Obama lifts debt ceiling, reinstates paygo

[bascule]

On Friday Obama signed legislation which both raised the ceiling for the national debt (from $12.4 to $14.3 trillion) and, at Obama's behest, restored pay-as-yo-go legislation which was repealed by Bush and the Republicans in 2002, in preparation for creating the largest entitlement since Medicare.

 

The new paygo legislation requires all new spending bills to be accompanied by legislation which shows how they'll be funded: either through revenue increases, spending decreases, or a combination thereof.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0213/Pay-go-redux-Can-Obama-rein-in-federal-spending

 

Days after presenting a budget that will create a record $1.56 trillion deficit this year, President Obama vowed Saturday to comb through future budgets line by line to forestall growing deficits that began under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

 

Legislation signed by Obama on Friday raises the federal debt ceiling from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion but aims to rein in runaway federal spending by bringing back the “pay-go” rules of the 1990s – forcing lawmakers and the president to offset new spending with equal cuts elsewhere.

 

“This isn’t a perfect world. This is Washington,” Obama said in his weekly Saturday radio address. “[balancing budgets] falls prey to the pressure of special interests, to the pull of local concerns, and to a reality familiar to every single American – the fact that it is a lot easier to spend a dollar than save one.”

 

Republicans, who love to talk trash about the deficit now that they no longer have the power to create it, hate paygo:

 

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/13/potus-says-paygo-is-common-sense-rule/?test=latestnews

 

Republicans have long opposed PAYGO because they say it enables lawmakers to increase taxes to fund more programs. A spokesman for Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) tells Fox that the Congressman believes PAYGO means “You pay, the Democrats go on spending.”

 

This, of course, is opposed to the Republicans "you don't pay, the Republicans go on borrowing" approach to funding the government:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#U.S._Congress

 

After the expiration of PAYGO, budget deficits returned. The federal surplus shrank from $236.2 billion in 2000 to $128.2 billion in 2001, then a $157.8 billion deficit in 2002—the last year statutory PAYGO was in effect. The deficit increased to $377.6 in 2003 and $412.7 billion in 2004.[3] The federal deficit excluding trust funds was $537.3 billion in FY2006.[7] In the first 6 years of President Bush's term, with a Republican controlled Congress, the federal debt increased by $3 trillion.[8][9]. The public debt continued to grow after Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006.[10][11]

Edited February 14, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Reinstituting PAYGO was definitely the right thing to do, but I doubt they would have done it if it wasn't for the current polling, the loss of the 60th Senate seat, and election threat this fall.

[bascule]

Reinstituting PAYGO was definitely the right thing to do, but I doubt they would have done it if it wasn't for the current polling, the loss of the 60th Senate seat, and election threat this fall.

 

Why?

[Pangloss]

Because many Democrats would like to spend very large amounts of money on social programs right now.

[iNow]

Reinstituting PAYGO was definitely the right thing to do, but I doubt they would have done it if it wasn't for the current polling, the loss of the 60th Senate seat, and election threat this fall.

Wow. Fascinating. So you're honestly suggesting that the Obama administration knew that Ted Kennedy would die and they'd lose the Massachusetts seat to Brown two months later... that they'd be facing challenges in the November 2010 elections, and knew what the polls would say when they were speaking out in favor of re-instituting PAYGO back in June 2009 (such as described in the article below):

 

 

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

President Obama on Tuesday proposed making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law.

 

 

 

And ALSO knew about all of those things and only supported PAYGO due to recent electoral concerns when he debated with John McCain in October 2008:

 

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/debate-transcri.html

SCHIEFFER: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.

 

OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

<...>

But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we're not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways.

 

And we're going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.

