Bow Before the Limbaugh!

[Ramo]

Knowing what I do about the government (I do work for it after all), I tend to be very skeptical when someone tells me there will be "spending cuts" in the budgets of government agencies (having their budgets only go up by less than inflation seems to be a mess). So, I don't buy it. As for the invariable tax hikes on the top 2%, even by the President's rosy projections that just reduces the deficit in half. What happens to fully close that gap, say, in a potential second term?

Sure, some of these cuts aren't going to happen (a lot of the "moderates" who now control the fate the universe are the biggest supporters of egregious pork). And some of these increases aren't going to happen as well. Unless you're applying some better standard, that's a wash to me.

Look at table S-2. Over 10 years, health care is $633.8 billion, energy is $120 billion, and everything else non-defense related is $150 billion. Subtract education (Pell grants, mostly) from that, and you're left with $85 billion. As I was saying, the big ticket items are these categories.

I should add that these programs are paid for in the budget by tax increases and spending cuts (but 1/3 of health care funding still needs to be found somewhere). In fact, more than $500 billion is banked. What really needs to be compensated for is the baseline (including military commitments, the stimulus, and TARP), plus whatever else we toss at the banks.

[Arrian]

Cry me a ****ing river.

You don't seem left-wing enough to approve of Obama's budget if you actually understand what impact it will have. Thankfully I don't think you understand, based on Imran's later comments.

Well, sure, though I have been moving left. But "cry me a river" is my expression of frustration with people (not just here or in the punditocracy) constantly whining about paying taxes. I'm sick and tired of it, *especially* when it's whining about raising the top marginal rate a few points - that's just pathetic. The people paying that rate are getting a fantastic deal from our society, and yet some of them are the whiniest *******s in the world. Frankly so are many people I imagine you would define as middle class (should we come up with a 'poly definition of middle class?).

As for the broader point about what this budget means in the long run, as I said to Imran I understand the concern. My thinking on that goes like this:

1) This is the starting point in the negotiations. Anybody who has negotiated understands that your initial demand is more than you expect to get. The budget that actually passes will have changes.

2) I'm conflicted between two beliefs: a) debt bad, living beyond means bad - unsustainable, delaying reckoning makes problem worse; and b) making a serious investment in ourselves, especially now, makes sense.

Along with this goes my firm belief that the haves have acquired more wealth than is either right or sustainable, and thus we should *gasp* do some redistribution. The wealthiest have made out like bandits for quite some time now, and that's not a good thing (not just morally, but from a practical standpoint I think it's dangerous). I think our tax system is messed up, not just because it's complex, but because it's not progressive enough (the most glaring fault, though, isn't with income taxes. It's the weak-ass estate tax). So when Buchannan cries about a fundamental shift... I'm inclined to smile. I don't think it will actually happen, though.

So where does that leave me on this budget? Yeah, it's probably too big. I expect cuts to be made. Instead of doing what he did with the stimulus bill, pre-emptively making concessions to moderates/republicans, it appears Obama is taking a different approach.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, the wealthy crying about taxes, and especially about the tax going back up to pre Bush levels, is so jarring because that is lower than it ran in Reagan's era. Yet, for us to raise the tax now will completely screw us over.

And pre-Reagan, the tax was over 2x what it is now.

JM

[Dinner]

I'm asking what's out of line about what he said. I don't dispute what he said.

Limbaugh claimed anyone who doesn't support the President during a time of war was a traitor. Now he says he wants the President to fail. At the very least fatbaugh is a hypocrite. It's one thing to say "I hope the President's policies fail" and entirely a different thing to say "I hope the President fails" and by extension America fails. Sure, Limbaugh is now trying to spin around and dance on his head claiming claiming he didn't mean what he said or that he secretly meant something entirely different but that's just a lie. Three times he's said "I want the President to fail" during a time of war and you can't find a single Republican to call him on his BS.

Compare this to when moveon.org called General Patreus General "Betray-us" and virtually every Democratic Congressman publicly attacked them for it. Yet with the Republicans they just wet their pants , get on their knees, and kiss Limbaugh's feet. RNC Chairman Steele couldn't go 51 minutes before appalogizing for calling Limbaugh an entertainer because Limbaugh started attacking him on the air (as he does anyone who challenges his position as leader of the Republican Party) so in literally just minutes the highest ranking elected member of the Republican Party had to crawl back and beg for forgiveness. Republicans want it both ways, they want to keep Rush on his pedistal as ideological head of the Republican Party while pretending his hate mongering isn't at the heart of the Republican Party. They can't have it both ways. Either they grab their balls and say the hate mongering doesn't represent them or they continue cow-towing to Limbaugh and admit he is the head of the Republican Party. Hell, with Tom Delay publicly saying Limbaugh is the leader of the Republicans and with Steele crawling on his belly when ever Limbaugh demands it, it is pretty damn clear who is in charge.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo: I think you are far more optimistic than I am. Would I like for that to happen (no future cuts in some areas balanced out by less increases elsewhere, and the tax increases being enough to cover things - and I don't think the spending cuts are going to be all that much in the end)? Yeah, but I just don't see it.

