Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-05/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
A panel of journalists joins Diane to talk about the week's top stories: President Obama signed a compromise debt ceiling deal; a partial shutdown of the FAA furloughed thousands of airport workers; and several top advisers departed from more than one Republican presidential campaign.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
congressional correspondent, Bloomberg News.
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, and managing editor of PostPolitics.com.
Related Video
A panel of journalists discusses what the debt ceiling debate really accomplished, and who they think will be on President Obama’s deficit super committee.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Meangreen-
Unfortunately, ecgberht misunderstands budgeting as applied to federal versus states and his "simple to understand statement" does not properly explain the issue. Families who can have a "balanced" budget where they can afford both regular expenses and debt payments like mortgage, car loans, and credit cards. States can have "balanced" budgets by paying for operating expenses and debt payments like bonds for capital expenses. The federal government does not get loans for specific items and then only count the repayments as part of the budget. The federal government has to count the costs immediately- like a cash budget. The federal government always has to account upfront for everything. Under the current budget system, a balanced budget would mean that the federal government would not be allowed to take on any debt. A balanced budget for families and states allows for the families and states to take on debt with specific debt instruments.
This is a simple explanation of the actual budgeting. It would help to understand it before making policy decisions. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." - DPM
Daniel
citizencontact wrote:
"Unfortunately, ecgberht misunderstands budgeting as applied to federal versus states and his "simple to understand statement" does not properly explain the issue."
No. I don't misunderstand anything.
" Under the current budget system, a balanced budget would mean that the federal government would not be allowed to take on any debt."
I can't actually believe your thinking is that narrow, but that's what demagoguery looks like. In fact, the budget must be "overbalanced" (a surplus beyond interest payments) for current debt to ever go down. The problem isn't that the FG can take on debt - it's that it can take it on too easily as proven by the most recent extension and subsequent downgrade. Constitutionally, Congress can issue debt (see Article 1, Section 8). In the late 18th century, when Congresses acted within their Constitutionally mandated limits of reach, there was no need for a Constitutionally mandated limit on the degree to which the FG could take on debt. Now there is.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/balanced-budget-plan
This doesn't mean that the FG can't take on long term capital projects. You've yet to explain how we have an interstate highway system, how we put a man on the moon over ten years, and I'm sure I can think of others. Like I said, I deal in reality, not what is theoretical.
I'm still waiting to hear how Republicans have "mis-characterized federal budgets". If anything, the FG UNDERSTATES spending in its budgets.
Part 2
Now, to the Constitutional issues. You're a progressive, I get that. But there are any number of problems with any number of statements. You say," I personally believe that the government is a democratic institution that should "promote the general welfare" of its participants as is indicated in the Constitution's preamble"
First, we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. That's important because of the 10th ammendment which I'm sure progressives wish wasn't there. You've done a nice job listing areas where the FG, constitutionally belongs (military, patents, roads - i.e. national infrastructure, etc.).
Now, sit down and read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and tell me, within its constraints, how you justify the following:
Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Department of HHS, Department of HUD.
Semi-Anonymous wrote:
ANARCHIST__ untie !
CAMtron- unemployment growth triggers food riots, civil unrest creating oppurtunities for further torture, incarceration, and MORE exploitation.
Semi:
These are the kinds of statements that if Conservatives were saying would be accused of "Fear Mongering"
This in not some third world country where when subsidies are cancelled, people riot.
People in this country even the poor eat pretty good. After all we have an obesity problem in this country.
ecgberht-
You seem to be unclear that there is more than one way to budget. I am not making a political statement, just trying to explain the federal government does budgeting differently than other institutions. And the government issues debt differently than most states. Again, you seem to be unaware of the differences, so I gave you several links to good background information. One more try, please read: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/StateBalancedBudgetProvisions2010.pdf
and http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/31/42187847.pdf is good at describing the difference between the cash vs. accrual method of accounting on a national basis. The US uses a cash basis of accounting (see: Table 1 )
This is what I meant by having arguments that don't make sense when one of the parties is unaware of the facts. I was never arguing for or against borrowing money by the federal government. Generally I am against borrowing money if it can be avoided on a national basis, but good for states and individuals (except for usurious interest).
You seem to also caught up in the whole republic vs. democracy semantic debate. It does not address my point that we have elections where representatives are elected to represent me-which I choose to use the term democratic process or institution. Yes, the institution is a republic (noun) and the form of it is most accurately described as democratic (adjective). Put them together and you get democratic republic.
Again, if the departments you mentioned were unconstitutional, I would be for amending the constitution to allow them. Fortunately for us the Supreme Court agrees with me (at least for now).