 

 

And that he only was supporting PAYGO way back during his 2008 presidential campaign due to the upcoming elections in November of 2010:

 

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf

Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

 

 

Wow... They're amazing. I wish I could look into their crystal ball, because that's simply impressive beyond all measure. I swear, if only I'd known they were only arguing in favor of PAYGO simply because they knew in advance that Kennedy would die and they'd lose the seat to Brown, because they knew in advance that obstructionism in Congress would play out so robustly and cause enough frustration in the US populace to change voting behaviors in 2010... And they knew all of this way back in 2007. These are not men... They're gods!

 

 

Now, you tell me... What's more likely... The ridiculous assumption above that they've been arguing in favor of PAYGO consistently for 3 years due to a knowledge of what politics would be like in 2010, or the fact that they are simply living up to their promises and principles and you are here doing little more than repeating ill-informed political spin which you've heard from elsewhere on the internet by those disconnected with reality and more interested in narratives than facts?

[Pangloss]

Wow. Fascinating. So you're honestly suggesting that the Obama administration knew that Ted Kennedy would die and they'd lose the Massachusetts seat to Brown two months later... that they'd be facing challenges in the November 2010 elections, and knew what the polls would say when they were speaking out in favor of re-instituting PAYGO back in June 2009 (such as described in the article below):

 

Promises are one thing, action is another. President Obama signed the bill on FRIDAY. Congress passed the legislation last week and the week before last, all following the Scott Brown election. Therefore my comments were appropriate and even if you disagree with them they are undeserving of ridicule.

 

The massive bailouts and stimulus packages of the last couple of years would not have been possible had PAYGO been in place. For that reason, some Democrats were opposed to its return. Even after the sudden realization by Democrats in late January and early February that public perception was not going their way, 15 Democrats still voted against PAYGO and 7 abstained (source).

 

 

Wow... They're amazing. I wish I could look into their crystal ball, because that's simply impressive beyond all measure. I swear, if only I'd known...

 

The ridiculous assumption above...

 

...you are here doing little more than repeating ill-informed political spin which you've heard from elsewhere on the internet by those disconnected with reality and more interested in narratives than facts...

 

And I've just about had it with the above. You wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing if it were aimed at you, and I've demonstrated why it's unfairly aimed at me here. Knock it off.

[iNow]

You made a claim. It was ridiculous. I very successfully supported my classification of it as such.

 

What was a recent thread title here at SFN? "Science is mean to people whose ideas suck." Go figure... So is reality.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There is a very large difference between attacking an idea you believe to be wrong and attacking a person you believe to be wrong. Science successfully does the former all the time, as do most on SFN. You consistently choose the latter.

 

You can make your points without insulting anyone. I will not tolerate your present tactics any longer.

[Pangloss]

iNow, in what way does my previous post fail to document why my claim was not ridiculous? I think you make a valid point, but it doesn't necessarily dispute my own. Could not both of our opinions be true?

 

Bascule said that Obama just signed this on Friday. I acknowledged this and commented an opinion it reflected current trends in tactical thinking in the Democratic Party. Your reply brought up the issue of previous promises by numerous Democrats to re-implement PAYGO, which I do not dispute.

[bascule]

Because many Democrats would like to spend very large amounts of money on social programs right now.

 

Yes, and they're also finding ways to fund them. Apparently the horrible silly stupid healthcare bill will actually reduce the deficit. They're not the Republicans, you know. They actually *like* paygo. Tax and spend! It's a lot better than don't tax and spend, which was the Republican solution to the problem as demonstrated in 2000-2006. Also: under Reagan.

[Pangloss]

The not-quite-yet-failed health care reform plan was projected by the CBO to add $800-1,000 billion dollars to the deficit over ten years before hopefully pushing the line the other way (source). This would not be allowed under PAYGO, which is a year-to-year requirement, not a ten-year-maybe-it-will-maybe-it-won't requirement.

 

(And I'm regretting not mentioning this earlier, since it supports my point that they've clearly become aware that they need to behave between now and November.)

[bascule]

This would not be allowed under PAYGO, which is a year-to-year requirement

 

Would? Well paygo passed now... so does that mean the healthcare bill needs to be rewritten?

