Patterico's Pontifications

3/12/2012

Would you buy a budget from these men?

Filed under: 2012 Election — Karl @ 10:28 am



[Posted by Karl]

Reason’s Peter Suderman recently noted that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s most recent budgetary proposals are vaporware:

Indeed, exploring his economic policy proposals is rather like touring a Hollywood backlot. Like a street façade on a movie set, Romney’s economic plans are designed to project an outward appearance of functionality. But when you look behind their cleverly made-up fronts, there’s nothing to see. Romney’s policy offerings on taxes, spending, and entitlements consistently lack crucial structural details; his campaign seems intent on emulating the outward appearance of policy proposals without providing anything that’s actually workable.

I feel obligated to note this, having held out some hope that Romney was improving on his 160-page economic plan that managed to say almost nothing important.

Romney’s platitudes, while vague, are not surprising.  The man whose job he seeks, Barack Obama, took a worse tack.  Before the midterm elections, Obama punted our structural debt problem to the Bowles-Simpson commission; he abandoned the chairmen’s recommendations after the elections.

However, on this score, the White House has been trying out some revisionist history with willing organs like the New York Times, claiming Obama has come to adopt most of the recommendations, “though his proposals do not go as far.”  The new narrative:

Faced with an even more intransigent opposition after Republicans captured the House in the 2010 elections, Mr. Obama made a tactical retreat, suppressing his instincts to “go big” in favor of a go-slow approach.

He settled into trench warfare, waiting for House Republicans to make their fiscal moves and betting they would get so much criticism that ultimately they would compromise — much like what happened between President Bill Clinton and Republicans in the 1990s. Last summer, Mr. Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner nearly clinched a “grand bargain” reducing deficits up to $3 trillion over 10 years, but the deal fell apart over taxing the wealthy — an issue that continues to divide the parties.

Today, Mr. Obama and Republicans are battling rather than making deals, positioning themselves for an election that will determine which side has the upper hand in December, when critical budget deadlines could force a compromise in a lame-duck Congress.

***

Mr. Obama said that if he had “put his arms around” the plan immediately, Mr. Bowles recalled, it “would have been savaged by Republicans, and that would have killed it.”

The new storyline bears little relationship to reality.  Obama’s proposal in April was to the left of Bowles-Simpson, which was supported by at least three conservative Republican Senators.  The “grand bargain” negotiations broke down after Obama rejected the Bowles-Simpson approach to tax reform.  And Obama rejected Bowles-Simpson from the start because that plan also included a politically suicidal middle-class tax increase. (It’s worth noting that the left-leaning Noam Scheiber suggests — or hopes — Obama will let the Bush tax cuts die if he gets a lame duck second term.)

The most telling part of the new budget narrative is how bad it makes Obama look, so long as you pay attention.  The NYT story begins with Obama’s April budget speech, which “flayed” the plan put forth by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI).  This was very obviously the action of a candidate campaigning, instead of a president leading, let alone negotiating.  Scroll back up to the blockquote — the pro-Obama spin is now that he waited for the GOP to act and then exploit it politically.  This attributes vision to the administration that was not observed at the time, but this reimagined flattery-in-hindsight is completely cynical in nature.  Even the Ryan plan was a bare necessity to address our ballooning public debt.  Obama was completely irresponsible, but we are now told he was clever.

In short, the general election will likely feature a challenger selling vaporware on the budget because the incumbent refuses to offer a serious proposal and will viciously savage anyone offering even vaporware. This is why I learned to stop worrying and love the debt bomb.

–Karl

78 Responses to “Would you buy a budget from these men?”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (f07e38)

  2. Reason Number 1,349 to vote Obama out…

    http://news.yahoo.com/justice-dept-opposes-texas-voter-id-law-144238429.html

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  3. He is a fundamentally unserious leftist. And can only exist with a MFM providing this type of cover for him.

    JD (318f81)

  4. isn’t this the Obama what borrowed money from the Chinese to pay Americans to junk perfectly good cars?

    He’s a goddamn idiot.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  5. I’ve read several positive reviews of Romney’s plan, Karl. Why is Suderman’s take significant?

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  6. Mr. Megan McArdle has been off for a while now.

    narciso (87e966)

  7. They bought a new house I think. He’s prolly up painting walls and hanging pictures and changing out light fixtures till all hours and not getting enuff rest.

    elissa (b47460)

  8. There is really no point in bringing a detailed plan to the campaign. Not only do you get slammed on every budget cut (or insufficient increase)m but no president can deliver anything but the most nebulous of plans. The Congress will have its say.

