A short description of the budget mess in which we find the United States:
- Under the President’s budget or the Congressional budget resolution, the United States is on an unsustainable trajectory of debt issuance. We are putting ourselves in the financial position of undergraduates who get a new Citibank card to make the payments on the interest on the Chase card. Worse, there is no Mom or Dad to bail us out – it’s Mom and Dad busily sticking it to the kids.
- The recent policy initiatives have layered additional debt issuance on top of the fundamental problem posed by entitlement programs that beg for reforms.
- The debt issuance and interest obligations will limit our ability to address other policy objectives – and I understand that there are some who sigh in relief at this observation.
- We are empowering our enemies to say “no” via international capital markets.
That’s a pretty daunting picture, but there are even further concerns. First, the Obama budget is not just a trajectory toward a debt spiral, it is risky as well. That is, if everything goes as the Administration plans, we will be in unprecedented profligacy. But everything will not go the way of any White House.
We have seen two bills on a cap-and-trade policy to address global warming in the Senate, and neither has generated significant general revenue via auctions of emissions permits. We have never seen a bill in the House. It is virtually impossible that we will see one in the House, and one in the Senate, and one that raises nearly $600 billion, and one that is signed into law and implemented to collect that revenue beginning in 2012. If the revenue doesn’t come in, the deficits are bigger.
It is for sure that Congress will extend the Make Work Pay tax credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the enhanced Pell Grants, and the other permanent tax cuts and spending programs that were ushered into the budget under the guise of “stimulus”.
It is not for sure that Congress will raise marginal tax rates on ordinary income, dividends, capital gains, multinational corporations and as otherwise indicated in the Obama budget. These provisions have significant political opposition. Some of these provisions are of questionable policy merit. Even the Administration has indicated an unwillingness to levy these taxes on a weak economy.
The bottom line: it is more than likely that the deficits will be bigger, the debt will be greater, and the unsustainable trajectory steeper than depicted in the Obama budget. Finally, as an aside, the Administration will put out its “complete” budget in the next 10 days or so and I promise the outlook will have worsened since the first one.
Now, these are just numbers and the trajectories are the work of geeks. Politicians believe, and democratic populaces yearn to concur, that these threats will be overcome by a strong vision and powerful leadership. But I, at least, don’t see much to bet on. There was once a young President who ran for office with a commitment to a tax cut for a significant part of the populace, and stuck to that promise despite the hand-over-fist spending of his colleagues in Congress. The deficit soared, but the President reminded us that we faced a national crisis that demanded response, and that we were in a recession and deficits were inevitable. He promised to cut the deficit in half before his term ended. That President was George W. Bush. I have seen this movie before. It ends poorly, and I have no reason to hedge our numerical risks with political bets.
My second point is really directed at the budget nerds; those who share my lack of a social life. The point is that the transactions in the financial bailout are muddying our understanding of the budgetary picture. There are two distinct budgetary objectives. One is to understand the ultimate demand for taxpayer resources that results from a financial intervention. This requires that one calculate the life-cycle outflows of assistance and inflows of resulting dividends, sales of assets, etc. In technical terms, the goal is to understand the net present value of the taxpayer subsidy – the difference between what the taxpayer puts in and what he ultimately gets repaid.
A second goal, which is very important in the present context, is to understand the borrowing needs of the U.S. Treasury. The federal government will likely be borrowing north of 13 percent of GDP this year. The household saving rate will be a maximum of 6 percent. We will likely borrow abroad in the neighborhood of 4 percent. Where will the rest come from? Should we not have a clear financial picture that displays these risks?
Unfortunately, the current budgetary treatment falls short on both fronts. We treat the FDIC on a cash flow basis – premiums in; deposit insurance out – while we don’t apparently have any budgetary presentation for the guarantees on equity portfolios by financial institutions. In between, we have “modified” credit reform for TARP transactions, regular credit reform for FHA loans, and the difficulty of putting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the budget. I don’t believe that anyone has any idea of the real answer to either question.
Now, there are only a few ways to address this issue. So, let’s take them in turn. First, we will not grow our way out of this problem. Under the CBO scoring of the President’s budget, the Debt/GDP ratio rises to over 82 percent by the end of the budget window (and would keep rising thereafter). Now, one hope that is often raised is the possibility that the deficits (and underlying tax and spending policies) will engender rapid economic growth that would curtail the rising debt burden. Unfortunately, the numbers are simply too large for this to happen. The underlying rate of GDP growth would have to double – to over 8 percent – to keep the Debt/GDP ratio at its 2010 level of 64 percent. Economic growth is an imperative, but not a panacea.
