The Republican "Budget"
Well, the Republicans have taken Obama's bait and released their alternative "budget", a 19 page power-point presentation that contains no numbers and makes absolutely no fiscal sense. It looks like something a Redstate blogger could have thrown together if given thirty minutes.
The underpants gnomes comparison is overused at this point, but it's really pretty accurate here. The Republican plan is, essentially:
1) Cut taxes on the rich
2) ??????????
3) Recovery
There's a lot of complaining about deficits in the document, but no provision for increased revenues. Quite the opposite, the plan is to reduce the top tax rate to 25%, cut the capital gains tax, trim back the AMT, cut corporate taxes, and reduce/eliminate the estate tax.
This will somehow be balanced out by "cutting wasteful government programs" and "reforming" entitlement programs (while providing universal health care to all!). Defense spending is, of course, off the table.
Say what you want about Obama's budget, but it is a million times more honest that this rubbish. The reason there are no numbers or charts in the Republican proposal is that the proposal doesn't even begin to make fiscal sense. Unless you're willing to dramatically cut defense spending and slash entitlement spending to a small fraction of its current level, there is simply no way that you can reduce the deficit AND cut taxes so dramatically.
Obama's budget acknowledges the stark difference between proposed outlays and projected revenue. The idea is to begin to close the gap as the economy recovers through a combination of cost cutting measures and tax increases. The Republican "budget," as usual, doesn't even remotely begin to grapple with reality.
I remember when the Republican party was touted as the "party of ideas." What a joke. They have one idea. Cutting taxes. If the goal of this document was to make the GOP look profoundly unserious, then mission accomplished.
The underpants gnomes comparison is overused at this point, but it's really pretty accurate here. The Republican plan is, essentially:
1) Cut taxes on the rich
2) ??????????
3) Recovery
There's a lot of complaining about deficits in the document, but no provision for increased revenues. Quite the opposite, the plan is to reduce the top tax rate to 25%, cut the capital gains tax, trim back the AMT, cut corporate taxes, and reduce/eliminate the estate tax.
This will somehow be balanced out by "cutting wasteful government programs" and "reforming" entitlement programs (while providing universal health care to all!). Defense spending is, of course, off the table.
Say what you want about Obama's budget, but it is a million times more honest that this rubbish. The reason there are no numbers or charts in the Republican proposal is that the proposal doesn't even begin to make fiscal sense. Unless you're willing to dramatically cut defense spending and slash entitlement spending to a small fraction of its current level, there is simply no way that you can reduce the deficit AND cut taxes so dramatically.
Obama's budget acknowledges the stark difference between proposed outlays and projected revenue. The idea is to begin to close the gap as the economy recovers through a combination of cost cutting measures and tax increases. The Republican "budget," as usual, doesn't even remotely begin to grapple with reality.
I remember when the Republican party was touted as the "party of ideas." What a joke. They have one idea. Cutting taxes. If the goal of this document was to make the GOP look profoundly unserious, then mission accomplished.
posted by A.L. at 5:05 PM
27 Comments:
The Republicans are so predictable. If tax cuts really were the nirvana, then how come the Bush tax cuts took us from (relatively) balanced budgets to exploding deficits and a financial crisis.
Where was the Republican concern about borrowing when they and Bush were in charge? Hypocrites.
They have only one idea (cutting taxes) and it's a dumb one. Nobody buys their myth that cutting taxes actually raises revenues. Scholarly studies show that depending on what is cut, you can expect back only 15-30%. We tried it under Bush and it blew up the deficit. So if they want to actually cut revenues, which is what a tax cut implies, they need to make even greater cuts in expenditures if they want to work toward a balanced budget. We all know what they want to cut ... social security, medicare, education, health care ... but they don't dare say that so watch for more vague hand waving next week when they supposedly show the details. Or maybe they will just recommend prayer?
It's bizarre the Republicans have lost their grasp on the power of small, their meticulous sense of organization and on-target messaging that once drove them to victory.
Say what you want about Obama's budget, but it is a million times more honest...
Obama's budget acknowledges the stark difference between proposed outlays and projected revenue. The idea is to begin to close the gap as the economy recovers through a combination of cost cutting measures and tax increases.