 

If so... woohoo!

 

(And I'm regretting not mentioning this earlier, since it supports my point that they've clearly become aware that they need to behave between now and November.)

 

Or maybe Obama actually cares about fighting the deficit...

[Pangloss]

(And I'm regretting not mentioning this earlier, since it supports my point that they've clearly become aware that they need to behave between now and November.)

 

Or maybe Obama actually cares about fighting the deficit...

 

I said "they" and I meant "they".

 

The conservative revolution that Reagan helped usher in gained traction because of Reagan's central insight -- that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing the pie -- contained a good deal of truth.

 

- Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p156-7.

 

Yes, most of the book follows closer to traditional progressive policies, but that quote taught me that this man is objective and independent in his thinking. Why he spent 2009 caving to Democratic Congressional leadership, which was erroneously convinced that it had a progressive mandate, I have no idea. I hope for better behavior from both parties in 2010.

[The Bear's Key]

Reinstituting PAYGO was definitely the right thing to do, but I doubt they would have done it if it wasn't for the current polling, the loss of the 60th Senate seat, and election threat this fall.

 

The original PayGo...

The act has since been extended several times, most recently with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It expired in 2002, but Democrats made it a top priority in the 110th Congress where they were the majority.

Also, the original PayGo was voted in by the Congress of 1990 with Democrats as the majority in both houses.

 

Yet they were expelled from Congress by the lie "Tax and Spend" made up by hijackers of the Republican leadership. Ironically, history seems might be repeated with the new (old) lies/propagandas and twists.

 

 

Promises are one thing, action is another.

Right, chap.

 

Yet inaction's a thing also.

 

It expired in 2002.

It was Republicans that let it expire and remain dead.

 

When both houses of Congress and the Presidency were Republican majorities...

The PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements

 

 

 

15 Democrats still voted against PAYGO and 7 abstained (source).

You kidding?

 

233 Democrats voted for it.

 

How many Republicans? Zero. I guess they were voting (against) with the values of their constituents

 

 

It's a lot better than don't tax and spend, which was the Republican solution to the problem...

I'd be more careful and rephrase it as "tax but spend".

 

So it's not misinterpreted as.....It's a lot better than don't "tax and spend"

 

 

- Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p156-7.

 

Yes, most of the book follows closer to traditional progressive policies, but that quote taught me that this man is objective and independent in his thinking. Why he spent 2009 caving to Democratic Congressional leadership, which was erroneously convinced that it had a progressive mandate

I'm going to ask that you qualify the bolded.

 

For I'm surely not the only person here who thinks Obama caved to the Republican leadership repeatedly, backpedaling here, giving in there...

 

Also, what's an election landslide if not a mandate?

[jryan]

Does anyone else noticed a touch of irony in raising the debt ceiling along with reinstating paygo? If they were serious about the latter then they wouldn't need the former.

 

Paygo by itself is a good idea, but it really doesn't change the basic schism between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. The former views paygo as a limitation on spending while the latter views paygo as a mandate for taxation.

 

As such, I don't see where paygo will be all that helpful. Obama and the Congress (Republican and Democrat) are fiscally liberal... so I see paygo as higher taxes in our future. They just passed a $3.8 trillion dollar budget, after all... if you applied paygo to that budget that would mean an additional $1.5 trillion in taxes this year. So what happens next year? If the economy doesn't recover sufficiently to cover $3.8 trillion then we are looking at massive budget cuts (and layoffs in the public sector) or over $1 trillion in new taxes.

 

That last option is especially troubling since they would be skimming an additional 10% of the GDP off the top while the private sector stuggles to make a profit. So it is layoffs in the public sector (budget cuts) or the private sector (much higher taxes)... what are the chances that Congress chooses themselves for the axe?

[Mr Skeptic]

Also, what's an election landslide if not a mandate?

