Obama to Cut Budget

[GGT]

Yet Mr. Obama acknowledged that the rising medical costs and the mounting debt required action. And he warned Democrats that his administration would have to cut cherished programs and strictly limit the growth of Medicare and Medicaid. “If we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society,” he said, “we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments.”

Mr. Obama said he would meet his $4 trillion deficit-reduction target by cutting spending across a range of government programs, from farm subsidies to federal pension insurance.

He called for cutting $400 billion more in military spending — twice what his defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told Congress was the largest cut he could recommend.

While Mr. Obama’s plan does not detail specific cuts, analysts said it offered enough detail to set off a substantive debate with Republicans. Some said the proposal for capping the annual cost increase in Medicare and Medicaid to just above the economic growth rate was surprisingly conservative. Others said they were pleased that Mr. Obama had called for overhauling Social Security, even if he was vague and said it was not a leading culprit for the deficit.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm still not seeing a link to an outline I can read myself. I can't tell if this is current as of today or not: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

So far this just seems to be yet another Obama speech.

[GGT]

Presidents are known to give policy speeches, yeah. But it looks like your .gov link only has a couple of recent press releases, not really a policy outline or update. Seemed pretty clear to me it was more along the Simpson-Bowles plan of cutting spending and raising tax revenue. Unlike Ryan's plan of cutting spending AND taxes at the same time.

[Dreadnaught]

Ryan and Simpson-Bowles both want to reduce federal deductions and loopholes, while also reducing tax rates.

Obama seems to want to actively raise taxes and assume that government will be a higher proportion of GDP than Ryan. But I'm just speculating, because Obama apparently hasn't put any of this to paper. He just made a speech.

Yay, another partisan Obama speech that will solve all our problems.

[wiggin]

Haven't had a chance to find if there was any proposal beyond a speech.

The best I've seen is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ed-fiscal-resp

It's not exactly detailed, though. I think it's pretty clear that Obama only released this to counter Paul Ryan's proposal which was shifting the debate to the right. Obama's proposal seems somewhat left of Bowles-Simpson, which is probably just his opening shot in the upcoming fight on the debt ceiling and the FY2012 budget.

My initial thoughts aren't much more charitable than my assessment of Ryan's plan. Obama's plan also ignores the easy fixed to Social Security. He more or less ignores healthcare costs, claiming to be able to save at least a little bit of money with 'efficiencies' but not being particularly specific how that's going to happen (one notable point of similarity in all three plans, I'm afraid). Also, reducing health care inflation to GDP growth plus 0.5% is hardly that impressive; we need a much more aggressive approach. In theory, I like his healthcare plan marginally better than Ryan since it at least tries to address the problem, but the details are awfully thin. How exactly is the IPAB going to 'bend the cost curve'? Will it be given real power to reduce or restructure benefits? I doubt it. I do appreciate the prescription drug idea (allowing Medicare to negotiate lower rates, finally), but that's about it.

The debt failsafe is a nice idea, like Ryan's similar ideas of mandatory spending limits and the like. Inevitably these will be irrelevant, though, since Congress can easily override them each year, which I'm sure they're likely to do.

I do appreciate the rhetoric about not having a too-quick fiscal tightening. The recovery is very fragile, and one thing I fail to understand is the Republican insistence on tight monetary and fiscal policy in such a precarious economic environment. A credible medium- and long-term debt and deficit plan can assuage market fears, and there's really no other reason to tighten policy right now.

On defense and discretionary spending, he didn't really say anything new. Explaining exactly how he's going to cut $200 billion in discretionary spending and $400 billion in defense is going to be a lot more difficult than saying he'll do it. Discretionary programs have already taken a pretty big hit and there's not much room to work with. That being said, it's spread out over 10 years, so it might be possible just to limit growth in discretionary spending instead of cutting programs willy-nilly (like some Congressmen have suggested).

Defense is another tough one, though obviously the scale of the cuts isn't so bad given that it's been relatively spared until now. The problem is that Congress (and Obama) are likely to focus on further cutting procurement programs, rather than dealing with the real issue, which is increasing Tricare premiums, changing the way the military covers healthcare for employed veterans and retirees, and keeping soldier pay in line with growth and inflation. Personnel costs are ballooning, and there are fairly easy (albeit unpopular) fixes that could easily save that amount of money. Realistically, though, I expect Obama's actual budget is likely to put more pressure on procurement programs, possible scrapping a carrier battle group, rethinking the LCS program, reducing final JSF strength, slowing the GPS replacement, messing with the NGB/EFV/etc. programs, reducing final force levels, and more. While I don't doubt some of these programs need some revision (I'm looking at you, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle), there just isn't enough fat to cut more than a few billion a year. Operations and personnel costs are far larger and have gotten bloated in recent years, while procurement programs have already been given a smackdown or two by Gates.