Congressional Democrats didn't read the bills they've been voting on, and Obama hasn't read any of the bills that he's signed. They proved that with the completely Democratic scandal regarding AIG. Even with this presentation, Republicans have already done more work than the left.
Having read the republican "budget", I just want to clarify for those readers who haven't that it's obviously not intended to be a full blown budget proposal. If you compare it to a normal budget proposal, for instance either of the Bush budget proposals, you can see that it is, in form, completely different in content and purpose.
If we're going to bash it, let's do so at the very least within the context of what it is we are bashing. Attack it's points and premises, not that it "doesn't even have any numbers!". It's just making you sound like an idiot. :( I know you can do better than that.
Michael,
Calling something a "budget" that has no numbers, not even approximations, for relating the income and the outgo is what is idiotic.
Steveil,
And CEO's of companies rarely, if ever, read the contracts they sign. That's what staffs are for.
"Doesn't even have any numbers" .. is a VALID criticism when the budget blueprint advocates total rubbish.
You can NOT cut taxes and offer health care protection for all Americans at THE SAME TIME. You can NOT cut taxes and save/create jobs at THE SAME TIME. We know because Bush has tried it. Twice. And look where we ended up.
So if Republicans want to repeat the same old tired mantra, it is entirely reasonable to see their numbers and projections to at least show HOW they think they can square a circle !!
But that's just it, Anonymous. It's not a valid criticism. The document outlined THEIR criticisms with the Obama plan, and suggested the direction of their alternatives.
As for health care-- they seemed to be saying that they would make health care affordable for Americans by offering incentives to corporations to do so. They did not mean to suggest that the federal government would outright subsidize American health care. That said, they should have. Because it's a heavy handed suggestion. I'm not sure it would work. But they DID pose some interesting criticism of a federal health care system.
As for the tax cuts, I'm actually pro tax cut. The fact is Bush's tax cuts were lauded as a successful policy. It was a (sighs at reiterating common rhetoric) housing bubble that caused the meltdown. Everybody knows this. Why try and pin it on something else? Doing so is harmful to all of us because it lends to weakening our ability to prevent a repetition of the event.
Furthermore, empirical evidence adds more weight against your assertions regarding tax cuts and creating jobs. Ronald Reagan deployed massive tax cuts and the economy climbed well out of that recession. Whether they were directly responsible for it is certainly debatable. But they clearly didn't PREVENT it. Less can be said about the FDR tax policy.
And with respect to C2H50H's comment to Steveil:
The trouble is Obama stated outright that he would go "line by line". I, too, was disappointed in his performance with regard to this fact.
@Michael
People can criticise any which way, of course, but unless you demonstrate WHY your criticism matters, then it might as well be called WHINING.
"Spend too much, tax too much, borrow too much." This is Republican criticism. Fine. But what is the alternative ? And WHY would the alternative work ? (Or, more precisely, why would it work BETTER than Obama's plan?) The Republican "blue print" spells out AN alternative, let's be clear about that, but it is a nonsensical alternative and they do not bother demonstrating WHY it will work, or work better than Obama's plan.
Hey, I love tax cuts too. Any people earning decent income would love tax cuts. No question !
But .. does tax cut create jobs ? Reagan did NOT create jobs by his tax cuts. He did so by his massive government expenditure .. or did you forget that the US budget deficit EXPLODED under Reagan ?
Both Republicans and Democrats are the parties of SPENDERS. The only difference is that Republicans spend government money on military contractors (or wars) and energy companies (particularly if your company's name is Halliburton), whereas Democrats spend government money on a wider set of beneficiaries .. people on the dole, old folks seeking help with their drug bills, businesses seeking assistance to survive recession.
US budget deficits went up substantially under both Reagan and George W. Bush. If you genuinely seek Presidents who turned deficit into surplus, his name is Bill Clinton !!
So, my message is : it is a valid criticism against the Republican blueprint to say that it contains no numbers, because it is advocating a nonensical alternative. Of course we would all want LOWER taxes, AND greater medical benefits for MORE Americans, AND creating new jobs, AND better education for MORE American children etc .. but there is NO WAY you can deliver all these conflicting objectives AT THE SAME TIME.
Politicians are elected to make HARD choices. It is pointless to say the other side makes a bad choice, if all you can say about your own alternative is that we wish Father Christmas will deliver EVERYTHING.