 

It's an election landslide, of course. A mandate is massive demand for something, presumably with the promise to vote against whoever does not follow it and for whoever credibly promises it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anyhow, it is clear that congresscritters need their spending habits regulated so they don't bankrupt us.

[jryan]

It's an election landslide, of course. A mandate is massive demand for something, presumably with the promise to vote against whoever does not follow it and for whoever credibly promises it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Yeah, I find the "mandate" argument amusing given the ensuing response to congress' assumed "mandate".

 

It could easily be argued that the landslide was on a platform of moderation and "anything but Bush"... but the ensuing leadership was a practical continuation of Bush policy and anything but moderate.

 

In other words: the landslide may well have been a mandate for the Obama administration ... just not the mandate they thought it was. In much the same way that 2004 was a "mandate" for the Bush administration... just not the mandate they thought it was.

Edited February 15, 2010 by jryan

[bascule]

Does anyone else noticed a touch of irony in raising the debt ceiling along with reinstating paygo? If they were serious about the latter then they wouldn't need the former.

 

Except they inherited trillion dollar deficits from the previous administration, not to mention an extremely troubled economy which isn't generating much in the way of tax revenue. Those things don't go away overnight.

 

Being concerned at all about the deficit is a welcome change from the previous administration.

[swansont]

Does anyone else noticed a touch of irony in raising the debt ceiling along with reinstating paygo? If they were serious about the latter then they wouldn't need the former.

 

The debt ceiling has been raised every year or so for a long time — the government occasionally borrows money from the federal employees' retirement fund when they can't get the legislation passed in time. But that's a reaction to past spending, while paygo is a curb on future spending. Even if future programs are revenue neutral (which is my reading of the rule), the existence of a deficit — which we've had since ca 2002 — means that the ceiling will be reached again. The existence of paygo will not by itself balance the budget, it's just a step to limit the deficits.

[Pangloss]

For I'm surely not the only person here who thinks Obama caved to the Republican leadership repeatedly, backpedaling here, giving in there...

 

Well certainly your opinion (and that of others here) is no less valuable, but also no more valuable, than my own. But that doesn't tell us anything factual, now does it?

 

The tale is told by what the situation actually was (60 vote majority; no need for Republican votes) and what was actually accomplished (very little; no health care reform topping the list). Now you can continue to blame this on Republicans, who have certainly behaved badly, but that makes no sense because as I've explained here before you can't bring them on board without concessions that you are unwilling to make. Or you can blame it on moderate Democrats who wanted stuff you didn't want to give them either.

 

Or you can recognize the fact that the proposed changes were unacceptable to a country that is, surprisingly and in spite of all efforts to avoid the fact, a democracy. You tried to shove something down their collective throats, and they spit it back up in your face.

 

My advice: Try again. Only this time, listen to what the people are actually telling you, instead of what you wish they were telling you. If you think that Obama was caving to the right and that he needs to pound the podium for aggressive progressive reforms, you're just going to have the exact same failure you had before. If, on the other hand, you recognize that the country is not progressive, that it is a balance of progressive and conservative, and that it wants sensible reform, not social mandate, then you will have some success.

 

It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

Also, what's an election landslide if not a mandate?

 

Two different things: Obama's election; Democrats achieving majority. Are they connected? Certainly. Do they indicate a mandate for progressive ideology? Not necessarily, because there are only two parties to choose from. You're certainly welcome to believe that most Americans woke up one day and decided that we suddenly need an open border, casual abortion, a "living wage", free health care for all, and so forth -- the stereotypical progressive agenda.

 

Or you can believe what is more likely (and in my opinion is correct), that the moderate middle that actually represents the majority of this country is bouncing back and forth between two unacceptable parties, which promptly declare an ideological mandate and then fail to achieve it, because they don't understand that they aren't representing the majority view.

 

Take your pick. As I said, your opinion is no less valuable than my own.

