Deficit Chickenhawk

by: Dean Barker

Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 20:20:36 PM EST

It is unconscionable that Democrats in Washington are now borrowing 41 cents of every dollar they spend. When will Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid learn that America cannot sustain trillion dollar deficits for the next ten years?

U.S. Rep.-elect Charlie Bass, R-N.H., who favored extending all the Bush-era tax cuts, said through a spokesman, "I am encouraged that it appears the American people are not going to face a massive tax hike in a time where we are trying to create jobs and get the economy going again."

The Obama-McConnell tax compromise will cost $858 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

In other words, the Republican-backed tax plan will cost more than the stimulus bill, which priced out at $787 billion.

At Least We Don't Have to Pretend Anymore

by: Dean Barker

Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 19:10:30 PM EST

Least of all the Republicans, who have basically put a gun to America's head and told Her that everything stops until the uber-rich get whatever they want, deficits be damned.

Judd Gregg and Company are robbing your grandchildren in broad daylight. We are letting them.

Oh, and:

* A short-term extension of the Bush tax giveaways to the wealthiest will cost America's future somewhere between $200 billion and half a trillion dollars.

* The super-wealthy recipients of these giveaways have been shown to save their winnings rather than spend it to stimulate the economy.

* Only one in four Americans agree with keeping the tax cuts for everyone.  Yet this deeply unpopular view will become reality.

Adding: The best part of this deal is that the jobless benefits extension is not for those who have exceeded the 99 week threshold.  To those in that situation facing 9.8% unemployment, our government is telling them goodbye and god luck. But Charlie Bass will just looove the reduced rate on the death estate tax!

But Do Democrats Care About Deficits Either?

by: Dean Barker

Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 06:07:02 AM EST

The American people do, though.  Only one out of four of them want the Bush tax giveaways to the uber-wealthy to continue.

Nancy Pelosi cares about deficits.  She used her considerable skill yesterday once again on behalf of the Rest of Us. (Thank you Carol, Paul.)

On the heels of this success, President Obama abdicated his bully pulpit and admitted that Republicans will still get what they want on behalf of the Richest Two Percent, deficits be damned.

Cue the media, who have inserted the word "symbolic" into their headlines on the vote.

What remains is the Senate.  The American people have enough up-or-down votes on their side. But Harry Reid has shown no ability or interest heretofore in getting around the parlor tricks of that institution.

I Am Suffering So You Must Suffer Too...

by: Dean Barker

Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 16:34:00 PM EST

What you can learn at a house party

by: Lucy Edwards

Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 14:16:47 PM EDT

Doublespeak Doesn't Make a Lot of Sense in Plain English

by: Gary Patton

Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 15:15:06 PM EDT

"Mr. Hoodwinker says that he's going to lower government spending and reduce the deficit. Republicans always make this claim. Somehow, it doesn't necessarily turn out that way. During the George W. Bush administration, the Republican president initiated two unfunded wars and an unfunded Medicare prescription benefit. As a result, both spending and the deficit shot through the roof."

"Presently, the GOP fervently opposes the health care reform law, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office affirms that the new reforms will save $143 billion over the next 10 years."

"Aha, now Mr. Hoodwinker is upping the bet; now he is saying that he will both lower your taxes and the deficit at the same time. That's going to be quite a trick. The Bush tax cuts, enacted in 2001, are designed to expire at the end of this year. President Obama wants to keep them for middle class folks; individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and couples making less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of Americans. He claims that during this economic downturn, the middle class will immediately spend the money on necessities - food, clothing, shelter, and schooling. By spending money right away, the middle class will stimulate the economy and create jobs."

"In addition, Republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent. However, wealthy people don't undertake new business ventures in a stagnant economy. They play it safe, and invest their extra money in their portfolios. No jobs are created that way. Moreover, keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy will deprive the federal government of revenue and increase the deficit by $31 billion a year."