    A Republican president who doesn’t get lost in social issues, with Speaker Ryan and a sizable Senate majority will hammer it out, and until then there is no upside to details.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  9. Col.,

    You don’t like Suderman? How about… Mitt Romney:

    I think it’s kind of interesting for the groups to try and score it, because frankly it can’t be scored, because those kinds of details will have to be worked out with Congress, and we have a wide array of options.

    One could argue (I’m sure you will) that this is actually a realistic view of how it would really work. But it isn’t how candidates generally campaign. And Suderman, by Romney’s own admission, is absolutely correct.

    Karl (f07e38)

  10. Romney is a Grand Bargain kinda dude he lurvs lurvs lurvs him some Grand Bargain and after that he likes More Grand Bargain cause of that’s just how he rolls…

    Grand Bargain Style

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  11. All true, except for part about Obama waiting for Ryan not being strategy. And it may not really be so clever, but clever or not I don’t see how clever and irresponsible are contradictory ideas, so that you can’t be both.

    Obama’s long range strategy is very clear: he wants to raise taxes and cut entitlement spending, but feels he needs a big tax increase on the highest income tax brackets in order to sell it.

    So anything he signs on to has to include a tax increase on the highest brackets (not wealthiest people – they are not the same)

    And he also needs the Republicans to be the sponsors of all the “bad” stuff.

    Sammy Finkelman (63b67e)

  12. Anything that involves a magic asterisk is not really worth discussing. The only easy way to do things is to have lots of economic growth.

    Sammy Finkelman (63b67e)

  13. That’s our president! The master of the “tactical retreat”.

    Icy (d4608c)

  14. Obama’s long range strategy is very clear: he wants to raise taxes and cut entitlement spending,

    There is evidence for the former. The latter is a complete asspull.

    JD (674334)

  15. 0One of the most important budget decisions is how long a term federal debt should be. If a budget plan has nothing to say about this, it’s total total nonsense. And if you do take it into account, it’s also nonsense because nobody can know what interest rates will be (unless the Fed is committed to keeping them low like it was during the FDR and Truman Administrations until March 4 1951.)

    A president has control of this and to much pressure to balance the budget will cause him to make the wrong decision.

    The debt should be rolled over for as long a term s possible if the rate is not too high. I’m talking 60 to 100 years or longer. Maybe even perpetual. There should not be an attempt to keep the deficit as low as possible the next few years,

    The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today:

    Uncle Sam’s Teaser Rate

    There was about 4 trillion of debt held by the public in 1997, and there’s $11 trillion now, but the United States government is actually paying less in interest now than it did then. (about $225 billion a year) $8 trillion of this debt falls due in the next seven years, $5 trillion of that in the next 36 months. It’s being financed much more at .3% in 2 year notes rather than 2% in 10 year notes. The average interest rate on all federal debt is 2.24% Five years ago it was roughly 5% In the 1990s it was well over 6%. If the average rate were now 5% interest payments on the debt would be $535 billion instead of about $225 billion or 2 and a third times as much. In another words it go up an amount equal to the total amount spent on Medicaid this year. At 6% the interest would be $642 billion.

    The Treasury says it is aware of this. In Sept 2010 Mary J Miller, Assistant Sectary for Financial Affairs said the percentage of the debt due in 3 years was 55% and was declining. Technically, that’s true. It’s now 52%. It actually isn’t mistake but as some point not too late this has got to be converted to long term debt.

    The WSJ points out that the Dollar amount that needs to be rolled over within 3 years has gone up.

    It concludes:

    …Sooner or later the Fed has to manage the withdrawal from its historically accommodative monetary policy. Even now many investors suspect that the Fed is keeping rates so low for so long in part to finance federal debt on easier terms.

    If the economy gains steam—say, in a new Administration that reforms the tax code, cuts spending and reduces regulation—the Fed may have to raise rates to forestall inflation. But if it raises rates, interest payments on the debt will soar, the deficit may not fall from its Obama trillion-dollar levels, and pressure could build for a tax increase.
    ***

    President Obama may not mind this outcome but Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum should, which is why they need to talk about this fiscal nitroglycerin that Mr. Obama and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have created. The two Republicans might also take a moment to wonder how much they really want this job. The next Presidential term may be spent trying to defuse the Obama debt bomb.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203458604577263390952748580.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Well, the Fed just better not raise rates to “fight inflstion”

    Sammy Finkelman (63b67e)

  16. Feel your pain, Karl, but the alternative nominees are Gingrich, Ron Paul or Santorum. All three would in my view guarantee Obama’s re-election because none of these men can keep their foot out pof their mouths or seem to understand that this election should be about Obama’s failings, foreign and domestic and not about Rick Santorum’s creepy, nanny-state conservative notions about how free people are allowed to act in the privacy of their own homes.