Second, we will not tax our way out of this problem. Over the next several decades Social Security spending will rise to roughly 7 percent of GDP, and Medicare and Medicaid will grow to at least 12 percent. These two programs, then, will be nearly as large (20 percent of GDP) as the entire federal government traditionally has been before the arrival of this Administration. This suggests that a pure tax approach to balancing the budget and/or reducing debt would require federal taxes that are 50 to 100 percent higher than in the past. The damage to the U.S. economy would be catastrophic.
The upshot is that we will have to curtail spending growth and choose policies that generate every dollar of growth that we can get. In the near term, a sound strategy would be to design policies that support business investment and net exports. A key aspect of the economic landscape is that U.S. households entered this recession with extremely large indebtedness, and have suffered further losses in housing values and equity holdings. Going forward, they are likely to focus on re-building lost wealth (we have seen the saving rate rise from zero to 5 percent already, and it will likely continue to rise). Accordingly, the underlying engines of demand growth will have to come from the business investment and export sectors. Over the longer term, the focus should be on the productivity-enhancing policies that have served the U.S. so well in the past: rewards to risk-taking, flexible labor markets, and accumulation of physical and human capital.
Also, we cannot keep cutting taxes. There has always been a bipartisan appeal to tax cuts. However, when the income tax was indexed for inflation in the 1980s, cutting taxes started to mean taking individuals off the tax roles. Further, with the broad expansion of refundable tax credits, “tax cuts” were transformed into policies of simply spending checks.
To deal with the revenue needs of the government going forward, reforms are essential. To begin, we should start honestly budgeting and count every dollar of refundable tax credits – Earned Income Tax Credits, Make Work Pay Credit, etc. – as spending. These policies are an entitlement to checks from the government regardless of one’s tax liability. Any federal check that is independent of taxes is a spending policy and we need to be honest about that.
The personal income, corporation income, and payroll tax systems must be comprehensively reformed. The individual income tax is no longer a broad-based revenue source. Instead, it is effectively a surtax on high-income Americans, and a small minority of citizens foot the vast majority of the bill. For most Americans, the payroll tax is now the most significant tax they pay. To achieve a genuinely broad-based reform, both taxes must be addressed. The corporation income tax now raises relatively little revenue, but is a serious impediment to the global competitiveness of U.S. firms, and a broad source of inefficiencies in the domestic economy. Tax reform that will enhance the growth and competitiveness of the United States should include the corporation tax as well.
To summarize, it is a daunting outlook. The U.S. must quickly reverse course and put its fiscal house in order. This will necessarily require policies that support the growth essential to generating additional resources. Real restraint on federal spending is an imperative. And the tax systems will need an overhaul to provide the revenue needs of the federal government.
20 responses so far
1 Rel // May 10, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Doug, in the middle of your piece you’ve wonderfully summarized the core issue: growth in entitlement spending that cannot possibly be sustained by economic growth. So how about proposing specific policies to alter this equation – specific policies that would cut the growth rate of entitlement spending? I don’t see you or many others doing that. Most won’t even focus on the topic, perhaps because so many Fox fans are retirees.
Give Obama this much: If you listen closely to what he says, it’s apparent that he recognizes that this is the core issue facing us, and that the rest is either detail or symbolism. The prescriptions he hints at are mostly what you would expect from a liberal: Raise the income limits on the payroll tax, means test benefits, and increase the centralization of medical decision-making to squeeze cost out of the Medicare system (much by nice-sounding versions of “rationing”).
Can conservative pundits and policy-makers develop and rally around coherent conservative alternatives to this core issue? If pundits and policy-makers won’t do that, what can we expect of our politicians? They are out there trying to figure out how to sell conservatism to the public, but they’ve got to have an intelligent and coherent product to sell.
For example: How about developing an ideology that not only glorifies productivity but also denigrates leisure? Sure, that was a tough sell to the boomer generation, and will continue to be so as they retire. But compared to them the subsequent generations (like mine; I’m a Gen X’er) are looking at an extra decade or so of toil before we can retire. Therefore, the future may belong to politicians who turn that necessity into a virtue, creating a culture that inspires those of us who work hard and implicitly shames those who would retire at 65 so that they can spend a decade enjoying the grandkids or tooling around golf courses. That’s a nice life if you can afford it. As a society, we can’t afford to grant everyone that aspiration.