"Don't pity the rich. Federal taxes on the wealthy are the lowest they've been in 60 years. In 1944, the top tax bracket was 94 percent, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but only to 69 percent for the top bracket. The Bush tax cuts helped lower the top rate to 35 percent, but deprived the federal government of so much revenue that the deficit exploded. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse for the top 2 percent would push their rate from 35 percent to 39.5 percent, not exactly a death blow. I don't think I'll see them rummaging through dumpsters. Well, I digress. Let's go back to Mr. Hoodwinker's speech."

"Mr. Hoodwinker claims that the Republicans are long-time and true friends of small businesses. As the old saying goes, 'with friends like that, who needs enemies.' The New York Times reports that Republicans have voted against eight new tax cuts for small businesses so far this year and they called for the repeal of small-business tax cuts in the healthcare bill."

"Mr. Hoodwinker says that, if elected, Republicans will get things done. That doesn't pass muster with me. Republicans in the Senate blocked 335 bills that were first passed by the House. Republicans used the filibuster rule 223 times in the Senate to prevent legislation from coming to an up-or-down vote. Funny, that sounds like obstruction, not progress, to me. That's The Party of No bringing the legislative process to a halt."

"Now, Mr. Hoodwinker is claiming that if he is elected, he will be an independent voice for New Hampshire. No party bosses will tell him what to do. Well, in order for a minority of 178 Republicans in the House and 41 Republicans in the Senate to stop all that legislation, they often voted as a bloc. No dissenters were allowed. Everyone followed the party leader's orders or else."

"In a large number of votes, Republicans unanimously opposed bills. If they didn't play follow the leader, members were punished - bad office locations, poor parking spots, undesirable committee assignments, no monetary contributions from party sources. They went along to get along. The idea that a Republican legislator will be an independent voice in Congress, that is, is free to do as he or she pleases, is sheer nonsense."

"Oh, you're wondering why the things Mr. Hoodwinker is saying differ so much from what I say. Well, sometimes things don't translate very well from one language to another. Things Republicans say in Doublespeak just don't make a lot of sense in plain English."

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Inconvenient Truths: Taxes, Deficits and the Republican Line

by: cliffNH

Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 13:20:30 PM EDT

The fiscal 2010 deficit will be about $1.4 trillion.  Where does it come from?  Not financial bailouts.  TARP (which, it is hard to remember, was enacted under Bush with the full and aggressive support of the entire Republican leadership: McCain, Palin, Boehner, McConnell and Gregg) plus relief to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies was actually $32 billion in the black in 2010, thanks to so many banks paying back their loans with interest.  Not the auto industry bailout (which also began under Bush), which is now estimated to cost a total of no more than $12 Billion, and then there is the likelihood that the government will make a big profit from the GM public offering.  Health care reform had a negligible effect on the budget in 2010, and is actually projected to decrease the deficit over time as the cost-cutting measures take force.

The biggest culprit by far is the economic downturn, which cost $455 billion in lost receipts and increased cost of existing safety net programs like unemployment and food stamps.  We can all have opinions as to whether the Republican policies were good or bad, but the fact is that the economy collapsed under Bush's watch, after 8 years of Republican-dominated policy, and has been too slowly but steadily improving  under Obama.

The Bush tax cuts cost $336 billion in 2010 (and by the way, if they are extended, will cost a total of $4.8 Trillion over the next 10 years).  The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $191 Billion, and Bush's Medicare drug plan cost $68 Billion in 2010.  Obama's stimulus packages cost $412 Billion in 2010.  The Republicans all claim it was a failure, but look at the facts:  Often ignored is the fact that the single biggest part of the stimulus (38% overall, a much higher proportion in 2010)) was tax relief - mostly for individuals as payroll tax credits and a reduction in the Alternative Minimum Tax.  And the non-partisan CBO estimates that in the second quarter of calendar year 2010, it raised real  gross GDP by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent, lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points and put 3.3 million people to work.  Those are calculations based on fact, not political opinion.

So the fact is that without the effects of Bush's economic collapse and the stimulus it fostered, his wars, tax cuts and Medicare expansion, Obama's policies alone would have yielded a budget surplus in 2010.  Even if you argue that the spending part of the stimulus was unnecessary and keep only the tax cuts, they plus the Bush-era economic collapse and programs alone represent about 90% of the deficit.  These are the facts.  It's just arithmetic.  Nothing here to argue with.

