My column from today's Fiscal Times explains why and how the federal budget is about to reemerge as an issue

The Federal Budget and Deficit Will Soon Return to the Headlines

I've been saying for a while that, contrary to the GOP rhetoric that the sky is falling, the 2009 and 2010 deficits were and are the absolutely correct fiscal policies.  Back in October I called the $1.4 trillion deficit "a triumph" and said it was clear that's what needed to be done given that businesses and consumers weren't spending and, most importantly, that monetary policy had done just about all it was going to be able to do.

Paul Krugman yesterday provided three paragraphs in an excellent longer piece that explained this further:

And he says in National Journal that a value-added tax is on the horizon.

There's nothing really new in Clive's column.  Bruce has been saying that a VAT is logical for a long time.  And among many others, I've been saying that the deficit isn't just a spending problem.

But the fact that Clive is now willing to go where others have boldly gone before is an important indication that the public debate is now changing and that a tax increase is becoming a topic for polite conversation.  It might not yet inevitable but it's definitely becoming more acceptable.

As you read the following from noted congressional expert Norm Ornstein, keep in mind that he's no Democratic apologist or spinmeister.  Norm is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an organization no one could possibly mistake for an arm of the Democratic  Party.  I'm reprinting the whole thing so no one can accuse me of selectively quoting from Norm's piece.

Hypocrisy: A Parliamentary Procedure

My column from today's Roll Call explains why, contrary to what some may think, the fact that health care reform meets the Paygo rules of the congressional budget process is a reason to vote for rather than against the bill.

PAYGO Is Not a Reason to Oppose Health Care Reform

March 16, 2010

Pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, is what supposedly forces Congress to offset the cost of doing something new so that it doesn’t make the deficit worse. For the past two decades, PAYGO either was a formal part of the Congressional budget process or, when it expired, was something many immediately and vehemently insisted be reinstated. Editorials promoted it. Budget hawks demanded it. Political parties tried to show it was one of their basic tenets. Democrats and Republicans both supported it.

ATTENTION TAEGAN GODDARD...A "hot tub confession" such as the one you say was made yesterday by Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn is a confession made while in a hot tub rather than a confession about being in a hot tub.

To say that least, that would have been an interesting visual that would have been tailor-made for TMZ.

• Rep. Paul Ryan (WI)
• Rep. Dave Camp (MI)
• Rep. Jeb Hensarling (TX)
• Sen. Judd Gregg (NH)
• Sen. Michael Crapo (ID)
• Sen. Tom Coburn

With the possible exception of Coburn, this list was predictable.  It includes the senior GOP members of the House and Senate Budget Committees and the House Ways and Means Committee.  Crapo is six down from the top of the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Republican leader Mith McConnell (KY) had to skip over two comparative moderates -- ranking member Chuck Grassley (IA) and Olympia Snowe (ME) -- to get to him, but he's also on budget.   Coburn is not a member of budget, finance, or appropriations, but he is a gadfly (read: pain in the ass) when it comes to spending and can be expected to talk about earmarks and pork at every possible opportunity.

This will put a smile on your face.  Didn't you ask at least one of these questions yourself last week?

My column from yesterday's The Fiscal Times noted that state and local governments around the country, which because of balanced budget requirements and dramatically falling revenues are facing some very tough times, are being forced to make difficult decisions.

But this story in yesterday's The New York Times about Kansas City deciding to close half its public schools and reduce the payroll by around 20 percent makes the decisions by other states to close rest stops along some highways appear to be insignificant.

The Times' story indicates that the schools and school board in Kansas City have been in terrible shape for years and, therefore, that this decision was almost inevitable.  Still, the precipitating event was was the projected $50 million deficit (out of a total budget of $300 million) in the midst of the economic downturn and the prospect that it wasn't going to get any better any time soon.

I agree with Andrew: This sudden race in the House to see whose holier-than-thou on earmarks is a good thing.  But there are three reasons why no one should get too excited about the recent developments:

1.  As Andrew notes and I've remarked on previously, eliminating earmarks doesn't actually reduce spending; all it does is change who makes the decision from Congress to an executive branch agency.  Unless the appropriation is reduced at the same time the earmark is eliminated, which no one is suggesting, the amount that will be spent will remain the same.