Daniel
You're makin' it too easy for me ...
citizencontact wrote:
" The Obama administration has tried to be more honest about all of the spending"
"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" - Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.
"even as it has felt forced to continue some of the poor spending choices as part of various compromises with the Republicans."
That would not qualify as a "good job", now would it?
"But generally the Obama administration has only added expenditures that will make America safer, stabler and richer."
Think so? Even setting aside AHCAA, have you ever looked at what is actually in ARRA? Nothing but handouts in areas where the government mostly has no business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009.
Now as a progressive, I'm sure you believe that all government spending is stimulative. ARRA has proved that philosophy invalid. The S&P downgrade demonstrates that. We're not safer. We're certainly not stabler. And I think most Americans would say they don't feel richer than they did 2 1/2 years ago.
"You seem to be unclear that there is more than one way to budget"
No. I'm not. My first accounting course taught me that. But all budgets boil down to what comes in and what goes out. The rest is noise.
"when one of the parties is unaware of the facts"
Your condecending tone does not bolster your arguments.
Again, this is a distinction without a difference. In the long run, both state and federal governments spend more than they take in. That's a budget deficit. That's something people understand. And it's all they need to understand.
"You seem to also caught up in the whole republic vs. democracy semantic debate"
The 10th ammendment is not "semantics".
" And the government issues debt differently than most states."
No. It doesn't. The government issues treasury bills. States create bond issues. They're both debt instruments. They're both rated based on the entity's ability to pay them back and pay the interest.
These are SIMPLE concepts. One of the reasons we are in the fix we are in is because they have been presented to the American public in MUCH MORE COMPLICATED ways than are necessary. That's where the Tea Party comes in. They are saying "Stop. We see what's going on and we don't like it".
"Again, if the departments you mentioned were unconstitutional, I would be for amending the constitution to allow them. Fortunately for us the Supreme Court agrees with me (at least for now)."
I figured you would come up with an answer like that. I didn't ask you to hide behind the skirts of the SCOTUS. I asked you, "Now, sit down and read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and tell me, within its constraints, how YOU justify the following: Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Department of HHS, Department of HUD."
Do you know what you believe and why you believe it?
ecgberht-
Republicans sometimes argue that states have balanced budgets and the federal government should too. That is a false argument since states "balance" budgets based on operations not capital expenses, as opposed to the federal government which does not differentiate those expenses to determine "surplus" versus "deficit" spending.
I used the term democratic as an adjective. Feel free to argue against us having a democratic institution. I would feel silly making the same argument about our republic. I use the phrase to point out that very few institutions in our society are democratically organized, so having the federal government and states allowing for democratic representation is a good thing (even though I probably vote for different representatives than you.
As to the hiding the spending by the Bush administration, I was mainly referring the fiasco with the scoring of the Medicare Part D legislation and the war funding.
By the way, again the fact is that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of laws. This is not hiding behind their robes, but a statement of fact. You may wish for the constitution to be interpreted differently or for me to do yet more research on the Commerce Clause interpretations by the courts and other provisions, but this is not moot court. Having drafted laws, I think I could do this for you, but as you seem not to be willing to accept facts so you need to do more to entice me to do that research for you.
And, ARRA, in my opinion, was a good first step to stop the depression and did things that were fine by me and will probably save hundreds of thousands of lives based on the medical research and rules propagated. And I always support using legal means to save lives and rescue people from horrible circumstances which is what ARRA has done. Now we need to continue this effort until our society no longer needs the boost.
Daniel
and oh by the way, understanding the difference between state and federal budgeting can help folks understand the problem that the countries within the EU in terms of having fiscal and monetary powers at different levels.
And, on the potential downgrading by S&P, I would agree that with enough people in the government willing to renege on the debts, that is an obvious signal that the investing in US debt is more risky than when that was not the case. It may be that as S&P pointed out, that the United States has some more work to do on fixing long term spending and revenue balances, but this debt fiasco is purely the ultra right wing within the Republican party's fault. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-out...
I would point out that instead of the federal government continuing to borrow the money from wealthy people to cover the deficit, we should just tax them instead until the budget is balanced. Instead of borrowing from the wealthy, perhaps we can lend them money and see if they can get better returns than the return on bonds and let them keep that profit.
Daniel
"Republicans sometimes argue that states have balanced budgets and the federal government should too. That is a false argument since states "balance" budgets based on operations not capital expenses, as opposed to the federal government which does not differentiate those expenses to determine "surplus" versus "deficit" spending. "
Read: Interstate highways are a myth created by the Republican party.
I don't know how many different ways to say "a distinction without a difference". Your point is irrelevant.
