money actually worked, I would actually support it. But Western states (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico) spend less per student than Southern states (North Carolina, Alabama) but they do markedly better. States in the Northeast have not kept up in growing the per-student spending, falling to the upper third from the top, but their test scores remain top of the list.

The problem with education in America is the NEA. Plain and simple. They don't want to require teachers to do their jobs, and incompetent teachers get rewarded along with the good ones (and there's plenty of those). Add to that so much class time is taken up with enacting social policy these days, it's very hard for teachers to actually teach.

Quit with the "social experiments" like the schools out in California making kids pretend to be Muslims for a month, and teach the 3Rs.

I understand what Dems say about standardized tests, that in the end, kids learn how to take a standardized test, not a real education. But by any yardstick, we are failing our children miserably, and if vouchers aren't the answer, fine, propose one. But "let's just give the schools more money and hope the problem goes away" is a recipe for more failure. If schools really need more money, then lay it out and explain how it will improve student performance. But don't just handwave with 'more money for education'.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The scary thing about 'more money for education'? There's relatively little correlation between the amount of money spent per student and how well students do in school. If more money actually worked, I would actually support it. But Western states (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico) spend less per student than Southern states (North Carolina, Alabama) but they do markedly better. States in the Northeast have not kept up in growing the per-student spending, falling to the upper third from the top, but their test scores remain top of the list.

The problem with education in America is the NEA. Plain and simple. They don't want to require teachers to do their jobs, and incompetent teachers get rewarded along with the good ones (and there's plenty of those). Add to that so much class time is taken up with enacting social policy these days, it's very hard for teachers to actually teach.

Quit with the "social experiments" like the schools out in California making kids pretend to be Muslims for a month, and teach the 3Rs.

I understand what Dems say about standardized tests, that in the end, kids learn how to take a standardized test, not a real education. But by any yardstick, we are failing our children miserably, and if vouchers aren't the answer, fine, propose one. But "let's just give the schools more money and hope the problem goes away" is a recipe for more failure. If schools really need more money, then lay it out and explain how it will improve student performance. But don't just handwave with 'more money for education'.

Yeah, but all that shows is that they are either spending money on the wrong things or that standardized tests are a lousy measure. Probably both.

I would imagine that raising teacher salaries would eventually be effective in raising quality of education.

Also, according to Crazed Rabbit, private schools are the best, and what are private schools if not public schools with more money?

[Papewaio]

Raising the federal mininum wage won't cost Congress anything directly, but it will slow the economy and reduce revenues available to tax.

It might reduce the total amount employed at the bottom end of the sector... but a lot of those jobs are heading overseas and/or by illegal immigrants who won't be effected by this law. Considering that unemployment rates are below 5%, this probably won't have any effect, as competition will favour employees and push up wages far faster then this effect.

Ending exploratory money for oil companies will definitely reduce the money Congress pays out each year, but it's going to raise the price of gas.

Record prices for oil will push exploration along at a high clip. Only time that you need to push exploration is when the current mines/oil fields cost of production is too close to the spot price... that is when they cut exploration staff to the bone... just like when I graduated as a geophysicist many moons ago.

[Don Corleone]

Well, the reason I'm a Republican in the first place is because I'm fiscally conservative, so I've been incredibly underwhelmed these past 6 years. There are some good defecit hawks among the Democrats, but none are being pointed to for leadership roles.

As I understand it, the House leadership is going to be Rangle, Waxman, Dingle and Conyers (and of course Pelosi, and whomever wins the House majority election).

Here's an article from the Washington Post on this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

House Democrats Propose More Spending for Military and Education
GOP Says Plan Would Imperil Efforts to Balance Budget

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 1, 2006; Page A07

As part of their midterm election push, House Democrats are promoting a wide-ranging legislative agenda that would add tens of billions of dollars a year to the federal budget for the military, homeland security and education yet still impose a new budget restraint that would make it harder to widen the annual deficit.

Republicans and budget experts doubt that Democrats could do both simultaneously. When price tags are attached to their six-pronged agenda -- named Six for '06 -- critics say the Democrats will be forced to choose between keeping their pledge of fiscal rectitude and their promises of federal largess.

In short, the promised 'pay as you go' financial conservatism you and I are looking for???

[Lemur]

House Democrats Propose More Spending for Military and Education
GOP Says Plan Would Imperil Efforts to Balance Budget

The first line is depressing. The second line is hilarious. If Don C is lost in a German art film, this headline makes me feel like I'm wandering through a piece of Dada experimental theater ....

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that in both relative and absolute terms the current deficit and indeed national debt are breaking records.