He's pretty vague about reforms to other 'mandatory programs', though I'm curious to see what he does with the agricultural subsidies (my hope? trash 'em).

On tax reform, nothing really new there. Sounds like a variant of Bowles-Simpson where loopholes are closed and overall rates reduced, but not as much as in Ryan's plan, effectively bringing in more revenue. Without specific policy positions it's hard to evaluate his plan, but I like the basic idea even if it isn't original. It recognizes that more revenue is a necessity for medium term deficit and debt reduction, and does so through a fairly reasonable process. Whether he actually follows through on simplifying the tax code, though, is another question entirely. I have a nightmare where instead of scrapping tax benefits like the mortgage interest deduction entirely, he'll instead just phase it out for higher income earners. This isn't the worst idea from some perspectives, but it just adds more needless complexity. Since the majority of lower income Americans can't claim these deductions anyways, it's worth it to scrap it entirely and reduce overall rates a little bit. This makes the code more progressive (at least marginally) while simplifying the tax code and raising a little bit of revenue - all while managing to remove a costly and stupid subsidy for the housing market.

I'm skeptical if this logic will actually happen, but it's worth hoping.

*shrugs* Nothing really new here. I earnest hope that the Gang of Six comes up with something intelligent on healthcare, which hasn't really been adequately addressed by anyone so far.

[GGT]

Your partisanship is duly noted, Dread.

We have bipartisan problems. Yay, for the upcoming bickering yet to come in congress? Oh, and let's not forget the lobbyists and PACs. They've all worked so well together for the good of the nation.

I wouldn't call letting Bush tax cuts expire as intended, or cutting off subsidies to Big Oil or Big Ag actively raising taxes. Neither is cleaning up the tax code to get rid of loopholes so big GE can drive through. As much as I benefit from the mortgage deduction, we should get rid of that, too.

If both party is truly serious about cutting spending where it counts, where the hell is their plan to reduce military expenditures and stop acting like the world's police? Iraq was $3 Trillion and counting. How much have we spent on Afghanistan so far? Libya is supposedly costing us $1 Billion per week. Fiscally responsible my ass.


Edit: wiggin, your post highlights how healthcare expenses impact everything, including active military and veterans, retiring seniors on SS buying Medicare, employer subsidies, Medicaid for the poor. Short of real reform and cost-containment for healthcare, everything else is just moving money around.

I'd like to know how Boehner and the GOP can claim we "don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem" when it's clear that both are problematic.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks for the analysis Wiggin.

[wiggin]

I'd like to know how Boehner and the GOP can claim we "don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem" when it's clear that both are problematic.

Actually the Republicans are right - it's not like our revenue as a percentage of GDP has dropped significantly or anything (with the obvious exception of cyclical factors dealing with the recession). So in technical terms, they're right. What they're wrong about is that this is a good justification for not raising revenues.

We're essentially talking about a medium-term austerity plan in order to bring our overall debt levels down. Austerity plans are put in place because previous politicians spent too much and we need to pay for it now. It's not unreasonable to suggest that while the bulk of the difference should be made up by cutting spending (which has gotten bloated), some of the austerity is going to have to deal with higher revenues. Even if it raises revenues above the long-run average for a while, it's not fundamentally a bad idea given the shitty situation we're in.

For long term deficit reduction (NOT debt reduction), though, the plan should focus mostly on spending cuts in those budget items that are looking to grow much faster than GDP or revenues. This is because the increased revenues shouldn't be considered a permanent fixture - for one, there's likely to be regression to the mean, for another, it's bad economic policy to have permanently higher taxes. Rather, they should be used to bring down our debt levels in the medium term to partially pay off our ballooning debt. Long-term projections, though, shouldn't worry about the existing debt but rather deficits, and should keep deficits below trend growth in GDP. This has to be done by fixing healthcare (and Social Security), not by raising taxes.

[Dreadnaught]

The more I read about this, the more this just looks like a political speech coupled with a press release. The most substantive policy Obama seems to have stated is that married couples making more than $200,000 must pay more in taxes. Even though that won't solve the problems.