    Obama and Santorum are two sides of the same judgmental, intolerant nerdish coin, & far far out of the mainstream of American politics.

    With a conservative congress, Romney can be lead by the nose to do the right thing I believe AND I think he is blobbish and genial enough for people to pull the lever for him in November against Obama. Paul/Newt/Santorum would be disasters both electorally and governmentally.

    Mike D (6f2ada)

  17. SF: Obama’s long range strategy is very clear: he wants to raise taxes and cut entitlement spending,

    Comment by JD — 3/12/2012 @ 12:21 pm

    There is evidence for the former. The latter is a complete asspull.

    You’re not paying close attention. What other kind of sacrifice by lower income people could he have in mind?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

    In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts

    President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

    That’s been the deal he’s been offering since Day 1. And it doesn’t matter even if raising taxes costs the government money or if the amount of taxes raised is almost meaningless.

    …While Democrats would be asked to cut social-safety-net programs, Republicans would be asked to raise taxes, perhaps by letting tax breaks for the nation’s wealthiest households expire on schedule at the end of next year.

    The administration argues that lawmakers would also get an important victory to sell to voters in 2012. “The fiscal good has to outweigh the pain,” said a Democratic official familiar with the discussions.

    It is not clear whether that argument can prevail on Capitol Hill. Thursday’s meeting at the White House — an attempt by Obama to break the impasse that halted debt-reduction talks two weeks ago — will provide a critical opportunity for leaders in both parties to say how far they’re willing to go to restrain government borrowing as the clock ticks toward an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt limit.

    Privately, some congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal, which could include adjusting the measure of inflation used to determine Social Security payouts. But others described it as primarily a bargaining strategy intended to demonstrate Obama’s willingness to compromise and highlight the Republican refusal to raise taxes.

    I think he’s kind of serious. But he wants the Republicans to be the bad guys, and he wants the tax increase in order to make the entitlement cuts go down.

    Sammy Finkelman (63b67e)

  18. So you believe his rhetoric, and Teh Narrative.

    Actions and recent history show your position to be lacking support.

    JD (d246fe)

  19. I don’t think Obama has any serious proposals in mind to deal with the debt or entitlements. He is living from day to day. He likes the perks of the presidency but he has never had any serious policy ideas other than a vague leftism that, like most leftism, has very little economics in it. People have commented on the movie “An American President” and the TV show “West Wing.” Neither had any economic content. It was all social issues like gay marriage.

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  20. I know he’s the president and all but I just don’t respect him cause of how he’s such a goof-ass

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  21. Mike K.– you are a very wise and observant man.

    elissa (7aa0fd)

  22. Ogabe really does want capitalism, such as it is, bastard changeling of Progressivism, to implode and give the Bolsheviks full throttle to replace the ticky-tacky with tin and cardboard shacks.

    Real effort is not required to subdue a nation of imbeciles. The sort of dumbsh*ts that would replace a figurehead con artist that hates Amerikkka with one that doesn’t know Amerikkka from France but likes the plumbing.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  23. In three plus years, Obama has yet to offer a real budget plan himself. He just puts forward the collected bureaucratic wish list and calls it a budget. He dumps all the rigor and discipline off on Congress, and it shows.

    Of course, he will turn right around and accuse the Republicans of not offering a realistic plan. Never a lot of irony-meters in any White House, but especially not this one.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  24. Shorter Mike K: Obama: The right-brain president.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  25. “One could argue (I’m sure you will) that this is actually a realistic view of how it would really work. But it isn’t how candidates generally campaign.”

    Karl… I guess the same could be said of the governors of New Jersey and Wisconsin, as neither really made what has resonated under their governance – fighting public employee unions in the former and reform of collective bargaining in the latter – the detailed centerpiece of each of their successful campaigns. Both of them left themselves room to move and I think that’s what Romney is doing.

    President Reagan used the strategy, as well.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  26. Except Walker stated repeatedly throughout his campaign for Gov that he would do what he did. So, there’s that.

    JD (d246fe)

  27. 22-mitty is helping destroy the republican party. It’s o.k.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  28. No, he didn’t get specific. So there’s that.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  29. He broad-stroked principles, but I don’t think he got down to specifics.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  30. Yes, he absolutely did, because the Dems were already shrieking about how he would ban collective bargaining, during the campaign. Plus, there was his history of having done so at lower levels.

