Isn't ANYONE concerned about fiscal responsibility?

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ert/index.html

[John Galt]

I think the failed Perot 3rd party attempt showed that the two parties have lost interest in fiscal responsibility because it doesn't sell to the public. Perot capitalized on the issue, but his ultimate failure showed the GOP and the Dems that supporting fiscal responsibility is not an issue that will ever shape an election.

[Cuckoo]

I think you're right on the money John, and it's sad that providing more and more services to be, or continue being, elected takes a back seat to whether you actually have the money to do it.

[Desnudo]

http://www.lp.org/

[JonInMiddleGA]

There's also the reality that what is/isn't funded appears to be infinitely more important to the majority of voters than how much it costs to fund X, Y, or Z.

Off-hand, without any desire to sit around & pull together 234 different proposals from the internet, I'd say if you took every item on the Dem wish list & every item on the Rep. wish list & totalled 'em up, you'd probably get a reasonably similar figure -- it's just that the items & allocations would be dramatically different.

{edited to add} -- I don't know that there's anything too surprising in the lack of interest in "fiscal responsibility" when you're talking about a culture that seems to be largely built on personal debt in the first place.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think the failed Perot 3rd party attempt showed that the two parties have lost interest in fiscal responsibility because it doesn't sell to the public. Perot capitalized on the issue, but his ultimate failure showed the GOP and the Dems that supporting fiscal responsibility is not an issue that will ever shape an election.

I'm not sure if I buy this. I think Perot was successful in 92 in driving the debate, and I'd argue that it shaped Clinton's economic policy, to some extent. Say what you will about him, but Clinton managed to balance the budget and operate with a surplus near the end of his presidency. (People will still say that taxes were too high and we were spending too much, but we weren't spending more than we took in.) Perot was less of a factor in 96 because fiscal responsibility wasn't as much of an issue.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not sure if I buy this. I think Perot was successful in 92 in driving the debate, and I'd argue that it shaped Clinton's economic policy, to some extent. Say what you will about him, but Clinton managed to balance the budget and operate with a surplus near the end of his presidency. (People will still say that taxes were too high and we were spending too much, but we weren't spending more than we took in.) Perot was less of a factor in 96 because fiscal responsibility wasn't as much of an issue.

I'm not saying that fiscal responsibility isn't possible - I'm saying that as an issue it isn't very important in the parties. Look at the candidates (like Tsongas) who have tried to create an election strategy built on fiscal responsibility - they always sound "gloom and doom" and don't have much to sell. Really, when a candidate runs a fiscal responsibility platform, they are telling Americans all the things the CAN'T do for them. The only type of candidate that could pull off a fiscal responsibility campaign, IMO, would be a very charasmatic person with a solid record (like McCain), but they will usually be weeded out in the primary process.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm not saying that fiscal responsibility isn't possible - I'm saying that as an issue it isn't very important in the parties. Look at the candidates (like Tsongas) who have tried to create an election strategy built on fiscal responsibility - they always sound "gloom and doom" and don't have much to sell. Really, when a candidate runs a fiscal responsibility platform, they are telling Americans all the things the CAN'T do for them. The only type of candidate that could pull off a fiscal responsibility campaign, IMO, would be a very charasmatic person with a solid record (like McCain), but they will usually be weeded out in the primary process.

I think you are right that running on it as a primary plank is suicide. Although Tsongas is at the same level of Mike Dukakis on the charisma scale. And running on a fiscal responsibility platform and being from MA seems inherently conflicted.

As for President Clinton, he came along at the right time and was the beneficiary of substantially higher tax revenues than the government had projected plus a Social Security surplus that is not supposed to be counted as part of the budget, but always is. That said, in my lifetime, he is the president I've been happiest with as far as policy goes since he basically did nothing. If you're not going to be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem.

[Arles]

Named one senator that ever got re-elected by going to his constituants and saying "I didn't spend one dime on you and held the line on congress spending!"