Is Obama's spending out of control?  Obama's total 2011 spending proposal is up 3% over 2010.  There are increases in defense, homeland security and energy research.  50% of the remaining departments saw their budgets cut.  By comparison, Ronald Reagan's 1985 budget increased 11%.  G. W. Bush's last budget increase was 18%.  Even his first budget - before 9/11 happened - was up 8%.

What about pork?  What about some perspective.  The total cost of all earmarks in fiscal 2010, from all senators and members of congress combined, was $15.9 Billion.  As bad as they are, earmarks add up to less than one half of one percent of the budget, only 1% of the deficit.  What if we eliminate some of the Tea Party's favorite targets?  Department of Education?  1.3% of the budget.  EPA?  Less than one-third of one percent of the budget.  The fact is that 81% of the budget goes to mandatory programs (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt- nothing Obama or the current congress has anything to do with) plus the departments of defense and homeland security, where the Republicans are pushing to spend more, not less.

The total public debt is about $13.4 trillion.  Where did it come from?  Obama has added about $1.5 trillion to it so far.  The total debt was $5.8 trillion before Bush's first budget and $11.9 trillion after his last - so he added $6.1 trillion.  Clinton added $1.4 trillion over 8 years and ended up with a surplus.  Bush 41 added $1.6 Trillion, and Reagan almost tripled the debt from when he took office, adding $1.9 trillion.  So 93% of the debt that has been added in the last 30 years has been added by Republican administrations.  Those are just the facts.

Finally, the Republicans complain that Obama's taxes are too high, and that we should reduce taxes to increase job growth.  There is lots of political opinion, but absolutely no evidence that further tax cuts for the wealthy will spur employment.  Remember that Obama actually decreased taxes substantially in the stimulus, and has proposed decreasing them further on small businesses this year.  In fact, taxes are right now just about as low as they have been in decades.  Throughout the 1950's, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.  By the 70's, it dropped to 70%.  Reagan dropped it to 33%, it was 40% for most of the Clinton years, and it is currently 35%.  Our biggest boom years, under Eisenhower and Clinton, were when taxes were higher, and when taxes were dropped, under Reagan and Bush, we had economic stagnation.  The nonpartisan CBO just analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest "bang for the buck," because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.

I just wonder what the Republican candidates would say if their opinions and rantings were challenged with these facts.  It's unfortunate that we never get to see that.

Cliff Conneighton
Hollis, NH
cliff@conneighton.com

The World According to Charlie Bass, Part I

by: Dean Barker

Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 07:53:09 AM EDT

The World According to Charlie Bass:
Former six term Congressman Charlie Bass explains why he, contrary to his Contract for America pledge, decided to run for a seventh:

"If anybody had asked me a year-and-a-half ago whether I would be a candidate for any office again in my life, I would have said, 'Are you kidding?' " Bass said in a recent interview with the Monitor editorial board.

But Bass, a Peterborough Republican, said the growth of the federal deficit over time, particularly in recent years, makes him worry for the country's future.

The public debt nearly doubled under Charlie Bass.  

* Source.

Shea-Porter Represents Her Constituency

by: Gary Patton

Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:29:18 AM EDT

"Swimmingly, swimmingly, my man," he replied. "Everything is going my way. My errand boys, the Republicans in Congress, are working hard to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001. If they can do that, because I earn more than $1 million per year, I will save $103,000 in taxes in 2011. Bully!"

"But wait a minute, sir," I responded, "the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were intended to expire in 2011. If they are made permanent for the wealthiest Americans, $36 billion would be added to the deficit in 2011. President Obama has a fairer plan; he would retain the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who earn less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of workers. Only the wealthiest 2 percent would be affected by the end of the Bush tax cuts."

"Nobel-winning columnist Paul Krugman wrote," I continued, "according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years." (New York Times, 8/23/10)

Bedford-Amherst turned red with anger. His monocle popped out of his eye. "I take offense, sir. Wealthy people pay unconscionably high taxes. Soak the rich. Soak the rich. It's always the same - the rabble always soaks the rich."

