Obama calls for renewal of PAYGO

[Pangloss]

President Obama called today for a renewal or re-enactment of PAYGO, which was a government law effective mostly during the Clinton administration. I think this is a VERY good idea and directly addresses concerns about ongoing profligate spending now that certain precedents have been set by the various massive bailout and relief programs.

 

The article I've linked below erroneously states that it requires that all spending be balanced with savings elsewhere -- actually the way it worked was that you could decrease cost elsewhere OR attach a corresponding (same value) revenue increase from some source. The point being "neutral" impact on the budget (no deficit increase).

 

It's important to note that this only impacts "direct" spending, or the non-entitlement side of the budget. That's about one-third of the total budget, but it's where all the vast spending increases have come from. (It's not where the biggest increases are GOING to shortly be coming from, now that the baby boomers are retiring and asking for their Social Security and medical benefits, but that just makes this even more important.)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/

[Mr Skeptic]

What, making the government run on a budget like the rest of us? The absurdity!

[bascule]

Totally badass... Obama seems to do a great job of doing something that makes me love him shortly after doing something that pisses me off.

 

I love the Republican reaction:

 

"It seems a tad disingenuous for the president and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to talk about PAYGO rules after ramming trillions in spending through Congress proposing policies that create more debt in the first six months of this year than in the previous 220 years combined," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Minority Whip.

 

It seems a tad disingenious of Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia to talk about the debt created by Obama when he voted for the Bush-sponsored bailout bill and thus participated in creating the highest budget deficit in history after years of record budget deficits.

 

I'd say he's also quite a bit off on his maths. The YTD budget deficit is $697 billion. In 2008 over a TRILLION dollars was added to the US national debt, thanks to a bill this clown voted for.

 

To add insult to injury, Obama is now trying to fix the problem. And this guy is... criticizing him for it? Am I supposed to interpret his statements as meaning he doesn't like PAYGO and is against trying to reduce the deficit?

 

I'm curious, does anyone actually take Republicans seriously anymore, or are they some sad pathetic parody?

[Pangloss]

Don't forget the most ironic part: It was the GOP that allowed PAYGO to lapse. They couldn't have passed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 without doing so.

[bascule]

after ramming trillions in spending

 

And what kind of lies are those? Is he suggesting the Democrats have pushed through over $2 trillion dollars (i.e "trillions") in new spending?

 

Honestly, why does CNN even print this stuff? The guy is stating things which are simply not true (not to mention he's a total hypocrite). This would be a good opportunity for CNN to use the good old quote-transition journalistic format to transition to someone who actually scrutinized the baldfaced lies coming out of this guy's mouth, but no, they just print it verbatim and move on.

[Pangloss]

I'm curious, does anyone actually take Republicans seriously anymore, or are they some sad pathetic parody?

 

I paused for a day to consider this more fully, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm stepping on you for expressing your opinion, but I feel obliged to respond to some degree. I hope you respect where I'm coming from with this -- I understand why you're angry with Republicans, but I think you go too far with it and don't recognize how badly we all need them to recover.

 

Florida Republicans have kept my state financially solvent through eight hurricanes and numerous other crises. It was under GOP stewardship that Florida resolved an insurance crisis, a budget crisis, an environmental crisis, a regulation safety crisis (new housing codes following Andrew that would have greatly helped Mississippi and Louisiana deal with Katrina), and a constitutional amendment crisis. Every increase in state spending has to be justified by a corresponding increase in revenue, and we even took it to the level of including cost statements with every constitutional amendment that makes it to the ballot, and discovered that even voters are less likely to vote for sweeping expenditures if they see what they will cost.

 

I won't say that it's been a perfect ride, mind you. The 2000 election haunts Florida Republicans, as does the spectre of Terri Shiavo. But in both cases there was tremendous blowback that you never see talked about on the national level. I don't think the local GOP will make *either* of those mistakes again any time soon (though I've been wrong before).

 

So I think Republicans CAN do a sound job, especially when they focus on the fiscal side and leave the social conservatives to whine to their ministers. Why they did such an awful job at the national level during roughly the same period of time is beyond me, even in retrospect. But they surely did blow it. Badly.

 

The concern I have is that anybody would think that Congressional Democrats will be any better. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't want a balanced budget, and I predict that they will do everything in their power to stop PAYGO from being reimplemented (while attempting to blame that on Republicans). Congress doesn't want PAYGO because it will stop them from making the one-time discretionary expenditures of the Economic Recovery Act a permanent part of the budget.