Well, the Republicans have taken Obama's bait and released their alternative "budget", a 19 page power-point presentation that contains no numbers and makes absolutely no fiscal sense.
The problem with this criticism is that it is made based on ideology. I will readily contend that my criticism is based purely on ideology; but that isn't a bad thing since criticism is an opinion. To explain:
There's a lot of complaining about deficits in the document, but no provision for increased revenues.
Increased revenues? Who wants the federal government to have increased revenues? Didn't we see enough of the federal government with increased revenues with Bush in office? How will Obama, with no experience running anything other than a campaign, do things better with even more money? And when will it be enough? The fact of the matter is that there isn't enough money for what Obama wants to do.
Say what you want about Obama's budget, but it is a million times more honest...
As I mentioned earlier, neither Congressional Dems or Obama know what's written in the bills being signed into law. So this is a fallacy.
Unless you're willing to dramatically cut defense spending...
Again, this is based on ideology. What does cutting defense spending have to do with anything? Isn't defense spending part of the basic infrastructure of the federal government? After all, states can't maintain their own defense forces (the NG is actually part of the federal government). I understand defense spending needs to be reformed, and that may very well bring about cuts, but why just cut defense spending?
Obama's budget acknowledges the stark difference between proposed outlays and projected revenue.
Again, Obama doesn't even know what he's signing into law; how is he to even know what is in the budget? Besides, Obama is expanding the proprosed outlays without even considering projected revenue. He's made noises about increasing taxes on those who already pay the vast majority of taxes already, along with letting the Bush tax rate cuts expire, while doing nothing to curb spending. The only innovation coming from Dems is how to steal our money to further increase an already overburdened bureaucracy.
This is what the left wants, to expand the government further into our personal lives because they believe the government knows best. This is based on the left's ideology, not fiscal policy.
Anonymous @ 3:24am:
Politicians are elected to make HARD choices.
People, whether they be politicians or not, have to make HARD choices all the time. Why should the people rely only on government officials, elected or otherwise, to only be the ones to make hard choices? If anything, the HARD choices made by government takes away the ability of the people to make their own choices.
Didn't we see enough of the federal government with increased revenues with Bush in office?
Boy, you're a doofus.
OK, I've read the document at Michael's suggestion, and I have only three brief comments:
1. A.L., your analysis is too weak by half. But I forgive you, as this document was clearly written by nitwits for consumption by idiots. The parodies of it I've seen are also short.
2. I'll never bother with something suggested by Michael again. I had a higher opinion of the document just having read the parodies and criticisms, but non of them does justice to this piece of tripe.
3. Anyone who can believe in any of the signers of this document after reading it has left the planet along with the signers.
As for "going line by line" -- apparently some people think that the president has a line-item veto. He doesn't.
Steve L, you said "This is what the left wants, to expand the government further into our personal lives because they believe the government knows best."
I have a two word response that should shut you GOP asshats up forever on this talking point:
Terri....Schiavo
One thing SteveIL said, "Congressional Democrats didn't read the bills they've been voting on" is worth commenting on. Not because it's one of those Standard GOP Talking Points SteveIL loves to use instead of actual thinking, but that it got some mainstream attention earlier.
How many people read a multi-thousand (?) page document in a few days? While they are supposed to be actively working? It's a totally misleading argument that because they "didn't read it" that they don't know what's in it. Did any of the Republicans actually read it, either? Or just use the line for a talking point? I'd fall down stunned if the former.
I wonder how many Republicans actually read their health bill, their tax cuts - or anything they've put out. Nobody 'reads' them because it's a bill, not a book. Duh.
The fact that SteveIL thinks the Republic 'budget' was a serious document says more about SteveIL than those Republicans. They *knew* it was a cheap shot photo-op. They were dumb only because they thought people would buy it. SteveIL is dumb because he did.
If you genuinely seek Presidents who turned deficit into surplus, his name is Bill Clinton !!
I agree with almost everything you said, except for this. Clinton did not have a surplus. You can look at the debt numbers and under Clinton the debt kept on increasing month after month after month.
And once you look at the raiding of the Social Security kitty the numbers look bad for everyone, including Clinton.