On the news it was saying that when there is a bipartisan set-up, spending usually decreases (probably just as it ends being a logjam).

[yesdachi]

Read my lips, lots more taxes!

Our “new” government is going to have to come thru on some of them promises they made to get elected and that is going to mean more spending. Maybe in a few years we will start to curb spending, after the “new” government solves the Iraq issue the next big issue for most people is $$$, it will become an issue but not until tomorrow.

[Lemur]

Read my lips, lots more taxes!

Our “new” government is going to have to come thru on some of them promises they made to get elected and that is going to mean more spending.

Oh give it a rest. If we froze all spending tomorrow, a tax hike would still probably be necessary. It took the Republicans exactly six years to take our unfunded liabilities (translation: money we owe that we don't have) from $20 billion to $50 billion. I am completely unimpressed with any G.O.P. whining about fiscal responsibility at this late date.

With a divided government, at least we have a chance to rein in the beast. Let a lemur hope a little, okay?

[yesdachi]

Oh give it a rest. If we froze all spending tomorrow, a tax hike would still probably be necessary. It took the Republicans exactly six years to take our unfunded liabilities (translation: money we owe that we don't have) from $20 billion to $50 billion. I am completely unimpressed with any G.O.P. whining about fiscal responsibility at this late date.

With a divided government, at least we have a chance to rein in the beast. Let a lemur hope a little, okay?

i did say...

Maybe in a few years we will start to curb spending

[Spino]

The first line is depressing. The second line is hilarious. If Don C is lost in a German art film, this headline makes me feel like I'm wandering through a piece of Dada experimental theater ....

Hey, I'm the guy who said he feels like he's lost in a German art film! Personally I'm hoping this is all a bad dream and I wake up and find myself in one of those Italian art films from the same period...

Truth be told I think Don C feels like he should be somewhere on an interstate racing towards Vegas, white knuckled and hell bent on a weekend of glorious self indulgence; a brief respite from the blackened skies looming in the distance...

The scary thing about 'more money for education'? There's relatively little correlation between the amount of money spent per student and how well students do in school. If more money actually worked, I would actually support it. But Western states (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico) spend less per student than Southern states (North Carolina, Alabama) but they do markedly better. States in the Northeast have not kept up in growing the per-student spending, falling to the upper third from the top, but their test scores remain top of the list.

The problem with education in America is the NEA. Plain and simple. They don't want to require teachers to do their jobs, and incompetent teachers get rewarded along with the good ones (and there's plenty of those). Add to that so much class time is taken up with enacting social policy these days, it's very hard for teachers to actually teach.

Quit with the "social experiments" like the schools out in California making kids pretend to be Muslims for a month, and teach the 3Rs.

I understand what Dems say about standardized tests, that in the end, kids learn how to take a standardized test, not a real education. But by any yardstick, we are failing our children miserably, and if vouchers aren't the answer, fine, propose one. But "let's just give the schools more money and hope the problem goes away" is a recipe for more failure. If schools really need more money, then lay it out and explain how it will improve student performance. But don't just handwave with 'more money for education'.

Absolutely!

I would imagine that raising teacher salaries would eventually be effective in raising quality of education.

Also, according to Crazed Rabbit, private schools are the best, and what are private schools if not public schools with more money?

What? You mean like the teacher salaries in NYC? LOL! Our teachers are extremely well paid and yet our public schools are awful! Paying teachers well is one thing, holding them to high standards is another. It is extremely difficult nowadays to find truly qualified teachers and the ones that do pass the muster are easily discouraged from sticking around because the latest generation of students are spoiled silly and behave like animals in class. I've met numerous private and parochial school teachers who used to teach in public schools but left because could not handle the stress and agitation. Most preferred a massive paycut in exchange for a a more rigidly disciplined environment and a less stressful existence. To pad their income these people will get part-time jobs (preferably off-the-books types like bartending). No amount of money is going to improve America's public schools because the problem begins with the students and their upbringing and ends with a curriculum that is muddled with too much social engineering and not enough basics.

Private & parochial schools are, for the most part, better than public schools because they are devoid of the sticky issues and personnel that can plague every government institution. Private schools can set their own agenda and with the exception of Catholic schools, do not have to answer to a centralized bureacracy regarding curriculum or anything else.

[Lemur]

Hey, I'm the guy who said he feels like he's lost in a German art film!

Ooops! Sorry I misattributed that line; it was good enough to make an impression on my tiny lemur brain. I can see why you feel that way. There's something mean and spiteful in a universe where Hillary Clinton is your and Gawain's Senator ....