I and my age cohorts would probably be intrigued by a political party that faced up to this reality and applauded us for doing what must be done, rather than taking as a reference point the now-stale cultural and economic debates of 1975.
2 greg_barton // May 10, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Here’s the main reason the movie won’t play out the same: Democrats are willing to fight each other. Republicans, in the interest of “unity,” never do, at least where it counts. They make a great show at yelling at each other over silly things, but when it comes down to it they vote in a block. And Bush would never veto a bill from a Republican congress. He only pulled out the veto pen for political purposes, to stick it to the Democrats. The Democratic party culture is fundamentally different in a way that’s constantly derided by the right: real dissension is tolerated. So Obama may well get his way, and cut the deficit in half. There’s a much better chance now than under Bush.
3 ottovbvs // May 11, 2009 at 4:49 am
Mr Holtz-Eakin was one of those who presided over the train wreck that was the Bush administration’s economic policy so his comments need to be taken with a large spoonful of salt. He and his boss converted a roughly 200 billion a year surplus to a trillion a year deficit. Sorry I’m not buying.
4 krove // May 11, 2009 at 5:27 am
Douglas Holtz-Eakin a major fan and college of Phil Gram, The de-regulator in chief. The friend of Enron.
Douglas the man who broke the bank. No credibility I am afraid. Manged to wreck the economy and burn through a budget surplus in order to reward the rich and super rich.
5 sinz54 // May 11, 2009 at 6:46 am
rel asks: “Can conservative pundits and policy-makers develop and rally around coherent conservative alternatives to this core issue?”
Here’s my conservative alternative: The retirement age MUST rise to at least 70.
The entire reason that FDR set the Social Security retirement age at 65 was that, back then, the actuarial tables showed that the average life expectancy of Americans was 65. IOW, FDR set the retirement age at 65 because he knew that all of Americans would pay into it, but half of them wouldn’t live long enough to collect it. That’s how he ensured solvency of the program.
Well, today, the average life expectancy is at least 78. And that’s the fundamental reason that SS and Medicare out of balance. We have some retired folks living till they’re 90, drawing benefits for 25 years. That’s simply unsustainable.
Additionally, there should be a “50-50″ option in which seniors past the retirement age who elect to continue doing some mild part-time labor will pay only half the usual Social Security payroll tax. That’s an incentive to keep working past retirement age.
We want to keep Americans working as long as they can. That is good for the nation, and good for our civilization.
6 barker13 // May 11, 2009 at 6:49 am
Doug,
What’s a guy like you think when he reads the more inane comments?
Seriously. (*SHRUG*) You’re a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, a guy who has moved within the upper echelon of American political society. Considering that the sort of people who blog on a site like this are no doubt more interested in and knowledgeable concerning the issues you’re bringing to the table than probably 95% or more of the American People… what goes through your head when you read replies such as those posted by “Bulldoglover100?”
I mean… from the moment I started reading your contribution I was anticipating the vacuity I’d find upon reading responding comments; how depressing must it be to you to expand all this effort in trying to educate people and get responses such as “Holtz-Eakin laughed all the way to the bank with OUR money when he helped Bush Bankrupt the country…”?
Seriously… if we’re to assume the responses you’ve gotten so far come from the top 5% or so of “knowledgeable, plugged in Americans,” is there any hope at all for this country?
To answer my own question… no.
Oh… one can pray for a military coup (and down the road… say 10, 15, 20, 25 years down the road things may have deteriorated to the point where it happens) or the rise of a benevolent, competent dictatorship… but aside from such fantasies nothing will “save” this country from the fiscal reality we face.
It’s so depressing… it’s so sad.
BILL
7 krove // May 11, 2009 at 6:54 am
Yes he was the Director of a budget office that turned a blind eye while Bush tuned a healthy economy into a disaster. He did not object when Bush ran up huge deficits.
He did not object when Gramm deregulated wall street. He did not object when the budget deficit exploded. So why does anything he says now have any value whatsoever?
8 MSheridan // May 11, 2009 at 9:35 am
This was a really good and thought-provoking piece of writing and, speaking as someone on the other side of the political fence, I’d welcome with open arms any movement toward intelligent discussion of solving our horrendous budget difficulties.
Because on social issues I’m very liberal (despite being boringly straight arrow in my personal life), I’ll never be a Republican. However, when they drop the voodoo economics (please remember it was Bush the Elder who coined that phrase, not me) and return to the Republicanism of my grandparents, like many others I’ll breathe a deep sigh of relief.