    JD (d246fe)

  31. “Romney’s platitudes, while vague, are not surprising. The man whose job he seeks, Barack Obama, took a worse tack.”

    – Karl

    These sentences don’t seem related to one another.

    Leviticus (870be5)

  32. Walker campaigned as a fiscal conservative and included in his platform was a proposal to cut state employee wages and benefits, but I can’t find any mention of any proposal to “ban collective bargaining”.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  33. and there is no mention of it in Walker’s State of the State address in 2011: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_6a42ad28-2e5e-11e0-9f9e-001cc4c03286.html or in the final debate during the Governor’s race: http://politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2010/nov/01/our-procrastinators-guide-2010-race-governor/

    I tried to pull his 2010 Campaign Platform up, but it has been scrubbed.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  34. Mr. Governor Romney will be a better fiscal steward than rapey I think, and that’s a good feeling.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  35. Yeah, debate topics are the bellwether by which one is defined. Ditto a google search for banning collective bargaining, since he did not promise, noe deliver, a van on collective bargaining.

    JD (d246fe)

  36. Yeah, debate topics are the bellwether by which one is defined. Ditto a google search for banning collective bargaining, since he did not promise, noe deliver, a van on collective bargaining.

    Can you find any mention (pre-election) of Walker promising to address collective bargaining, JD?

    “If Walker did not campaign on the specific collective bargaining proposal in his budget repair bill, it was no secret that Walker would be proposing dramatic changes to the state’s relationship with its employees – changes that the paper’s own reporting made clear would include collective bargaining.”

    “No secret” in this case seems to mean there’s inference or interpretation involved. The candidate did not get down to specifics. He left himself some room to maneuver.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  37. A proposal to cut state employee wages and benefits seems to capture part of Walker’s platform.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  38. It is Sullivan-esque to suggest that this was not know during the campaign.

    JD (d246fe)

  39. Why not simply admit that his 59 point 160 page economic plan is devoid of specifics, and according to your The One himself, is so general so as to make it impossible to score. Trying to piggyback on the back of an actually conservative just continues your pattern of being insulting.

    JD (d246fe)

  40. Mike D (16),

    Being critical of Romney does not mean I prefer Santorum or Gingrich. It means I am critical of Romney.

    Leviticus (31),

    Those sentences completely relate to each other. It’s not surprising Romney is vague, because Obama’s m.o. at this point is to be vague and attack any specific plan from the GOP nominee.


    Col. (25),

    Reagan basically campaigned on the Kemp-Roth tax plan. Not exactly vague.

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  41. Why not simply make your points without insults, JD.

    If it was generally “known” as you seem to suggest, one would be able to proffer more than a Stephen Hayes column… though I usually agree with his POV and commentary.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  42. You can vote for Romney or you can call yourself a conservative. Not both.

    CrustyB (8402be)

  43. Mr. Governor Romney will be a better fiscal steward than rapey I think, and that’s a good feeling.

    Comment by happyfeet —

    True

    Dustin (401f3a)

  44. Col. (25),

    Reagan basically campaigned on the Kemp-Roth tax plan. Not exactly vague.

    Comment by Karl

    Reagan’s first campaign promised that he would try to cut personal income tax rates, cut federal spending, speed up depreciation rates for businesses, and increase military spending. Sounds familiar.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  45. Reagan had a platform of American renewal, both economic (through tax cuts) and foreign policy
    (through reinforcing the CIA and building up the military) He was very explicit about what he intended to do, and consequently had a mandate to do it, Romney’s platform is mostly splunge, with
    confectionary from Whizzo chocolates.

    narciso (87e966)

  46. He left himself room to maneuver, which he did, after the election.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  47. Reagan pledged to cut more than $13B from the ’81 fiscal budget… he proposed $4.4B. he had promised to balance the federal budget by ’82 or ’83 at the latest… that didn’t happen. He did endorse Kemp-Roth during the campaign, but he later made some modifications.

    Room to maneuver.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  48. Read Craig Shirley’s ‘Rendesvous with Destiny’ and revisit that statement,

    narciso (87e966)

  49. Reagan didn’t run this year. This year the GOP is going to nominate a very attractive and polished guy who is closer to Michael Dukakis in political record. But he’s better than Obama.

    Still can’t get over that USA Today column. Jeez.

    Dustin (401f3a)

  50. mommy, wow!