[Mr Skeptic]

The tale is told by what the situation actually was (60 vote majority; no need for Republican votes) and what was actually accomplished (very little; no health care reform topping the list).

 

Repeat after me, 60 individuals who are not Republicans does not make a majority.

[jryan]

Well, that's the problem as I see it. Reid, Pelosi and Obama was 60 Democrats in the Senate and a Majority Democrat House and assumed that that meant plenty of support for their progressive agenda.

 

There was obviously not a true majority support for Health Care Reform as invisioned by Reid and Pelosi or it would have been on Obama's desk ready to be signed by his August 2009 deadline.

[The Bear's Key]

Does anyone else noticed a touch of irony in raising the debt ceiling along with reinstating paygo?

However, a flaw does exist in the paygo system. Doesn't account for inflation in the future. (but a *slowly* raised debt celing will)

 

 

Anyhow, it is clear that congresscritters need their spending habits regulated so they don't bankrupt us.

Just as industry needs oversight, the government needs it even more so.....especially whenever the two are to meet in private talks -- especially dealing with $$, proposed laws, and/or regulations.

 

 

For I'm surely not the only person here who thinks Obama caved to the Republican leadership repeatedly, backpedaling here, giving in there... [/quote']Well certainly your opinion (and that of others here) is no less valuable, but also no more valuable, than my own.

I can back up my opinion just fine, and do so often.

 

By that I mean: specific, factual cases.

 

Also, jryan hinted at a portion of those (emphasis mine in bold)...

 

Originally Posted by jryan

It could easily be argued that the landslide was on a platform of moderation and "anything but Bush"... but the ensuing leadership was a practical

continuation of Bush policy

and anything but moderate.

Do you know what's he referring to, or do you actually need specifics? I mean perhaps you're unaware. If so, I'd gladly supply all you could possibly need.

 

But I had asked you to qualify your statements for a reason, to give specifics on anything Obama did to lend weight/support/credibility to your opinion that 1) he spent 2009 caving to Democratic Congressional leadership, and 2) they were convinced of having a progressive mandate (from election results, instead of actual polling statistics reflecting a desire for healthcare change).

 

But give me data, like where I countered your opinion (that Democrats, supposedly, vote for PayGo only when threatened by election losses) with a history of Democrat lawmakers voting for it, Republicans against.

 

Substance please, no mere opinion. I won't hold as much value for someone's opinion if they didn't bother to double-check its accuracy, no offense.*

 

Because it's a rather lacking way to solve important problems. (and yes I can back that up )

 

*Preference opinions, like "hey, is this shirt cool?" or "which party's ideological roots best fits your values?" is a different story, yet the answer to those generally doesn't need qualifications right?

 

 

The tale is told by what the situation actually was (60 vote majority; no need for Republican votes) and what was actually accomplished (very little; no health care reform topping the list). Now you can continue to blame this on Republicans, who have certainly behaved badly, but that makes no sense because as I've explained here before you can't bring them on board without concessions that you are unwilling to make. Or you can blame it on moderate Democrats who wanted stuff you didn't want to give them either.

Several issues here.

 

The tale is told by what the situation actually was (60 vote majority; no need for Republican votes)

Democrats have two opponents, the conservatives and Republicans. One party has natural allies in both of the parties, the other doesn't. So the Democratic party is naturally more bipartisan as a whole (there you have a self-contained qualification for my opinion ).

 

Even so, the reason Dems couldn't pass laws isn't because of they didn't make compromises, it's because of the incredibly numerous uses of the filibuster. The Dems had enough votes (51) to pass what they needed. You can't overlook that, or such other variables.

 

you can't bring them on board without concessions that

you are unwilling to make

.

Did the concessions they made not outnumber the concessions they didn't make?

 

Or you can blame it on moderate Democrats who wanted stuff you didn't want to give them either.

Are you confusing two different kinds of people here? For instance, are your "moderate" Dems in reality the conservative Blue Dogs kinds?

