deficit politics
The question I keep getting asked in one form or another is "Why hasn't the White House stepped up to the plate and proposed a long-term deficit reduction plan yet?"
My response: Why would you do that when, once you've stepped in to the batter's box, the only thing that's going to happen is that Roger Clemens-like fast balls are going to be thrown at your head.
As my column in today's Roll Call explains, I'm having a very hard time figuring out why anyone thinks a deficit reduction deal is going to happen next year.
My column from today's Roll Call talks about how politics that use the deficit (as opposed to concerns about the deficit itself) have undermined the ability to deal with the budget and economy.
Good Politics Often Results In Bad Budgeting
June 22, 2010
It’s hard not to have real questions about how much of the current concern about this year’s deficit is real or just something that has been hyped for partisan political reasons. Over the past 50 years the deficit often has been just a surrogate for other issues and purposes, and much of what’s happening now seems to fit that characterization.
Don’t take the GOP protests about the Obama administration not submitting a deficit reduction plan this year. In much the same way that Hamlet wondered about his mother’s complaints, they clearly are protesting too much
My column from today's Roll Call says something seldom said in mixed company about reducing the deficit: whether it's tax breaks or spending programs, the federal government is going to have to stop doing something...or things.
The Not-So-Secret Truth About Deficit Cutting
June 1, 2010
Forget everything you’ve heard about how hard it is to cut the federal deficit. Once you disregard the partisan rhetoric and put aside the election-year demagoguery, you rapidly come to a conclusion that is seldom stated as directly as this: The federal government is going to have to stop doing some of the things it’s currently doing.
My column from today's Roll Call (subscription needed) says we've had enough set-up for a deficit reduction package.
What’s Needed on Deficit: Less Talk, More Action
May 4, 2010
You might be familiar with the song because you’re old enough to remember when it hit the charts in the late 1960s or because over the past few years you watched the NBC television show “Las Vegas,” which used it as a theme. Either way, Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation” was an upbeat plea for less talk and more action.
My column from today's Roll Call provides some additional thoughts on the Economist/YouGov polI I posted about last week.
Take a deep cleansing breath before looking at this just-released poll from the Economist/YouGov and ask yourself what you would do if you were a member of Congress facing this situation.
In question 23, almost two-thirds -- 62 pecent -- of those responding said that they wanted to cut spending to reduce the budget deficit rather than raise taxes.
But just three questions later, the only area of federal spending that a majority -- 71 percent -- was willing to cut was foreign aid. More than 70 percent were against cutting every other of the areas mentioned and more than 80 percent were against cutting 9 of them. Reductions in the 2 programs where cuts could have the largest impact on the federal government's bottom line -- Social Security and Medicare -- were only supported by 7 percent of those responding and, therefore, were opposed by 93 percent.
(Note: Before you send a nasty note, I'm not suggesting that Social Security and Medicare be cut, only that, mathematically, doing so would have the largest effect on the deficit).
Here's the question and responses:
Edmund L. Andrews
Bruce Bartlett
Stan Collender
Pete Davis
Andrew Samwick
RSS Feed