The entire political process revolves around spending. Politicians campaign on the ideals of the bills they plan to pass which cost money. Their campaigns are funded by people that expect some sort of spending stance in return. So, once someone gets elected, they have promises to donars and supporters they must keep. Therefore, more spending occurs. It's a vicious cycle and the worst of it is that bills are never judged by the results, simply the intent.

Arlie

[timmynausea]

Fiscal responsibility was one of Dean's key issues. That's why he was the only Democratic Candidate that openly endorsed completely rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Fiscal responsibility was one of Dean's key issues. That's why he was the only Democratic Candidate that openly endorsed completely rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

That worked out well for him.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Fiscal responsibility was one of Dean's key issues. That's why he was the only Democratic Candidate that openly endorsed completely rolling back the Bush tax cuts.

I guess when I think of "Fiscal responsibility" I don't think about rolling back tax cuts, but rather reducing spending. Dean and others seem to believe you should be punished for being successful.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess when I think of "Fiscal responsibility" I don't think about rolling back tax cuts, but rather reducing spending. Dean and others seem to believe you should be punished for being successful.

I thought to have fiscal responsibility as a nation would simply mean balancing our budget. I guess it means balance our budget, but also I don't want to pay. I guess that's why we're cutting taxes and starting wars. Very responsible.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess when I think of "Fiscal responsibility" I don't think about rolling back tax cuts, but rather reducing spending. Dean and others seem to believe you should be punished for being successful.

Taxes are both a means of revenue generation and a means of social engineering. I tend not to think of them as punitive--but that's probably a debate for another day.

Fiscal responsibility to me means not spending more than you are taking in. You may have a huge government that takes in a lot of revenue and spends like crazy. You may have a microscopic government that takes in almost no revenue and spends very little. As long as the books balance at the end of the day, I would call both of those governments fiscially responsible. YMMV.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Delebar

Do you believe our children should be punished for Bush's tax cuts and spending increases? Because that's who'll be picking up the tab, successful or not.

Oh my god. Call out the doomsday police! Bush is fucking over my Children! This same cycle of the older generation screwing over the younger one has been going on forever. My social security money is going to a bunch of old geezers cause some politicians in the 50s/60s/70s set it up that way.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Delebar

That cycle wasn't going on when Bush took office. But forget about the facts. Or better yet, never know them in the first place. Four more years!

Actually he was referring to Social Security...so YES it was happening when Bush took office. Social Security has been on the road to demise for years, and no one appears to care. The democrats demonize any attempts to modify it, because they can trumpet that show of support to senior citizens come election time. You are correct in stating that the government was running a surplus prior to Bush taking office, but wrong in your statement addressing stevew.

[Arles]

The surplus was a joke used by both the left and the right in the 2000 election. It was based on the "assumption" that the same record growth that occurred in the late 90s would continue for the next 10 years. Most economists felt that was a pretty silly assumption.

The whole budget process is a farse because it's such a knee jerk process. One good year and we can light cigars with 20 dollar bills for the next 10. One bad year and there are "deficits for as far as the eye can see". As long as spending can be done somewhat responsibly, this growing economy will wipe out the debt in the next 4-5 years. Regardless of who is president. When that starts, the congress will treat it a s a blank check as the debt starts disappearing and line up some more spending. Then, we may hit another pit yet again when we will be "saddling our children with massive deficits".

If you look at all this in historical context, it's actually a little commical. As long as we keep a similar tax, regulation and fiscal policy structure, there is no reason to believe 2004-2008 will be as bad as 2000-2002. Everything goes in cycles and, short of shifting to communism or socialism, I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Arles

The surplus was a joke used by both the left and the right in the 2000 election. It was based on the "assumption" that the same record growth that occurred in the late 90s would continue for the next 10 years. Most economists felt that was a pretty silly assumption.