I think the clearest goal of the Ryan plan so far is to keep government spending around 18-20% of GDP. Obama seems (he hasn't made it clear either way) that he prefers something significantly higher. But I can't really tell because all we've heard was basically a campaign stump speech to rebut the Ryan plan.

Regarding the revenue increases that we all disagree about the most, I think this opinion piece by someone from Cato rings true about the limits of using tax increases as a policy lever:

APRIL 14, 2011

Obama's Soak-the-Rich Tax Hikes Won't Work

Income tax revenues have been remarkably stable at 8% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. The way to increase revenue is to grow the economy.

By ALAN REYNOLDS

President Obama's response to congressional efforts to curb runaway federal spending is to emphasize, once again, his resolve to greatly increase tax rates on married couples whose joint incomes are above $250,000. This insistent desire to raise taxes—which he repeated in a speech yesterday while complaining about "trillions of dollars in . . . tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country"—is a distraction. It won't solve our nation's fiscal problem.

Preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) project that federal spending under the president's 2012 budget plan would average 23.3% over the coming decade—up from 19.7% in 2007 and 18.2% in 2001.

Even if the president could persuade Congress to enact all of his proposed tax increases, in addition to surtaxes already included in ObamaCare, the CBO finds we would still face endless budget deficits averaging 4.8% of GDP.

"Federal debt held by the public would double under the President's budget," says the CBO, "growing from $10.4 trillion (69% of GDP) at the end of 2011 to $20.8 trillion (87% of GDP) at the end of 2021, adding $9.5 trillion to the nation's debt from 2012 to 2021."

And yet, enormous as they are, these deficit and debt estimates assume that the higher tax rates called for under the president's 2012 budget plan do no harm to the economy, that interest rates stay unusually low, and that the economy avoids recession for a dozen years. Those assumptions require taxpayers to behave much differently than they ever have before.

The revenue estimates are even more unbelievable. According to the Office of Management and Budget, total revenues would supposedly exceed 19% of GDP after 2015, rising to 20% by 2021—a level briefly reached only at the height of World War II (1944-45) and the pinnacle of the tech-stock boom (2000). Moreover, these unprecedented revenues would supposedly come from the individual income tax, which is even less plausible.

It is not as though we have never tried high tax rates before. From 1951 to 1963, the lowest tax rate was 20% to 22% and the highest was 91% to 92%. The top capital gains tax rate approached 40% in 1976-77. Aside from cyclical swings, however, the ratio of individual income tax receipts to GDP has always remained about 8% of GDP.

The individual income tax brought in 7.8% of GDP from 1952 to 1979 when the top tax rate ranged from 70% to 92%, 8% of GDP from 1993 to 1996 when the top tax rate was 39.6%, and 8.1% from 1988 to 1990 when the highest individual income tax rate was 28%. Mr. Obama's hope that raising only the highest tax rates could keep individual tax receipts well above 9% of GDP has been repeatedly tested for more than six decades. It has always failed.

Federal revenue from the individual income tax exceeded 9% of GDP only eight times in U.S. history—during World War II (9.4% in 1944), the recessions of 1969-70, 1981-82 and 1991-92, and the tech-stock boom-bust of 1998-2001. Revenues were a high share of GDP during the three recessions because GDP fell.

The situation of 1997-2000 was unique. Individual income tax revenues reached an unprecedented 9.6% of GDP from 1997 to 2000 for reasons quite unlikely to be repeated. An astonishing quintupling of Nasdaq stock prices coincided with an extraordinary proliferation of stock options, which the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances found were granted to 11% of U.S. families by 2001, and with a reduction in the capital gains tax to 20% from 28%, which encouraged much greater realization of taxable gains through stock sales. Revenues from the capital gains tax rose to 10.8% of all individual income tax receipts in 1997 and 13% by 2000. The unexpected revenue windfalls in President Bill Clinton's second term were largely a consequence of lower tax rates on capital gains.

Using IRS data, Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley have estimated that realized capital gains accounted for just 13%-22% of reported income among the top 1% of taxpayers from 1988 to 2006, when gains were taxed at 28%—but that fraction swiftly reached 29%-32% in 1998-2000, when the capital gains tax fell to 20%.

The average tax rate of such top taxpayers was mechanically diluted by the greatly increased realizations of capital gains after 1997 and 2003, since a larger share of reported income consisted of capital gains. Yet the amount of taxes paid by top taxpayers reached record highs for the same reason—there was more revenue to be had from taxing many gains at a low rate than from taxing fewer gains a high rate. Nobody can be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts. To complain that a low tax on realized capital gains is "unfair" is to suggest it would be fairer for affluent investors to sit on unrealized gains, as though an unpaid tax is morally superior to one that collects billions.