You're against a BB Ammendment. I get that. Even if it gave the FG more limited ability to borrow. ANY reigns on spending are bad to you. That's the core of progressive thought.
"I was mainly referring the fiasco with the scoring of the Medicare Part D legislation"
Yet you do not refer to the fiasco of scoring ARRA or AHCAA, where Doug Elmendorf had to be dragged up to the White House in order to score them "correctly".
" I think I could do this for you, but as you seem not to be willing to accept facts so you need to do more to entice me to do that research for you."
Read: I have no clue what I believe.
" the Commerce Clause "
Ah the Commerce Clause. How did I know you would go there? The last bastion of the liberal. The "out" in the constitution that says, "Congress can do anything it wants". I've often wondered why, with the Commerce Clause, Madison even bothered with enumerating the other powers of Congress. Have you? I didn't think so. Daniel, you are not a deep thinker.
Part Deux
But since you seem unwilling to speak to Article 1, Section 8, let's focus on the Commerce Clause. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Now let's see if we can justify any of the afore-mentioned:
Department of Education - what is being regulated here among the states? Pencils, paper, chalk?
Department of Agriculture - how about here? Farm equipment? Seeds? Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Department of HHS, Department of HUD.
You get the idea. THESE ARE ALL STATE FUNCTIONS UNDER THE 10TH AMMENDMENT. Get it?
Let me put it simply for you; the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the right to REGULATE commerce, not PARTICIPATE in it.
Gotta drop off of this merry-go-round, Daniel, so you will get the last world.
You're a statist. You'll always be a statist. There's no shame in that. It's just that, in the long run, statism fails. Because the PEOPLE are GREATER than the state in both ability and collectively, in intellect. That's why, with just the few exceptions which are enumerated in Article 1 section 8, the Founders vested the power in the states and in the people not in the FG. That's what the statist will never understand or accept.
You see, I know what I believe and why I believe it.
Oh, I almost forgot this one:
"I would point out that instead of the federal government continuing to borrow the money from wealthy people to cover the deficit, we should just tax them instead until the budget is balanced."
Instead of me walking into a bank to borrow money to buy a house, I should just walk into the bank and TAKE the money at gunpoint instead!
Seems simple. When you can't legislate, confiscate! Did somebody say "facism"?
See ya Daniel. It's been fun.
Oh yeah?
Well we do not know what you have against anarchists tripping over their laces BUT
if untied anarchists bother you how do you feel about unglued polticams?
Riddle em thus- three states ALREADY make it illegal to photo or record police EVEN if law breaking(guess they copied national security law). And IT appears they freely abuse copyrights and individuals rights with a few pedophiles thrown in... we guess to catch a childmolester... Legislation pending in a LOT more states for 'protection' of police.
Couple that with contracts for BWA- er- Z services or whatever their name is nowadaZe- to indoctrinate- er train OUR police...
For the would be bank robbers- NO no go where the money IS...
Had to LOL when the Keys invaded and federal and state complained about being outgunned and outteched last century.
Like Congress, things change, and remain the same.
At least subs superior.
We love people, poor and rich, as both steal bread when hungry- or bored, AND taste like chicken.
Forget another brick!
We will need a bigger prison.
Hello? Is there anybody out there?
Weren't kidding about those priveleged enough to have paid vacations or vacations taking them regargleless.
Probably practicing their fiddle skills- with their beliefs thought they could already play, to give the unspeakable their dew.
Kudos to citizencontact’s seemingly inexhaustible efforts to educate the masses, or a very small portion of them, anyway. You have more patience than I. Lighten up eggburt. How do you expect to enlighten anyone on financial and political trends when you say things like, “Interstate highways are a myth created by the Republican party,” and then defend its basic ideals at about every turn? You lost me in psyber-traffic. That’s my attempt to referee for the day. Rather than try to clear up all the confusion and vitriol, or add to it, I would simply like to direct readers’ attention to this great article (and blog) I found on the politics of the recent downgrade of U.S. credit. I think most analysts see the move as remarkably hypocritical. Even the Wall Street Journal has criticized the ratings agencies for their part in the ’08 financial collapse, suggesting collusion and criminal negligence, rather than simple failure of oversight (Bailout Nation – Barry Ritholtz).