Are you saying that the government actually wasn't running "in the black" at the end of Clinton's term? The spending of the projected "surplus" used as political fodder leading up to the campaign was indeed an fabrication of accounting. That doesn't mean none of it existed.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Are you saying that the government actually wasn't running "in the black" at the end of Clinton's term? The spending of the projected "surplus" used as political fodder leading up to the campaign was indeed an fabrication of accounting. That doesn't mean none of it existed.

The growth of the economy from 2000 to 2003 wasn't even close to what was "projected" by the initial surplus projection. So, after 1999, the government was slightly ahead that year but there was no realize gain at that point - it was all projections based on a level of economic growth. And the reason that growth didn't take place was not some tax cut that did very little in 2000, 2001 and 2002. It was because the country had lower tax revenue than expected because of the corp scandles, 9-11 attacks and slight correction in the economy. There was no fiscal policy anyone could have implemented that would have changed that when Bush took office in 2001. In fact, had Bush (and the democrats) not spearheaded the 2001 refund checks that went out, there's a chance the blow might have been worse that year.

For the last three years, this country has been in damage control. And while Bush could certainly have done better in some spending areas, I don't think he's done all that bad a job. To be fair, I couldn't see Gore doing any worse on the spending side. But, since Gore wasn't for the tax cut, there's a good chance the recovery would have taken longer without the liquidity pumped in the economy over the past 18 months.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Delebar

That cycle wasn't going on when Bush took office. But forget about the facts. Or better yet, never know them in the first place. Four more years!

Way to drive home an arguement. I'm sure Al Gore and Bill Clinton were directly responsible for the Dot com boom right? Bush caused the end of that Boom!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

... there's a good chance the recovery would have taken longer without the liquidity pumped in the economy over the past 18 months.

Y'know, if you keep saying things like that, people are going to start to think that you might have actually:
a) run a business, or:
b) had some idea of how the real world works, or:
c) had dealt with reality instead of theory at some point



{just an attempt at a good humored way of saying "WYS" }

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Are you saying that the government actually wasn't running "in the black" at the end of Clinton's term? The spending of the projected "surplus" used as political fodder leading up to the campaign was indeed an fabrication of accounting. That doesn't mean none of it existed.

Why is a surplus so important? The Government is going to spend regardless of whether it has or doesn't have the money. Spending money at a time we didn't have money was how the most successful democratic president managed to stay in office for 4 terms.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Way to drive home an arguement. I'm sure Al Gore and Bill Clinton were directly responsible for the Dot com boom right? Bush caused the end of that Boom!

Well, the dot com boom wouldn't have been possible had Al Gore not invented the internet.

[Warhammer]

In the 80s they said that Reagan's tax cuts was stealing from our children. Its the same old reaction to a tax cut.

Personally, I think a big issue is entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. When these programs add up to over 40% of the Federal budget it is a thinly veiled redistribution of wealth, which I oppose.

Additionally, everyone blames the President for running in the red, but who writes the budget bills, who writes the bills to cut taxes, or raise taxes? Congress.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Why is a surplus so important? The Government is going to spend regardless of whether it has or doesn't have the money. Spending money at a time we didn't have money was how the most successful democratic president managed to stay in office for 4 terms.

The country has a massive federal debt. When the country started running in the black during the Clinton years, that meant we weren't adding to that debt. I don't know what exactly happened with the budget surpluses in the years when they occurred, but at the very least we were gaining traction against the debt by making our scheduled debt payments and not adding to the debt.

I believe part of each yearly federal budget includes payment on the debt, so that happens regardless of whether we run a surplus or a deficit, but the difference is that when we run a deficit, while we are making payments on the debt, we are also incurring further debt from the deficit itself.

While the super-hot economy was the biggest factor in the budget surpluses under Clinton, he and Congress deserve some credit for not hiking spending to match the tax revenues.

[Warhammer]

Dawgfan,

I think part of the reason for fiscal responsibility under Clinton was the Republican Congress not wanting to give him the funding for what he wanted to do (nationalized health care, etc.)