Lets look at what Bush (W) said during his 2000 debate. No wonder these debates are such a farce:
"BUSH: Let me just say that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next ten years it is going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our treasurey and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan say why don't we pass 1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the bills.
Clinton did not have a surplus. You can look at the debt numbers and under Clinton the debt kept on increasing month after month after month.
Sigh.
Luke:
How many people read a multi-thousand (?) page document in a few days?
That's an excuse. Plus, it wasn't a few days, but a few hours. And it wasn't a talking point, it was a fact.
While they are supposed to be actively working?
Reading bills that will be signed into law is their damn job.
Did any of the Republicans actually read it, either?
Immaterial. Plus, not physically possible since the entire House wasn't given the bill until around 12 hours before the final vote. Congressional Democrats and President Obama wanted Porkulus passed by hook or by crook, ignoring and shutting out any input by conservative Republicans (which includes the House, and 38 out of 41 Republican Senators). Porkulus was a Democratic bill. The bonuses that AIG and others got were written into the bill were written by a Democratic administration, implemented by a Democratic Congress, voted for by just about only Democrats (and three idiot Republican senators), and signed by the Democratic President. Then the President was "outraged" by AIG employees getting these bonuses, not realizing (because he didn't read the thing) he and the Democrats were the ones who allowed the bonuses.
The fact that SteveIL thinks the Republic 'budget' was a serious document says more about SteveIL than those Republicans.
Actually, I never did. I criticized AL's criticism. What I did say about the Republican presentation was that there was probably more thought put into it than anything Congressional Democrats have come up with during this session of Congress. I also criticized AL's assessment that he thinks Obama's budget is one bit honest, or that the budget acknowledges anything but how to grow the bureaucracy by leaps and bounds.
If rich people create jobs and wealth, the Republican logic demands a reverse graduated income tax. Poor people who just put a drag on the economy should be taxed around 35% and rich people should be taxed around 10% with the richest of all paying nothing.
And there you have it. Steveil epitomizes the person the document was created for. He is ready to defend the document and the people who signed it sight unseen.
He criticizes, as "ideological" A.L.'s criticism that the document contains no numbers. Yes, Steveil, absolutely, it's totally ideological to believe that a "budget" should contain numbers.
That's definitely going to be a huge winner with all the people who have, you know, actually done a budget for their households -- and undoubtedly came up with one that looked like:
-- Food. We'll eat well, but inexpensively.
-- Energy. We'll save enormously by not paying the power company, and drilling for oil in our back yard.
-- Health care. We're going to save money by shopping around and finding the cheapest doctor in town. We'll have to fit our schedule around his appearances in court for the malpractice trials, but it will save us a lot of money.
-- Education. We're going to save hugely, both in time and money, by investing in one of those advanced degrees from "prestigious, non-accredited universities" we get all that email about. The ones that give degrees for "life experience.
The only people for whom such a budget would avoid catastrophe are the people who have more money than brains, and only if the imbalance is large enough so that they don't know how to operate their credit cards.
Here's how AL describes the Republican document:
Well, the Republicans have taken Obama's bait and released their alternative "budget",...
"Budget", in quotes. But the Republicans who put out the document don't call it a budget, but a plan. In fact, it's a high-level plan, the kind of document that doesn't have a lot of details (kind of like what is in a SOTU addresses). So the only one calling it a budget is AL, and even he puts the word in quotes.
He is ready to defend the document and the people who signed it sight unseen.
Actually, I have read it. I find some of what is in there problematic in that these Republicans are looking to expand the government like the Democrats, although on a smaller scale. They also make some of the same arguments as Democrats do, which is a huge mistake. Some of what they have in there is just stupid (page 8):
With regard to entitlements, Republicans support the notion that wealthy seniors like Warren Buffett and George Soros can afford to pay $2 per day more for their Medicare prescription drug coverage.
Why should they single out Buffett and Soros? They are making the same stupid class warfare arguments the left does; that doesn't help anything. I'm no fan of Soros, but I don't see any reason Republicans should put his or anybody else's name in this.
Another part that sucks is their tax plan (page 10):
Republicans propose a simple and fair tax code with a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter, with a generous standard deduction and personal exemption. Republicans would allow any individual or family satisfied with their current tax structure to continue to pay those rates, while dropping the two lowest rates by 5 percent to provide every taxpayer with a tax cut.