As a result of the conventional confusion between tax rates and revenues, some stories in the media have abetted the delusion that the huge gap between spending and likely revenues could be narrowed by simply increasing the highest tax rates on capital gains and/or dividends.

A recent cover story in Bloomberg Businessweek by Jesse Drucker, "The More You Make, the Less You Pay," reported that, "For the well-off, this could be the best tax day since the early 1930s. . . . For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30% in 1995 to just under 17% in 2007, according to the IRS."

Among the top 400 taxpayers (rarely the same people from one year to the next), the average tax rate fell to 22.3% in 2000, when the capital gains tax was 20%, from 29.9% in 1995 when the capital gains tax was 28%. But that same IRS report also shows that real tax revenues from the top 400 more than doubled after the capital gains tax fell, rising to $11.8 billion in 2000 from $5.2 billion in 1995, measured in 1990 dollars.

The same thing happened after 2003, when the capital gains tax was further reduced to 15%. The average tax rate of the top 400 fell to 16.6% in 2007 from 22.9% in 2002. Even though there was no stock market boom as in 1997-2000, real revenues of the top 400 nevertheless doubled again—to $14.5 billion in 2007 from $6.9 billion in 2002. Instead of paying less when the capital gains tax rate went down in 1997 and 2003, the top 400 instead paid much, much more.

The trendy talking point of blaming projected deficits on "tax cuts for the rich" is flatly absurd.

Both individual income taxes and overall federal taxes have long been a surprisingly constant percentage of GDP—8% and 18%, respectively— regardless of top tax rates on salaries, small business and investors. It follows that the only reliable way to raise real federal revenues over time is to raise real GDP.

Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press 2006).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...171406994.html

[wiggin]

Who said increased revenue should come from income taxes? I favor various consumption taxes as a better approach. Regardless, there are short-term fluctuations in revenues that can be brought about by higher income tax rates. Obviously increasing revenue in the long run is a stupid way to address the problem, but as a short way to bring down debt levels, it's not completely crazy.

[GGT]

We didn't/don't have the revenue to cover the costs of three Wars, plus nation building, plus foreign aid. That's why we need a War Tax, based on consumption of something (not sure what). It was a bad decision to lower tax revenue while increasing huge military expenses, especially since we were already reliant on Chinese buying our treasury debt to keep up our borrowing habits. Borrow and spend can be worse than tax and spend. (How much interest are we paying on our debt now?)

That's why I say the GOP should admit we have both revenue and spending problems. For all the criticisms of funding domestic Social Welfare or subsidy programs, I'd like to see the same aimed toward Corporate Welfare, Agricultural subsidies, and what could be called International (Military) Welfare....our priorities seem whacked.

[wiggin]

We're actually paying less interest on our debt than we were 10 years ago. Borrowing costs are rock-bottom right now.

I can't believe you throw foreign aid in with 'overseas contingency operations'. They're on a completely different order of magnitude.

Also, what you single out as our spending issues are simply not our long-term budget problems. Ag subsidies are a bad idea but haven't been growing at a ridiculous rate. 'Corporate welfare' (presumably the nest of tax loopholes companies can use) really isn't as big as most people think, given our high rate of corporate income tax. We can simplify and flatten the tax code, but I doubt it'll end up bringing in that much money. And outside our current wartime expenditures, 'international welfare' has always been a vanishingly small part of our budget.

[Nessus]

Do you prefer flat taxes over progressive ones?

[wiggin]

Do you prefer flat taxes over progressive ones?

Not particularly, though I think taxes that are too progressive can have negative economic effects. In general, though, I feel our tax code is rife with exemptions and deductions that largely help the richer rather than the poorer, which effectively reduces the progressiveness of our tax code. To fix the complexity issue, then, I favor getting rid of most of the exceptions and lower overall rates, though possibly lower top rates more (since those brackets were using the loopholes more).

Obviously consumption taxes are somewhat regressive, which can be a problem from a number of perspectives. There are a number of ways to fix this to help out the poorest of society without hurting the basic point of the tax.

[Nessus]

Gut, gut.