As stated, I am liberal in most ways, but I’m quite conservative in my personal fiscal budget practices. I would be glad to see a Republican Party that was also serious about balancing budgets and prioritizing spending. Although there’s little danger I’d switch parties, I’d probably vote for the occasional Republican now and again (it’s been a long time since the last time I crossed over–for B.T. Collins) if they were up against a truly fiscally incompetent Democrat. For most of my adult life, the Republican dogma has been to cut taxes and cut spending, but the PRACTICE has been to cut taxes and grow spending (maybe while claiming fiscal responsibility by trying to cut prevention programs that actually SAVE money). Budgetwise, I’d rather vote for Democrats, who generally at least understand that greater expenses require a greater revenue stream. And before anyone starts trying to explain to me the wonders of supply-side economics, I’ve read quite a bit about it and think I understand pretty well when it does and does not apply. Too many conservatives have as an article of faith the charming idea that reducing taxes ALWAYS increases revenue, a position held by no serious economist, including Arthur “Laffer Curve” Laffer himself. It’s rather sad that the knowledge displayed by Mr. Holtz-Eakin in this op-ed was not more front and center during his tenure. However strongly he may have expressed his opinions (and I can’t remember having seen them expressed in this fashion before), they were muted compared to the drumbeat from the policy makers on the right.
By the way, barker13, I sincerely hope you were joking in your last post about hoping for a military coup or benevolent dictatorship, but even if one of those dire eventualities came to pass, the military leaders or benevolent despot would have exactly the same budget difficulties we have today, and quite possibly with less knowledge of how things work.
9 midcon // May 11, 2009 at 10:04 am
Doug,
Interesting and insightful commentary. David Walker has been saying the same thing for years. The exception to my commendation on the article is the concept of dealing with the revenue needs of the government going forward.
Yes, EIC and Make Work Pay are entitlements, as all credits under the tax code are. You are correct we need to recognize them as spending. But in the paragraph immediately following you decry the income tax as a surtax on high income Americans. Perhaps you meant to say that a progressive tax is a surtax on high income Americans. That’s much too simplistic though, because there is are vast numbers of Americans who are neither the ones receiving entitlements like EIC nor paying the progressive taxes and AMT of the more wealthy. According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 50% of taxpayers paid 97% off the income tax paid in 2008. Of that 97% the top 1% of taxpayers (the wealthiest) paid 39.86%. That means those in the proverbial center paid over 57% of the income taxes in 2008. It’s not just the wealthiest who are getting hosed. It’s the rest of us too!
You assert that the corporate income tax generates relatively little revenue. I suppose that means they don’t pay much. But if that’s the case, how can it pose a serious impediment to global competitiveness? Corporations should pay their fair share of income taxes and they get a credit for taxes paid to other countries. Of course, they are taxed only on the income that they bring into the U.S. – which is problematic because it causes corporations to leave the money outside the country rather than paying taxes to two countries. This all sounds confusing, because it is. So, yeah, I am big fan of tax reform.
But all I read (in between the lines) is: Cut spending, cut entitlements, cut taxes for people and corporations. Is that the solution? Isn’t that the same old line? Is it really that simple? Let me answer the question myself, NO it is not that simple. If it were that simple the politicians would have gotten right years ago! We need government because they build highways that transport people and goods so that we can have commerce. Government provides things that we cannot do individually.
Regardless of what you think of the previous Administration (and I think so little, that I cannot even express myself on the topic), it was faced with the proverbial stuff happens in the form of Katrina. We simply could not cut spending enough to pay the bills for the cost of Katrina without cutting some beef. Even if Congress would forego their trip to hog farm once or twice we would not be able to afford the bill. So we have two choices, increase the debt or raise revenue. Revenue can only be raised through taxes.
It is high time the GOP stop with taxes are bad chant. Taxes are not bad. Too many taxes are bad. Too little are bad and bad spending is bad. Taxes are necessary. We need to change the message and keep it on fair taxation and necessary spending. Without those two elements it just becomes the same old song.
10 sinz54 // May 11, 2009 at 10:30 am
midcon: The GOP used to be more specific in its goals.
When the GOP took over Congress in 1994, Gingrich and his “Young Turks” had identified $700 billion in specific cuts to the Federal budget that they wanted to make. Perhaps even get rid of the Cabinet-level Department of Education.