    Mitt’s a big kid now

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  51. Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, Colonel. Maybe next time Walker runs he should make sure Californians are all informed of his positions.

    JD (d246fe)

  52. Read Craig Shirley’s ‘Rendesvous with Destiny’ and revisit that statement,

    Comment by narciso

    Reagan made revisions to Kemp-Roth that prompted Jack Kemp to call him timid and Kemp said he was no longer bound to support the president’s tax package. It took a personal appeal from Reagan to get Kemp to agree to sponsor the package in the House.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  53. Basically a Dewey or a Wilkie, when has that worked as a strategy,

    narciso (87e966)

  54. Is it wonder how litle progress that has been made;

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/12/bachus%20primary%20overview

    narciso (87e966)

  55. The original plan had called for cutting personal tax rates 10% across the board for each of the first 3 years. President Reagan wanted to delay the first year’s tax cut by 6 months (which made it a 5% tax cut) and to limit the rate for taxpayers in the highest brackets.

    Room to maneuver.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  56. Jack Kemp comes down from Yellow Mountain on a dark flat land he rides on a pony she named Wildfire with a whirlwind by his side

    except for he’s dead like Whitney Houston and assorted afghan villagers

    but still

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  57. Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, Colonel. Maybe next time Walker runs he should make sure Californians are all informed of his positions.

    Comment by JD

    Still waiting for another example of Walker touting his plans to address collective bargaining, or anything close.

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  58. another a single

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  59. Ryan is closest to a Kemp figure on fiscal and economic policy, he was his protege at Empower America,

    narciso (87e966)

  60. Apparently you chose to not read the multiple sources, from teachers unions, to Milwaukee. Ewes papers, to his prior elected office experience.

    JD (d246fe)

  61. which of the candidates has embraced Ryan’s plan and which of them has called it a case of “social engineering”, narciso?

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  62. Democrats say Republicans are conducting a “war against women: in their propaganda, JD. Does that make it the case, i.e., is that true?

    Colonel Haiku (18f897)

  63. Newspapers

    JD (d246fe)

  64. you can bet for reals money that the piggy piggy public sector union whore leadership were telling their slack-jawed illiterate piggy piggy union thugs that Mr. Walker, if elected, would do all sorts of awful things, including curtailing their collective bargainings

    except for the piggy piggy cop whores – they knew deep down they’d be exempt cause they’re just so effing special

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  65. So, contemporaneous articles, contemporaneous responses during the campaign, and prior experience are not comPelling enough information for you? You seem quite invested in this meme, which just do happens to be one advanced by the entire Left when the protests in Madison were happening. Facts won’t sway you, since facts did not lead you to the meme you are pushing.

    JD (d246fe)

  66. Surely, that’s why Doyle basically did nothing during the lame dunk session, except ‘enbiggen’
    the budget problem.

    narciso (87e966)

  67. National Soros Radio has a fun write-up on Cabin in the Woods which is the only other film besides Hunger Games I have to for sure see in a theater this year I think

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  68. Scarlett has me second guessing whether to see the Avengers, what did you think of Shane going zombie.

    narciso (87e966)

  69. I haven’t seen last night’s yet I usually save up 3 or 4

    I guess that’s a spoiler as they say

    bless his heart I say but you know his karma wasn’t the best

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  70. Oops sorry about that,

    narciso (87e966)

  71. 53. I’ve heard of McClintock and DeVore, Nunes makes some sense, but if there are a dozen good men in CA, they must be awaiting science in a cryogenic crypt.

    I say expel the diseased menace before it spoils the whole lot.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  72. man… this movie about the late racer Ayrton Senna is quite a flic… “Senna”.

    Colonel Haiku (6b6c65)

  73. So, contemporaneous articles, contemporaneous responses during the campaign, and prior experience are not comPelling enough information for you?

    Comments by a campaign aide and contentions by a teachers’ union? Big whoop…

    I’m not saying what Walker did was surprising, I’m contending he didn’t make it a central theme of his campaign, nor did he go into great detail about it. You haven’t provided convincing evidence otherwise.

    Colonel Haiku (6b6c65)

  74. Oh sweet Saint of Andrea, hear our prayer:

    Grant us the big one and be rid of a chancre, an insidious ill.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  75. 75. Steve “Buttplug” Schmidt on GOP conventional wisdom:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/12/steve-schmidt-putting-palin-on-the-ticket-taught-me-there-are-worse-things-than-losing/

    Throw the election rather than let a winner win.

    gary gulrud (d88477)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1076 secs.