[Arles]

The best analogy for the economy in the past 10 years would be if someone got a job paying $150,000 a year for 4-5 years. Then, they got layed off and went to another job paying $80,000 for 3 years before finally landing a job at $120,000. If that person kept the same spending habits he had when he was making 6 figures, he would be in a world of debt for the middle three years.

The problem is the US government expects its citizens to make cuts to their budgets in hard times, but the congress never holds itself to that same standard.

[Surtt]

I think most people give the president (any president) way to much credit or blame.

Allen Greanspan and his ability to change interest rate can wipe out any tax increase or cut.

Also our economy is just a part of the world economy.
A drought in Argentina or OPEC raising prices directly affects us no mater what the president does.

[Tigercat]

I love the pass the buck ideal. Hey, previous generations screwed us over with their lack of responsibility, so why don't we do the same, or hell why don't we screw things up even worse!

Damn, shouldn't we learn lessons as a society?! Are we so determined to be comfortable that we don't give a damn that it could be a lot harder for our children to be as comfortable? But oh no, that would require long term selfless thinking, and heaven forbid as a population that we ever have the fucking courage to start thinking like that.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Dawgfan,

I think part of the reason for fiscal responsibility under Clinton was the Republican Congress not wanting to give him the funding for what he wanted to do (nationalized health care, etc.)

Hence why I gave credit to both. I'm sure there were things both parties wished to fund in greater degrees than the other, but the bottom line is they compromised on budgets that ended up in surpluses, thus reducing the national debt.

You can blame a correction in the economy for driving down governmental revenue since GWB has been in office, but he and Congress have failed to come up with budgets that match the lowered income. His tax cuts have, so far at least, not driven the economy enough to offset the loss of revenue; or, if they have paid for themselves, they haven't additionally paid for other budget items that have increased, such as the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{edited to add} -- I don't know that there's anything too surprising in the lack of interest in "fiscal responsibility" when you're talking about a culture that seems to be largely built on personal debt in the first place.

Very good point. What is most alarming is the fact that citizens and many elected officals do not take the deficit seriously. And most people don't understand or neglect the fact that a rising deficit could lead America to a situation where there is an assualt on our national finances. Similar to the situation that Argentina was in in 2002 where the peso there was devalued by 70 percent.

[Sharpieman]

dola, a key ideological difference between the left and the right has always been the issue of taxing and social programs. Republicans and Democrats moving so far away from each other that the budgets get even more ridiculous through the years. Democrats spend like crazy and Republicans cut programs and halt spending like crazy. It seems to me that both will be in the red either way and both are so vehemently opposed to contrary reforms that they try to stick it to each other by either spending and taxing the rich too much, or cut spending and give tax breaks too much.

I believe that we need more modest budgets. Taxing the rich is a quick fix, but in the long term it is not a smart idea. A modest tax increase on the wealthiest Americans would contribute a nice sum of money for our programs. At the same time we need to reform and in some cases cut programs that are inefficient and arbitrary.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Democrats spend like crazy and Republicans cut programs and halt spending like crazy.

As we've seen the last few years, it's actually that Democrats spend like crazy and Republicans spend like crazy. The big difference is that Republicans have cut taxes while Democrats want to raise them. Long-term, the tax cuts if kept in place will force Congress to spend less, and presumably will help the economy produce more revenue, but the question is whether that's worth the increase in the deficit we experience in the short-term.

Also, this shouldn't be taken as a pro-Bush thing, but under Clinton while our yearly projection was turning into surpluses near the end, our long-term fiscal situation was actually deteriorating because of the huge Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition to the tech-boom, the baby boomer generation was in its peak earning years, which meant that while we were seeing short-term increases in tax revenue from these people, we'd end up paying more on the back end as they became eligible for the entitlement programs and Congress never took that into account.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

As we've seen the last few years, it's actually that Democrats spend like crazy and Republicans spend like crazy. The big difference is that Republicans have cut taxes while Democrats want to raise them. Long-term, the tax cuts if kept in place will force Congress to spend less, and presumably will help the economy produce more revenue, but the question is whether that's worth the increase in the deficit we experience in the short-term.