"I beg to differ, sir," I replied. "Do you know that the top tax bracket was 94 percent in 1944, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but still the top tax bracket was 69 percent during his presidency. (Mutual Funds, March, 2002) The top bracket continued to decline to 35 percent partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The end of Bush's tax cuts would increase the top 2 percent's rate only 4.5 points to 39.5 percent, far less than the top bracket has been in the recent past.

Now, Bedford-Amherst was truly annoyed. He impatiently tapped his riding breeches with his crop. "Lord knows, we wealthy people are doing all we can for the lower classes. Our servants, the Republicans in Congress, stoutly maintain that tax cuts for the rich stimulate economic growth."

"Again, sir," I offered, "I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that each $1 million in tax cuts would create between 1 and 4 additional jobs; compared with 6 to 15 jobs from increasing unemployment assistance; 3 to 9 jobs from providing aid to states, and 4 to 10 jobs from investing in infrastructure. (Washington Post, 7/28/10)

"Moreover," I continued, "when Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years, was asked if he agrees with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves, he said simply, 'They do not.' (Reuters, 8/2/10) If tax cuts were magic stimulators of the economy and generators of tax revenue, then why have the Bush tax cuts of 2001 left the nation with such a huge budget deficit? However, I can see that we don't agree on tax cuts, sir. Can we turn to another topic? Who do you favor in the race for member of Congress from the 1st Congressional District?

"No doubt in my mind," answered Bedford-Amherst, "no doubt at all. I support the Republican candidates - they're from my class you know. According to public records, Shawn Mahoney lists diversified investments valued between $11.4 and $35.6 million; Rich Ashooh earned $391,213 last year as a lobbyist for BAE systems, and has a savings account holding between $100,000 and $250,000. Bob Bestani received $116,835 last year from a pension and consulting fees. Bestani lists investments worth between $726,000 and $1.366,000."

"Finally," Bedford-Amherst went on, "Frank Guinta has between $89,000 and $355,000 invested; owns two properties assessed at a total of $758,700; and has somewhere between $267,000 and $580,000 in savings. The incumbent, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter? Tut-tut. She's a ragamuffin. Shea-Porter lists savings and investments totaling less than $30,000. Oh, my."

"Excuse me, sir," I responded, "but we have a representative form of government. That is, elected representatives are expected to be like the people they represent. That way, elected officials can understand the problems of their constituents and act effectively in their best interests. Carol Shea-Porter experiences the same economic conditions as the vast majority of people in her district. She has walked a mile in their shoes and knows the challenges they face. Her modest financial condition is an advantage, not a disadvantage."

"One other thing," I added. "As Harry Truman said, 'You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook.' I guess we can be pretty sure that Congresswoman Shea-Porter is honest."

This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.

Fewer Jobs & Larger Deficits if GOP were in charge

by: nhveedub

Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:13:07 PM EDT

The Republicans are yelling they are better for the economy, but the facts don't support their argument. We should make sure everyone knows: The GOP is worse for jobs and worse for the deficit.

...if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward-and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to-the projected 2010-2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

How about those Bush tax cuts that will 'kill job creation' if allowed to expire?

...economist William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution has noted,...that "of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck." In fact, he continues, "letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits, [or] tax credits favoring job creation ... would have about three times the impact ... as continuing the Bush tax cuts."

Kelly would reduce the deficit

by: Lucy Edwards

Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 18:00:19 PM EDT

Interesting piece by Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly, in which he mentions Gregg's anointed successor, Kelly Ayotte.  It appears that a Republican Senator from Idaho, Mike Crapo, asked the CBO to address what repealing the healthcare act would do to the deficit.  Turns out it would increase the deficit by a whopping half a trillion dollars over the next decade.  Not the answer he wanted, I am sure.