[GGT]

wiggin, I'm talking about the whole pot of money and our spending priorities. It's goofy when congress starts with small potatoes like NPR or Planned Parenthood, then food stamps and heating subsidies for the poor, then cutting police and fire departments, then teachers....instead of starting out with the biggies of SS/Medicare/Medicaid and Military spending. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is now over ten years long, including re-building their infrastructure....hardly "short term". Libya alone is $1 Billion per week....hardly a "vanishing small part of our budget".

Corporate Welfare = tax loopholes, yeah. See deductions for employee-health insurance. GE and BP. Plus massive bail-outs for banks and financials.

[Lewkowski]

wiggin, I'm talking about the whole pot of money and our spending priorities. It's goofy when congress starts with small potatoes like NPR or Planned Parenthood, then food stamps and heating subsidies for the poor, then cutting police and fire departments, then teachers....instead of starting out with the biggies of SS/Medicare/Medicaid and Military spending. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is now over ten years long, including re-building their infrastructure....hardly "short term". Libya alone is $1 Billion per week....hardly a "vanishing small part of our budget".

Corporate Welfare = tax loopholes, yeah. See deductions for employee-health insurance. GE and BP. Plus massive bail-outs for banks and financials.

Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. NPR is biased news funded by the government. Do you not see a problem with that? Planned Parenthood is an evil organization to all those who view abortion to be murder. If you don't like the Iraq war doesn't it gall you that your taxes go to pay for it? That is the view that folks who dislike planned parenthood have about it. These parts aren't to "fix" the budget deficit however the debate on them is worthy on a budget bill. Just because something is in the budget shouldn't mean its a sacred cow.

The issue with trying to discuss the biggies first is that no one wants to make a substantive move first and risk getting steamrolled with the "You hate Seniors" BS. Heck Ryan stuck his nose out with Medicare reform and the president devotes a section of his speech to bashing Ryan for it with over the top fear mongering. So yeah the big entitlements are typically going to just be kicked down the road until there is no longer a choice.

[GGT]

It's purely politics, we all know that. If the GOP is hell bent on making social changes through legislation, they ought to at least have the balls to admit it. Instead of trying to wrap it up in an American Flag and call it balancing the books for our children and grandchildren (which it doesn't do anyway).

[Lewkowski]

It's purely politics, we all know that. If the GOP is hell bent on making social changes through legislation, they ought to at least have the balls to admit it. Instead of trying to wrap it up in an American Flag and call it balancing the books for our children and grandchildren (which it doesn't do anyway).

Its a budget debate. It is entirely appropriate to debate on what should or should not be in the budget. You make it sound like because it was in the budget and its not a big amount of money it should never be discussed? Pray tell when should funding for PP and NPR be discussed if not during a budget debate?

[GGT]

Its a budget debate. It is entirely appropriate to debate on what should or should not be in the budget. You make it sound like because it was in the budget and its not a big amount of money it should never be discussed? Pray tell when should funding for PP and NPR be discussed if not during a budget debate?

I'm saying their prioritizing makes it clear they're more concerned with social changes than actual big budget busters. Defunding Planned Parenthood is their way to wiggle in on abortion. Abortion services are still a legal and legitimate medical need for women, and no federal funds are used for abortions.

[Lewkowski]

I'm saying their prioritizing makes it clear they're more concerned with social changes than actual big budget busters. Defunding Planned Parenthood is their way to wiggle in on abortion. Abortion services are still a legal and legitimate medical need for women, and no federal funds are used for abortions.

The barrier to using federal funds for abortions is paper thin. There are exceptions in the case of the "life of the mother" which of course is conveniently decided on by the abortion doctor. In addition if planned parenthood uses the funds from the government to build a building and abortions take place in that building that yes federal funds have gone to fund abortions.

Just to throw this thought out there: if federal funding was not given to planned parenthood would there be fewer abortions carried out by planned parenthood? The answer is an obvious yes. Some planned parenthood locations would of course shut down.

[Nessus]

So there should be more money thrown at planned parenthood, right?

[GGT]

The barrier to using federal funds for abortions is paper thin. There are exceptions in the case of the "life of the mother" which of course is conveniently decided on by the abortion doctor. In addition if planned parenthood uses the funds from the government to build a building and abortions take place in that building that yes federal funds have gone to fund abortions.

We've already done this debate, did you sleep through it or just ignore it all? Might as well say Public Libraries also give access to offensive or sexually charged literature, or information on Satanism, or art books with nude bodies, so defund Public Libraries!

Just to throw this thought out there: if federal funding was not given to planned parenthood would there be fewer abortions carried out by planned parenthood? The answer is an obvious yes. Some planned parenthood locations would of course shut down.