Good point. I really do like the old Republicans better. At least I may have voted for one, but now, with the neocons new fiscal strategy and the large influence of the religious right, I don't see myself voting for a Republican for a long, long time. Except if his he's John McCain of course.

[SFL Cat]

First of all, define rich. The Democrats love the class warfare card, but really if you and your spouse have a combined income of over $100K, you're rich. The middle class is really who takes it on the chin for any kind of tax hike, especially since the super rich have scores of attorneys whose only purpose for existance is figuring out how to work the system so their employers don't have to pay ANY taxes. How to fix this? A flat tax...pick a percentage, no deductions, no loopholes. If the rate is 5%, then if you make $30K, you pay $1,500. If you earn $3,000,000 you pay $150,000. Everyone pays their fair share. Also, no withholding. Everyone has to write a check for their taxes. I figure if everyone sees what their once a year tax-bite really is, the politicians won't be so quick to talk about raising them.

[Sharpieman]

dola, I'm glad that a starch conservative, BishopMVP, and a starch Liberal, me, can at least agree on something. It seems as though since 9/11 this country hasn't banded together like we thought we would but instead continued the road towards the 2 sides becoming more polarized.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

First of all, define rich. The Democrats love the class warfare card, but really if you and your spouse have a combined income of over $100K, you're rich. The middle class is really who takes it on the chin for any kind of tax hike, especially since the super rich have scores of attorneys whose only purpose for existance is figuring out how to work the system so their employers don't have to pay ANY taxes. How to fix this? A flat tax...pick a percentage, no deductions, no loopholes. If the rate is 5%, then if you make $30K, you pay $1,500. If you earn $3,000,000 you pay $150,000. Everyone pays their fair share. Also, no withholding. Everyone has to write a check for their taxes. I figure if everyone sees what their once a year tax-bite really is, the politicians won't be so quick to talk about raising them.

The problem with a flat tax is the fact that the very wealthy still have the advantage of off shore accounts and loopholes galore, I would totally support a flat tax it it were an effieciant flat tax. I don't really define the rich as having over 100K, I would up that number to at least 250K.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

As we've seen the last few years, it's actually that Democrats spend like crazy and Republicans spend like crazy. The big difference is that Republicans have cut taxes while Democrats want to raise them. Long-term, the tax cuts if kept in place will force Congress to spend less, and presumably will help the economy produce more revenue, but the question is whether that's worth the increase in the deficit we experience in the short-term.

Also, this shouldn't be taken as a pro-Bush thing, but under Clinton while our yearly projection was turning into surpluses near the end, our long-term fiscal situation was actually deteriorating because of the huge Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition to the tech-boom, the baby boomer generation was in its peak earning years, which meant that while we were seeing short-term increases in tax revenue from these people, we'd end up paying more on the back end as they became eligible for the entitlement programs and Congress never took that into account.

One of the problems I've had with Bush is that he has actually outspent the Democrats. Granted 9/11 changed a lot of things and we had to spend a lot of $$$ to address a lot of issues...but Bush has shown that there are very few entitlements he won't sign. I'm not sure if he has done this to try and take away political ammo from the other side..."seee...Bush vetoed this bill...he wants to STARVE our kids and old folks," but regardless of the reason, I'm not to high on his fiscal performance.

p.s. As Arles has succinctly pointed out, the so-called Surplus was always political smoke and mirrors, plain and simple. If there really was all this extra money during Clinton's watch, then perhaps he could have seriously tackled the Social Security problem, thus earning himself a legitimate legacy to be proud about. However, the guy was too much of a political coward to touch that hot potato, so all he's left with is the good luck of presiding over a booming economy and a BJ in the Oval Office.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not sure if I buy this. I think Perot was successful in 92 in driving the debate, and I'd argue that it shaped Clinton's economic policy, to some extent. Say what you will about him, but Clinton managed to balance the budget and operate with a surplus near the end of his presidency. (People will still say that taxes were too high and we were spending too much, but we weren't spending more than we took in.) Perot was less of a factor in 96 because fiscal responsibility wasn't as much of an issue.