My column from yesterday's The Fiscal Times shows what's ahead when the spending reductions begin.

My column from this morning's Roll Call explains why reconciliation, a subpart of the congressional budget process, and a sub-subpart of the legislative process, isn't what we should be arguing about.

Can We Please Stop Talking About Reconciliation?

My fellow Roll Call columnist Norman Ornstein was one of the authors of a truly excellent chart on reconciliation that appeared in the New York Times on Sunday.

This almost full-page chart (click on the multimedia box) from today's New York Times (way too big to reproduce here) by Congress experts Norm Ornstein, Tom Mann, and Raffaela Wakeman answers virtually every question there is to ask about the past uses of reconciliation. 

The chart shows that, as I posted on February 28, reconciliation has been used when Democrats and Republicans were in the majority; to increase and decrease the deficit; to increase and decrease spending and revenues; and to create, expand, and decrease programs.

In other words, as far as reconciliation and health care is concerned, move along; there's nothing see here.

I have to ask.

David Brooks wrote this in the Times on Thursday comparing today's radicals in the Republican Party with the hippies from the 1960s.

Two days earlier, we published this in CG&G comparing today's congressional Republicans with...wait for it...the hippies from the 1960s.

Coincidence?

March 24th will be CG&G's second anniversary. 

Since Andrew, Pete, Troy, and I joined forces two years ago, the country has gone through a financial meltdown and a recession, the first African American was elected president of the United States, the budget debate has become (to put it mildly) extremely bitter, the New York Yankees won the World Series (Sorry Andrew, I had to include that), and the blogosphere has gone mainstream.  CG&G has been noticed, noted, cited, and criticized, sometimes all at the same time by the same person.

There have been two big additions to the team-- Bruce Bartlett and Ed Andrews -- and both have had an immediate impact on everything from the public discourse to CG&G's numbers.

The one thing we haven't done is change CG&G's look.  That's what's coming. 

Troy is working on a new design that will be cleaner, more modern, and make it possible for us to accommodate the additional advertising requests we're getting.   It will also make it possible for us to do more with audio and video.

This column by E.J. Dionne, Jr. from yesterday's Washington Post uses a word -- lie -- that Andrew didn't use when he posted on the same subject three days, but otherwise it makes the same points about the Republican hypocrisy and propaganda efforts on using reconciliation.  Like Andrew's post, it's a solid and hard-hitting piece.

I used my first column for The Fiscal Times to take on all those who insist that the only way to deal with the federal deficit is by cutting spending.  Contrary to those who repeat the "it's a spending problem" mantra, spending definitely is not the only issue and spending cuts are not the only possible response.

Take a look.

My Beautiful and Talented Wife (The BTW) and I went to see the new production of the Broadway musical "Hair" in New York City last Saturday.

                                   1969                             2010

Using reconciliation for health care changes the outlook for what's ahead on other issues too, especially extending the tax cuts put in place during the Bush administration.  My column from this morning's Roll Call explains why.

Health Care Debate Makes New Budget More Likely This Year

March 2, 2010

It was only a few weeks ago that budget process watchers, implementers and aficionados were all saying it was going to be difficult for Congress to adopt a budget resolution this year. That’s still true, of course; even in the best of times budget resolutions are very hard to get through the House and Senate, and this is anything but the best of times.

It's clear from all the comments on CG&G and elsewhere that Republican and Democratic commenters are refusing to acknowledge the basic facts about reconciliation.  So here are several factual statements. 

Get over it.  Stop denying it.  Move on.

1.  Reconciliation is not a rule or an attempt to get around the rules; it's a law -- Public Law 93-344 (The Congressional Budget Act of 1974)  to be exact.

2.  Reconciliation has been used by both Democrats and Republicans when they were in the majority.

3.  When they have been in the majority, Democrats and Republicans have both argued that using reconciliation was proper.  Whey they have been in the minority both parties have maintained that it was improper for the other even to think about it.

4.  The fact that one party has used reconciliation more than another is interesting but not instructive in any way.  The bottom line, again, is that they've both used it repeatedly.

5.  Reconciliation has been used for both major and not-so-major changes.  It's also been used to increase and decrease the deficit.