The problem was that Gingrich ran right into the opposition from the Clinton Administration. So Gingrich’s sincere plans to phase out unnecessary Federal spending were stopped cold.
Well, by the time the public sours on Obama’s wild spending, they may be ready to reconsider this message.
I’m ready to tell anyone who is listening that the Department of Education has not justified its $50 billion yearly budget. The Department of Homeland Security has not justified its gargantuan size either.
11 Rel // May 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
sinz54 – Does that “discretionary” spending – Education, Homeland Security – really matter compared to the size and growth of entitlements, most of which go toward current and future retirees?
The GOP used to be more specific about being the “party of productivity”. They incentivized productive work by lowering income tax rates. Now, they join the Dems in incentivizing retirement. A renewed party of productivity would follow your prescription of urging later retirement, etc., as an alternative to higher taxes down the road.
12 barker13 // May 11, 2009 at 11:25 am
Douglas,
I don’t believe MSheridan “got” your point. Here… let me give it a shot:
Re: MSheridan; 9:35 AM –
“…I’d welcome with open arms any movement toward intelligent discussion of solving our horrendous budget difficulties.”
MS. Bad news. You’re NOT going to get that discussion – not in the sense of the discussion actually leading to reform… not in the sense of actually “solving” our problems.
Get this straight. Our problems are simply going to get worse. Bad to worse. Worse to… er… even worse.
“I would be glad to see a Republican Party that was also serious about balancing budgets and prioritizing spending.”
You’re not going to see that. Well… backing up… you’ll see some of that… but you certainly won’t see the change required to “solve” our nation’s fiscal problems even if the Republicans can manage to take back both Houses of Congress AND the White House in 2012 or by 2016.
At best the USA will “rebound” to a certain extent every now and then as we continue our downward slide towards disaster. Sometime between 2025-45 I see the 50 states (and actually… it’ll be at least 52 states in the future, perhaps more depending upon what happens with Mexico and Canada) splitting with several “Americas” being the result.
“By the way, barker13, I sincerely hope you were joking…”
Just what this country needs… more “hope.”
(*SMILE*)
OK, MSheridan… give us your scenario of how via the democratic system as it now exists with the reality and trends that exists today… tell us how we’re going to get “change” and “solve” our problems under any viable scenario.
BILL
13 kroner // May 11, 2009 at 11:46 am
The conclusion of this piece seems to be that we need entitlement reform, and nothing short of that will solve the problem, which everyone has known for a long time now. So needless to say I was a bit miffed when there were no proposals offered for how exactly we can go about reforming entitlements.
I want to address some of the things that are proposed here.
“Rewards to risk-taking, flexible labor markets, and accumulation of physical and human capital.”
In other words, you want to encourage long term growth. That seems to be Obama’s view as well, except that his philosophy differs on how that’s best achieved. Accumulation of capital is the goal of spending now on education, improving health care infrastructure, investing in new energy technologies, etc. As for encouraging risk taking, that seems to be what led to a lot of the current problems. If people are too conservative with their money that can be bad for growth, but some shift toward saving is necessary considering the path we were on was clearly unsustainable. It led to speculative bubbles and too much debt all around, both among the financial institutions and individuals, to disastrous consequences. I’m not sure that we need to discourage people from learning their lesson.
“Any federal check that is independent of taxes is a spending policy and we need to be honest about that.”
As you well know, there’s no difference between a tax cut and the government handing someone a check. The main distinction between these two and spending is that the government doesn’t dictate how the money is used in the economy. It’s a small distinction from a budget standpoint, but an important one in how they are perceived by a large portion of the American public who believe that spending is evil and tax cuts are awesome. So this whole ploy to relabel the tax cuts you don’t like (EITC, etc), but not the ones you do (lowering the corporate tax rate for instance) reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
14 balconesfault // May 12, 2009 at 6:47 am
$700 billion/year on the military. There’s no way to deal with the long term budget stability without addressing this elephant in the room.
15 barker13 // May 12, 2009 at 6:54 am
Re: Kroner; 11:46 AM –
“The conclusion of this piece seems to be that we need entitlement reform, and nothing short of that will solve the problem, which everyone has known for a long time now. So needless to say I was a bit miffed when there were no proposals offered for how exactly we can go about reforming entitlements.”
Kroner. With respect… you’re not “getting” it either.
The politicians aren’t going to “reform” entitlements. Right now they’re busy increasing and expanding entitlements.