Again, Republicans are still fomenting the left's class warfare meme. If anything, these kind of tax rates should be temporary until a better tax system is put in place, one that supports a proper infrastructure for a smaller federal government. Yes, this is my ideology talking.
I do like their energy solution (pages 12 & 13). They hit a home run on that.
I believe Republicans are providing details and numbers on this next week. We'll see if they come through.
"Budget", in quotes. But the Republicans who put out the document don't call it a budget, but a plan. In fact, it's a high-level plan, the kind of document that doesn't have a lot of details (kind of like what is in a SOTU addresses). So the only one calling it a budget is AL, and even he puts the word in quotes.
Um, Steve, did you watch the press conference. The GOP congressional leaders said that this was their budget. That's what they called it, multiple times. Watch it on youtube or something. I'm not putting words in their mouths.
The GOP congressional leaders said that this was their budget.
Fair enough; I agree with you (shock, surprise, horror) when you put the word budget in quotes, because it clearly isn't one.
However, the document you linked to doesn't say it's a budget but a plan for a budget. And in that regard, it isn't bad in many areas, and isn't all that good in others. But if one wants to compare apples to apples, this plan compared to Obama's (and the Dems), I'll take the Republican plan any day.
of course you, steve, you would eat the corn out of poop if it was republican.
@SteveIL
However, the document you linked to doesn't say it's a budget but a plan for a budget. And in that regard, it isn't bad in many areas, and isn't all that good in others. But if one wants to compare apples to apples, this plan compared to Obama's (and the Dems), I'll take the Republican plan any day.
So would I. The problem with Republican's "plan", however, is that it will NOT work. It is nothing more but a pipe dream. Pure propaganda, full of good intentions but no realistic way of delivering them.
Less tax, less government spending are easy. Less tax, less government spending AND lifting the economy out of recession canNOT all happen at the same time.
If tax cuts are such great job creators, the housing problem wouldn't have drowned US economy because Bush has been cutting taxes aggresively, hasn't he ?
I'm never one to miss a chance to laugh at the GOP, but I'm going to try reading this thing tonight. also, it isn't 19 pages, it's 17...or 16, depending on your POV. Which seems awfully light even for a plan and not a budget. I mean, I want depth and not breadth, but at least give me 40-50 pages.
Honestly, can you see someone turning in something like this for an econ class?
:)
Way too many posts to keep up with here. I like this website.
My point remains that the criticism of the numerical content in the document is a weak one. Some of you have made better arguments against the ideology in responses than the Anonymous Liberal himself in his hapless rant.
My intent was not to side with the Republican party on this issue, although in general I do so over the Democrats. I don't agree with everything in their plan by any means. I was simply hoping to encourage a more productive argument than "GOP is stupid! This is stupid document!"
The issue of what to spend and where at this time is a complicated one. Sadly, I see the Democrat controlled government using it as an opportunity to push their long time agendas as much as they are working to correct the economic failure itself.
Would the republicans do the same? History, sadly, points to YES.
So where would I rather see money go? In principle I would do the following (in no particular order):
- TARP (and other similar programs)
- Proven Energy (ie. nuclear)
- Increase Defense (because the reality is that foreign military influence = control = money)
Spending is a sound part of an economic recovery plan, but the spending must be done in ways that we can be sure will pay off and in ways that will inspire CONFIDENCE in private investors.
TARP works because it helps banks to lend again, which translates to new business, which translates to investment.
Proven energy works because investors know that under those certain models of production, their dollars will return (nuclear energy happens to meet a compromise between environmental concerns and production).
Finally, defense spending works because it enables america to maintain control of the world. That control translates into stability and money. I realize that sounds harsh but that's the plain reality of it. The most pacifist presidential candidate ALWAYS changes their tone after their first military briefing.
There's obviously more that could be done. Infrastructure, state aid etc. These things are all in the obama budget. That's great. But the budget is a superset of what is needed right now.
Hopefully in 2012 we will have a candidate from EITHER party with a concept of these things. Until then, we will sit back and watch a 12 trillion dollar commitment (and counting) get laid out as we try not to think about how we plan on paying it all back.
Thanks for reading. :)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home