And, even then, of course, as you've pointed out, even if everything goes to best of plans, there is still some stuff uncompensated. And the Administration will have to decide what to do. If they want to balance the budget in 5-8 years, they'll have to take some of that money out of the middle class (reverse the mid class tax cuts in 2012 or whatever).

[Imran Siddiqui]

1) This is the starting point in the negotiations. Anybody who has negotiated understands that your initial demand is more than you expect to get. The budget that actually passes will have changes.

Considering the overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate for the Democrats, the changes probably will not do all that much from the initial demand. See, ie, the Stimulus bill, where some cosmetic changes were made to make some Republicans feel good that they had been included in the process.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Compare this to when moveon.org called General Patreus General "Betray-us" and virtually every Democratic Congressman publicly attacked them for it.

You mean after shuffling their feet for a bit and seeing where the public opinion was going on it first?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14623512

And in the resolution condemning MoveOn for the ad, Senators Clinton and Dodd voted against it and Obama and Biden didn't vote.

[Arrian]

I think the "Blue Dog" Dems will have their say, Imran (edit: if they don't, then they risk electoral backlash. Every Dem in an R-leaning district will have to take a shot at this budget). I also have a somewhat different opinion on what happened with the stimulus bill.

We will see.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

A great read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce..._b_171979.html

[DinoDoc]

At the very least fatbaugh is a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy while potentially amusing if it exists doesn't make what he said out of line especially given the markers laid down by the party out of power during the Bush years.

It's one thing to say "I hope the President's policies fail" and entirely a different thing to say "I hope the President fails" and by extension America fails.

What makes one statement acceptable and the other one beyond the pale of public discourse? I'm genuinely curious as they seem like equivalent statements to me.

you can't find a single Republican to call him on his BS.

They probably can't find a reason to or are confused as to why the statement is offensive.

Compare this to when moveon.org called General Patreus General "Betray-us" and virtually every Democratic Congressman publicly attacked them for it.

Do you ever stop lieing when Democrats are involved?

[Ramo]

Ramo: I think you are far more optimistic than I am. Would I like for that to happen (no future cuts in some areas balanced out by less increases elsewhere, and the tax increases being enough to cover things - and I don't think the spending cuts are going to be all that much in the end)? Yeah, but I just don't see it.

Specifically, which spending cuts don't you think are realistic? How much do they amount to?

And, even then, of course, as you've pointed out, even if everything goes to best of plans, there is still some stuff uncompensated. And the Administration will have to decide what to do. If they want to balance the budget in 5-8 years, they'll have to take some of that money out of the middle class (reverse the mid class tax cuts in 2012 or whatever).

If you believe that the stimulus debate is the model here, there's going to be a substantial cut in the spending increases (>10%), making the fiscal situation even better. In any case, Douthat's objections are misplaced. The finances of the social programs are covered in the budget. And not only are they covered in the budget, they make our long term fiscal situation far more tenable.

It's cleaning up the current mess that will be costly (the financial industry, the output gap, housing, two wars). The Admin appears to have made the calculation that they're content to run budget deficits around 3% of the GDP for the next decade. If that's the cost of getting some really important reforms passed, I'm fine with that. And I'd take that over Clintonian incrementalism any day (which might be fine in a vacuum, I suppose, but there is this thing called the GOP whose sole purpose for existence is to blow cash on tax cuts for rich people).

[Naked Gents Rut]

And not only are they covered in the budget, they make our long term fiscal situation far more tenable.

This is bull****, by the way. It's a good talking point and Obama has been hitting it pretty hard, but even he doesn't actually believe it.

[Ramo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/01health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

We need to do control these costs. Otherwise, we're ****ed.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Good luck with that. You're going to make the federal government responsible for all the health care costs in America in the hopes that you can eventually force Americans to accept a lower level of service than most of them are accustomed to. Sounds like a disaster in the making.

[Ramo]

1. Who proposed making "the federal government responsible for all the health care costs in America?" Abolishing private insurance is a ridiculous straw man indicating that you're totally ignorant about the health care debate that actually exists.

2. There are a wide variety of models that spend far less than we do and get better outcomes (according to the WHO). What you're referring to, say Canada's system (but with provincial, not federal government), is probably not optimal. It's also still better than ours, like practically every other system in the developed world. I like the French model.