Kroner. Understand this: At a certain level a person and his or her family are pretty much safe and secure from the ill effects of the nation’s decline. At that level are powerful Senators, Members of the House, presidents and former presidents and their families… you get the picture.
You’ve got a whole bunch of extremely powerful people who will personally “profit” more from keeping the Ponzi scheme going for as long as possible and pushing aside the day of reckoning for as long as possible than they and their families and their associates would benefit by “reforming” the system.
You’re familiar with the term “milking the system,” I take it? We’re talking the folks skimming the heavy cream off the top!
Kroner. The institutional imperative of a Member of the House or a Senator or a governor is to steer as much federal money to his or her district or state as possible. Congress is know as the SPENDING branch rather than the savings branch for a reason.
(*SNORT*)
Oh, sure… you get the occasional “rebel.” You’ll notice however that it’s President Obama, not President Paul in the White House today.
Nope. Again… if Reagan couldn’t “fix” things… if Gingrich and the “Class of ‘94″ ended up failing… if a Republican President (Dubya) with BOTH Houses of Congress in Republican hands for six years only made things worse…
(*SHRUG*)
Re: MSheridan; 9:35 AM –
“By the way, barker13, I sincerely hope you were joking in your last post about hoping for a military coup or benevolent dictatorship…”
You ever watch “Smallville,” Kroner? This is the point I’m at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecb_38t5TTs
“…I don’t care how you do it…”
BILL
16 sinz54 // May 12, 2009 at 7:34 am
Rel: Does that “discretionary” spending – Education, Homeland Security – really matter compared to the size and growth of entitlements, most of which go toward current and future retirees?”
Every bit helps.
I was merely responding to the charge that we don’t propose specific cuts anymore. That entitlement reform is urgently needed doesn’t change the fact that the Department of Education is a waste of taxpayer’s money, and we could easily save $300 billion from the Federal Budget even before we touch entitlements.
You know I care about entitlement reform. I was the one who had the guts to admit we need to raise the retirement age, something that fell like a lead balloon around here.
17 kroner // May 12, 2009 at 12:20 pm
barker13: I don’t disagree with any of that. The deficit is a huge problem that most politician have no real interest in addressing because more tax cuts and more spending are popular. And with good reason. Who doesn’t want something for nothing? Entitlements are the biggest examples of this attitude. I don’t pretend to know what the solution is. All I was saying is that this piece seems to pile a whole lot of criticism and then offers “solutions” that are not really going to solve the problem.
sinz54: I like you increased retirement age suggestion.
18 // May 12, 2009 at 3:19 pm
barker: re your 6.54AM post,
I (uncomfortably!) agree with you for the most part about the almost universal resistance to fiscal responsibility. However, I believe that a lot of this stems from the fact that people don’t have to pay for the government goodies they receive. So, naturally, they want more and more.
This, I believe, is the single greatest failure of the Reagan presidency. He gave credibility to the unproven notion that you could cut taxes and still balance the budget. To his credit, he was not nearly as irresponsible as were Republicans over the last 8 years. But, the rhetoric he used in fighting for tax cuts, became, over time, dogma for the Republican party.
Now, any attempt to raise taxes to pay for governmet spending that the people demand is reflexively rejected by Republicans and conservatives even while they refuse to offer meaningful ideas for cutting the budget.
Conservatives should be offering realistic ways to cut spending and pay for what is not cut.
19 barker13 // May 12, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Re: Kroner; 12:20 PM –
“barker13: I don’t disagree with any of that.”
(*HANDSHAKE*)
“All I was saying is that this piece seems to pile a whole lot of criticism and then offers “solutions” that are not really going to solve the problem.”
Fair enough.
I for one sure as heck wish Mr. Holtz-Eakin would address our various comments. I assume he’s a busy man, but my feeling is, if he can make the time to “contribute” and you and I and others can take the time to read and comment, the least Holtz-Eakin can do is address a few of the key points we’ve (collectively) made.
Re: Spartacus; 3:19 PM –
barker: re your 6.54AM post,
“I (uncomfortably!) agree with you for the most part…”
Why “uncomfortably?”
“…a lot of this stems from the fact that people don’t have to pay for the government goodies they receive.”
Yes.
(The Founders warned us about democracy.)
BILL
20 // May 12, 2009 at 5:43 pm
barker, I’m uncomfortable b/c I tend to think of myself as a little more optimistic about this country’s capacity to eventually make the right decision than my agreement on your point suggests.
You must log in to post a comment.