 

Barrack Obama is all alone up there, the one and only person in Washington who actually wants sound fiscal policy. And in order to support that we need to SUPPORT Republicans who are now willing, however hypocritically, to stand against profligate spending. They will become a ready pool of available votes to draw from when Democrats drag their heels on Obama-proposed spending cuts next year. But not if we keep wailing on them because of the Bush years.

 

Gotta wise up, man. I feel where you're coming from with this, I really do. But it takes two to tango, and we badly need to dance.

[bascule]

I paused for a day to consider this more fully, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm stepping on you for expressing your opinion, but I feel obliged to respond to some degree. I hope you respect where I'm coming from with this -- I understand why you're angry with Republicans, but I think you go too far with it and don't recognize how badly we all need them to recover.

 

I would love for the Republicans to get better as well. However the quote from Eric Cantor is just outright lies and hypocrisy. And it's not like he's Freshman Representative McDouchebag. He is a member of the Republican House leadership.

 

To get better, I think the Republicans need to be a bit more vigilant about finding leaders who can make well-reasoned arguments and aren't, well, evil. Their current MO seems to be disseminate arguments full of "truthiness" and to have the whole party on point with them. If the Republicans want to get better, this needs to change.

 

The concern I have is that anybody would think that Congressional Democrats will be any better.

 

Well, I don't see them spouting outright lies about their opponents...

 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't want a balanced budget, and I predict that they will do everything in their power to stop PAYGO from being reimplemented (while attempting to blame that on Republicans). Congress doesn't want PAYGO because it will stop them from making the one-time discretionary expenditures of the Economic Recovery Act a permanent part of the budget.

 

I leave that as "guess we'll find out soon"

[Pangloss]

To get better, I think the Republicans need to be a bit more vigilant about finding leaders who can make well-reasoned arguments and aren't, well, evil. Their current MO seems to be disseminate arguments full of "truthiness" and to have the whole party on point with them. If the Republicans want to get better, this needs to change.

 

True and fair enough. And we're sending one to the national scene: Charlie Crist, who's giving up a sure-fire re-election to take a shot at Mel Martinez's seat. I think you'll see that as a step in the right direction, particularly given Martinez's background (he's the last of the three senators who cast the infamous secret Terri Schiavo vote with 97 senators not even aware it was taking place).

[bascule]

I'd say Ron Paul fits the bill too, although his position seems rather different from the Republican base. Where Republicans like Eric Cantor pay lip service to fiscal responsibility and ONLY now that the Democrats are in power, Ron Paul doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk.

 

That's really the sad thing. Ron Paul is as close to a popular Barry Goldwater conservative as you're going to get nowadays, and yet it seems he gets way more support from liberal/anarchist libertarians than he does from the Republican base.

 

It seems nowadays Republicans care more about "doing the opposite thing from the Democrats" than they do about their supposed principles like small government and fiscal responsibility. It seems the only real "principles" Republicans actually care about nowadays are banning abortion, denying gays basic civil rights, and unconstitutionally promoting religion in government. After criticizing Kerry for being a "flip-flopper" Republican congressmen who pushed through bloated pork filled bills and passed the worst medicare in history all while cutting taxes are now whining about the deficit.

 

Say, why didn't they try to work on that problem when you were in power? Instead they raised spending and cut taxes. They are hugely responsible for this problem, but only now that the Democrats are in power are they complaining about it.

[padren]

I hope you respect where I'm coming from with this -- I understand why you're angry with Republicans, but I think you go too far with it and don't recognize how badly we all need them to recover.

 

Bascule's response pretty much sums up what I feel about the topic, but just to add my own words: It's not about whether we want Republicans to recover, or even if they can, (I am sure they will in time) it's about whether or not right now they are a "sad pathetic parody" of their former party.

 

I definitely have some bias, as I feel like they solidified under the Bush years around a series of key highlights that are directly opposite of what I feel politics should be about: politicized religion, unilateralism, and dangerously unregulated markets among other things. So where as many who support those things may feel the Republicans "truly came together" in that time I feel they hijacked the party. I am sure there are also others who looked at those things in a similar way to how most Democrats "put up" with Pelosi's antics - with disfavor but not too much concern.

 

All said, it does appear they are seriously hurting due to the course they took, and I would like to see them achieve something far more like you describe about Florida - which I doubt they did by simply vilifying and opposing Democrats. Most of the prominent personalities in the Republican party right now do not fill me with a lot of confidence, but I do believe they can find a better direction to head in...and we certainly want at least a two party game or we are all in trouble.