 

 

Two different things: Obama's election; Democrats achieving majority. Are they connected? Certainly. Do they indicate a mandate for progressive ideology? Not necessarily, because there are only two parties to choose from. You're certainly welcome to believe that most Americans woke up one day and decided that we suddenly need an open border, casual abortion, a "living wage", free health care for all, and so forth -- the stereotypical progressive agenda.

Those weren't even close to being on the dinner plate.

[bascule]

Does anyone else noticed a touch of irony in raising the debt ceiling along with reinstating paygo? If they were serious about the latter then they wouldn't need the former.

 

Paygo by itself is a good idea, but it really doesn't change the basic schism between fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals.

 

Does anyone else notice the irony of jryan showing up to whine about how the Democrats are "fiscal liberals" without ever in the history of these forums broached the issue of all the debt the Republicans racked up in the preceding two terms?

 

jryan, I'm not exactly sure what you think "fiscal liberals" or "fiscal conservatives" are, but as far as the people who hold power in this country go the Democrats are the closest to "fiscal conservatives" at this point. At least in the previous 30 years when the Republicans are in control of the government they have racked up enormous national debt, no more so than in 2000-2006 when they controlled both the Executive and Legislative branch at the same time.

 

Where were you then and why weren't you complaining?

[Pangloss]

Repeat after me, 60 individuals who are not Republicans does not make a majority.

 

Exactly -- Democrats thought they had an ideological mandate, and they discovered that they did not, because many of the Democrats who came in represented very conservative districts who were simply tired of Republican representation. Those districts didn't change their minds about abortion, health care, Federal spending, or social programs. They didn't wake up one morning and decide to change the radio station from Rush Limbaugh to Air America, or to switch the TV from Fox News to MSNBC.

 

There is movement in this country on ideological issues, but it's on a case-by-case basis. The fact that some conservative somewhere decides one morning that he's probably going to be fine with gays in the military after all does not mean that he is going to also decide in that same moment that creationism is impossibly illogical, everyone should get a fair wage, jobs are a right not a privilege, a fetus is not a human, and that it's time to trade in the pickup for a Prius. It just doesn't happen that way.

 

 

Even so, the reason Dems couldn't pass laws isn't because of they didn't make compromises, it's because of the incredibly numerous uses of the filibuster. The Dems had enough votes (51) to pass what they needed. You can't overlook that, or such other variables.

 

There is no filibuster when you have 60 seats. Do you mean filibuster by conservative Democrats? If that's what you mean, if you're just making the point that 1 of the 60 (or looked at another way, 1 out of 100 given that there are 40 who we know aren't cooperating) is holding up the process, then yes, I agree.

 

But that DOES mean they couldn't make compromises. That's exactly what it means. Let's take a look at a typical example, that I backed up with sources with Mokele earlier in another thread -- the abortion situation with health care reform. Conservative Democrats (a number of them, not just one) insisted that the government not pay for them. Liberal Democrats such as Maxine Waters stated that the bill would lose THEIR support if the government DIDN'T pay for them. In other words, by definition, the two sides were unable to reach a compromise.

 

None of which has anything at all to do with Republicans. How could it? Should they vote for a bill that they don't believe in just because you need to get your agenda passed? How could that make any sense in a democracy?

 

In short, Democrats want to be the big tent, but they don't want the responsibility of compromise that being a big tent means. Zell Miller tried to explain this to Democrats all the way back in 2003 with his wonderfully insightful book A National Party No More, and Democrats laughed at him and called him names. Guess who's laughing now? (I highly recommend that book to all political hobbyists, btw. Think what you want about the man, but he knows politics like a pigs knows stink.)

 

 

Those weren't even close to being on the dinner plate.

 

Beside the point. You can't pretend that the agenda wasn't too progressive just because Michael Moore wasn't leading the way. The proof that it was too progressive is the fact that none of it was signed into law.