I would also like to offer a supporting word for Bort, who noted that there was no Keynesian stimulus, except to say, and to his critics’ objections, we have seen exorbitant deficit spending ever since Ronald Reagan. At the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into the whole conversation, MIT economist Lester Thurow, waaaay back in about ’85, observed (The Zero Sum Solution) that Reagan Administration advisors became born-again Keynesians when their tight money and high interest- rate policies brought on the greatest recession since WW2 (’81 – ‘82). It’s one of those, well, yeah, but . . . issues that cannot simply be reduced to Keynesian vs. monetarist, liberal vs. conservative arguments. Of course the government has engaged in reckless spending, and for the last thirty years, primarily on the financial-, corporate-, and military-industrial complexes. The last three years have been no exception. It’s WHERE the money has gone that is at issue. Regardless of ideological bent, the facts show that it has migrated predominately to corporate and financial interests and the top one percent income groups, who now are intent on destroying democratic societies the world over with their supply-side mantra of “the best government is no government”. The debate is further complicated (in my view) by Democratic presidents, both Clinton and Obama, who are decidedly neo-liberal in their economic strategies. Here’s the article:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/is-standard-and-poor%e2%80%99s-ma...
gbloper:
So Daniel's condescension is educational, but my responses are vitriolic?! The "interstate highways" statement was sarcasm. When Daniel insists that somehow state debt and federal debt are different because of the way they budget, the ultimate conclusion one must draw is that the FG could never take on long-term capital projects. And when he claims that Republicans are somehow misleading the public with regard to a balanced budget ammendment, that's just nonsense. Nobody knows yet what such an ammendment will look like. But it is a way to get runaway spending under control when Congress can no longer be trusted to control it themselves.
So far the scoring of the S&P move seems to be that they made a 2T math error.
"Of course the government has engaged in reckless spending, and for the last thirty years, primarily on the financial-, corporate-, and military-industrial complexes... the facts show that it has migrated predominately to corporate and financial interests and the top one percent income groups"
Yes, of course that's what the "facts" show. That's why 43+% of the budget is for social programs. (That's me using sarcasm again, gbloper). 20% is defense. That happens to be one of the FG's constitutionally mandated duties. By the way, I am all for eliminating ALL subsidies; oil, ethenol, housing (read: mortgage deduction). The FG has no business having their fingers in any of this.
Part dos
"there was no Keynesian stimulus"
As for what is Keynesian and what is not:
"Of or relating to the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, especially those theories advocating government monetary and fiscal programs designed to increase employment and stimulate business activity."
Now if you want to argue that the stimulus wasn't Keynesian because it didn't work, that's another question (that's me poking good-natured fun at you, gbloper).
"Reagan Administration advisors became born-again Keynesians when their tight money and high interest- rate policies brought on the greatest recession since WW2 (’81 – ‘82)."
OK, got it. Reagan created the 81, 82 recession not Carter, but Obama inherited his recession from Bush. Thanks for clearing that up, gbloper.
Unblelievable.
Thank gbloper:
To be fair to egb, I think he was confusing my attempt to educate on the essentials with taking a position on the issues. And it is important to know what the facts are to have valid arguments, though I think that many intuit the motives of the arguers and decide on that basis.
But if someone reads all of the past comments they will get a sense of the facts. So coming back to debate, I will add my opinions.
No more tax cuts or continuations of tax cuts for those who can more than afford to lend the government the amount of the tax cut. How can it be fair for the wealthy to take their tax cuts and lend it back to the government instead and even make a profit. Sen. DeMint had an interesting idea to lend money instead of giving continued unemployment benefits. While this is ludicrous for humane and financial reasons, perhaps it would be humane and financially sound to let the wealthy borrow from the government instead of getting tax cuts. This way, the wealthy who supposedly can invest smarter than the government can put their skills to the task-- all without creating more deficit spending by the government. Eventually under this and other smart spending and revenue plans, the government will get back to a zero debt. And then we can consider lowering the taxes on the wealthy.
cont...
Although I want the government to have a zero debt, a balanced budget amendment is a political tactic rather than a real tool. And the Republicans have been looking to make it more difficult to raise taxes on the wealthy, but easier to invest in government debt. This is really about increasing the burdens on average people, for whom Social Security and Medicare are insurance systems. If Social Security benefits are lowered, it may mean that seniors can no longer rely on this pension system. If the pension benefits are means tested, then the system degrades from a pension to a welfare/charity program. Better to stop capping contributions from employees and employers FICA at a certain wage.
Don't believe the false arguments about people living longer being a drain on Social Security to the extent that it is an immediate threat. Conveniently left out of that argument is that much of the increase in the age of people is the increase from much lower infant mortality and decreased deaths among pre-65 year olds from cancer, disease, etc. So much of the increase in life expectancy is during the productive part of life. Plus increased productivity of those working helps.
And another large drag on Social Security is that incomes for average workers has not been going up with the CPI as much as it should as the fruits of their work has been carved out by profits (not by taxes). Higher wages would mean larger FICA contributions and a healthier SocSec.
Daniel