No, that's entirely backward. Planned Parenthood is 90% women's health services, focusing on screening and prevention. Breast exams, PAPs, STDs, and BIRTH CONTROL. Y'know, the education and prevention that means fewer accidental or unintended pregnancies, and fewer abortions.

BTW, there's no such thing as an "abortion doctor". Except maybe some illegal hacks exploiting desperate women, perhaps those who didn't have a PP in their region and access to BIRTH CONTROL.

[GGT]

So there should be more money thrown at planned parenthood, right?

The only way that will happen in the US is if men are included and considered, apparently. If there were "male reproductive health clinics" where they could get sex education and family planning information/counseling, testicular and prostate checks, screening and treatment for STDs, erectile dysfunction or low testosterone, make a donation to a sperm bank, get free condoms, or a reduced-rate vasectomy.....maybe some federal funding would sound good to the guys in DC. For the price of a few Tomahawk missiles.

[Dreadnaught]

Who said increased revenue should come from income taxes? I favor various consumption taxes as a better approach. Regardless, there are short-term fluctuations in revenues that can be brought about by higher income tax rates. Obviously increasing revenue in the long run is a stupid way to address the problem, but as a short way to bring down debt levels, it's not completely crazy.

This is interesting...so you think cutting government spending will have a disastrous short-term effect on the economy, but raising taxes won't?

[Lewkowski]

We've already done this debate, did you sleep through it or just ignore it all? Might as well say Public Libraries also give access to offensive or sexually charged literature, or information on Satanism, or art books with nude bodies, so defund Public Libraries!

No, that's entirely backward. Planned Parenthood is 90% women's health services, focusing on screening and prevention. Breast exams, PAPs, STDs, and BIRTH CONTROL. Y'know, the education and prevention that means fewer accidental or unintended pregnancies, and fewer abortions.

BTW, there's no such thing as an "abortion doctor". Except maybe some illegal hacks exploiting desperate women, perhaps those who didn't have a PP in their region and access to BIRTH CONTROL.

Well I don't support public libraries either (though not for the reasons you listed). If you think public libraries are important, then you and like minded folk can use your own money instead of compelling other people to use theirs to open some.

And the idea that you need PP to get birth control is just stupid.

[wiggin]

This is interesting...so you think cutting government spending will have a disastrous short-term effect on the economy, but raising taxes won't?

I don't think we should raise taxes until unemployment drops significantly, just like we shouldn't get itchy trigger-fingers on cutting discretionary spending just yet. If anything, I think we might need more fiscal stimulus right now, not less. With cutting funding, there's also a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to get certain short term results in the deficit which simply aren't relevant to our actual fiscal position.

That being said, I think a reasonable medium-to-long term debt plan could address the thorny issues right now (essentially, health care and social security along with reforming our tax code) but could postpone tax increases until 2013 or so.

[Illusions]

If you think public libraries are important, then you and like minded folk can use your own money instead of compelling other people to use theirs to open some.

Would you say the same thing about the military? How about any government subsidies going to Texas? Or anything government funded that you and your family benefit from?

[GGT]

Well I don't support public libraries either (though not for the reasons you listed). If you think public libraries are important, then you and like minded folk can use your own money instead of compelling other people to use theirs to open some.

Do you want to privatize everything, even access to public schools or libraries? Wow, you really do hate poor people. You don't even want kids to get out of poverty through education and information.

And the idea that you need PP to get birth control is just stupid.

It's used mostly by working poor or uninsured/underinsured. You do realize that diaphragms, IUDs, hormonal pills/patches/implants are prescribed by physicians only after a physical exam, right? And if they can't afford the $100 office visit plus $100 lab and cytology fees, plus RX, they need a reduced-fee clinic. Or would you rather they use the rhythm method or condoms because it's cheaper, even though less reliable than women's BC + condoms?

Would you say the same thing about the military? How about any government subsidies going to Texas? Or anything government funded that you and your family benefit from?

Exactly. Must be some goofy explanation for that, right Lewk?

[Nessus]

Do you want to privatize everything, even access to public schools or libraries? Wow, you really do hate poor people. You don't even want kids to get out of poverty through education and information.

If the kids don't get out of poverty, it is their own fault as poverty is always punishment for wrong-doing. There is no innocence in poverty, only guilt. Just as it is morally right that US prisons are factories of abuse and rape, it is also morally right that the poor are brutalized and prevented from escaping being poor; the punishment is at the same time the judgment. It is beyond thought crime, it is a crime of existence.