Tsongas also ran on a fiscal responsibility platform that year in the primaries that year, which shaped Clinton quite a bit.

[Arles]

The question with the flat tax is what happens to charitable donations and business expenses. While you would hope people would still put money into charities without write-offs, it's a bit of a gamble. Also, a lot of business spending (esp small business) is done from the standpoint of reducing tax liability.

In theory a flat tax is great. But I have a feeling in practice it might not be as attractive as it seems.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Arles

The question with the flat tax is what happens to charitable donations and business expenses. While you would hope people would still put money into charities without write-offs, it's a bit of a gamble. Also, a lot of business spending (esp small business) is done from the standpoint of reducing tax liability.

In theory a flat tax is great. But I have a feeling in practice it might not be as attractive as it seems.

Good points. I definitely think the current tax code needs to be streamlined and loop holes eliminated. The current system is just begging for clever lawyers to twist it to the breaking point to allow certain individuals not to pay taxes.

I loved how "fiscally responsible" Ross Perot was complaining about how we couldn't afford tax cuts during his presidential run on the one hand, but on the other hand his lawyers managed to jump through enough hoops to allow him not to pay ANY taxes during that same year.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

p.s. As Arles has succinctly pointed out, the so-called Surplus was always political smoke and mirrors, plain and simple. If there really was all this extra money during Clinton's watch, then perhaps he could have seriously tackled the Social Security problem, thus earning himself a legitimate legacy to be proud about. However, the guy was too much of a political coward to touch that hot potato, so all he's left with is the good luck of presiding over a booming economy and a BJ in the Oval Office.

No, it wasn't smoke and mirrors. Regardless of what 'happened' to the surplusses, the simple fact is that by not running a deficit, we were able to gain ground in paying down the national debt.

[SFL Cat]

The so-called surplus was ALL based on PROJECTIONS...PROJECTIONS. Projections that never panned out, especially when the economy started heading south the last year of Clinton's presidency. It probably would have happened even sooner if all the corporate book-cooking had come to light earlier than it did.

You will recall that before Clinton cost the Dems the Congress because of his health-care fiasco, his team was projecting long-range WORSE than expected deficits. Then the Republicans got into Congress and started making noise about reigning in spending and balancing the budget...only then then we start hearing the word surplus. Too bad they never followed through.

[ISiddiqui]

SFL, it wasn't. In the late 90s we were running ACTUAL SURPLUSES! Not projections, but for a few years we were taking in more money than we were spending. That is a fact.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

What is most alarming is the fact that citizens and many elected officals do not take the deficit seriously. And most people don't understand or neglect the fact that a rising deficit could lead America to a situation where there is an assualt on our national finances. Similar to the situation that Argentina was in in 2002 where the peso there was devalued by 70 percent.

The fears of this are overblown. While in theory this is correct, our results so far have shown the national debt to have very little effect on the economy. If worse comes to worse, most European countries will hit any wall before we do, and when that happens it should shock the politicians and public enough that they solve the problem. Within about 15-20 years we'll have to start dealing with Medicare/Social Security and hopefully that should prompt a hard look at our long-term financial positions.

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

dola, I'm glad that a starch conservative, BishopMVP, and a starch Liberal, me, can at least agree on something.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a conservative. I'm a hawkish free market liberal. 2 of the 3 just happen to put me in the Republican camp right now.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Delebar

and the deficit - which I learn here doesn't matter at all - wouldn't be the largest ever.

While I'd love to ignore this post completely, I think this part is actually on topic. In absolute terms we have the largest debt ever (not deficit), but what matters is debt relative to GDP, which I don't think would currently be near an all-time high.