NH Republicans would do well to read this

by: Lucy Edwards

Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 07:16:59 AM EDT

Parties, of course, can change; politicians can see the light; lessons can be learned; and perhaps some Republicans have learned them. But you cannot start from scratch. You cannot forget history. You cannot pretend that the Republican Party has not supported big and wasteful spending programs -- energy subsidies, farm subsidies, unnecessary homeland security projects, profligate defense contracts, you name it -- for the past decade. Before the GOP can have credibility on any spending issues whatsoever, Republican leaders need to speak frankly about the mistakes of the past.

Annals of Great Tax Policy, 2001 Edition

by: Dean Barker

Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:53:52 AM EDT

In New Hampshire, 36 percent of the (Bush) tax cut went to the top 1 percent of earners, those with an income of $368,000 or more, according to a 2001 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal public policy organization. Those taxpayers received an average tax cut of $58,179, while taxpayers with an income of $41,300 - the average of the middle 20 percent of incomes - saved $712, according to the report.

I Just Want To Get My Life Back

by: Gary Patton

Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 22:00:25 PM EDT

Just listening to these words seemed to anger Crawford even more. "And there's more. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said, 'You know, we should not be giving cash to people who basically are just going to blow it on drugs.' Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said, 'That doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek work."

"My, my," I responded, "I hate to disturb these tirades with a few facts. Do you know that nationwide there are five job seekers for each job that is available? I guess the other four will just have to look harder for a job that isn't there."

"Peter S. Gordon has visited areas of high unemployment throughout the nation. He writes in the New York Times, 'I just want to get my life back.' Different versions of this sentence have landed frequently in my notebook - in Cleveland, where a former homeowner told me of camping in her car after she lost the place to foreclosure; in Newton, Iowa, where a man who had earned middle-class wages turning steel into refrigerators broke into tears as he described his inability to provide medical care for a sick child after he lost his job; in Portland, where an unemployed marketing executive struggled to imagine how she would send her teenage daughter to college. Another regular notebook entry: 'I never saw myself as the sort of person who would land on public assistance.'"

"Well, that's not all." groused Crawford. "The money we give jobless people just adds to the deficit. Any money we give them should be balanced by a reduction in government spending."

"That's an interesting idea, Crawford," I replied. "Let's pursue it a little further. A deficit occurs when money coming into the government, like taxes, is less than the money going out through spending. Republican Senator Kyl says that unemployment compensation must be paid for by a spending cut somewhere else."

"But wait a minute," I continued, "Sen. Kyl opposes letting the Bush tax cuts for wealthy individuals who make more than $200,000 per year lapse after 2010. And that loss will balloon the deficit immensely. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. Remember, a deficit occurs when taxes are less than spending. But, Sen. Kyl says that we don't have to compensate for this loss in tax revenue. He is willing to let the deficit increase due to tax cuts, but not for unemployment compensation. Kyl is contradicting himself."

Crawford beamed brightly. "Well, that's because a tax cut stimulates the economy so much that it creates more than enough revenue for the government to compensate for the tax loss. Just get out of our way, and let the free market solve all our problems."

"That's not what conservative economist Mark Zandi says. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC explained Zandi's thinking. 'Every buck that the government spends on an across-the-board tax cut creates $1.02 in economic activity. Not very much bang for that buck. Every dollar the government spends on unemployment benefits, on the other hand, creates $1.63 in economic activity. That money is spent. It goes right back into the economy. It makes sense. You're giving money to people who are broke and don't have jobs and desperately need money. They need to be able to spend that money. It goes into the economy, it drives demand, it helps the whole country's economy."

"I can think of other reasons why arch-conservatives favor tax cuts, but not unemployment benefits," I added. "They are selfish tightwads who don't care all that much about what happens to other people."

Gary Patton
Hampton, NH

This column appeared first in The Forum. It appears here with the consent of The Forum.

Carol was right!

by: Lucy Edwards

Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 20:24:42 PM EDT

but if you just want to read one line, the ACA wipes out about a quarter to a third of our long-term deficit -- and that's in the nasty scenario, where we continue things like the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare doc fixes.

Stop eating bananas because

by: Lucy Edwards

Mon Jul 05, 2010 at 09:20:25 AM EDT

But to say "because we're not adopting measures that close the long-term deficit, we need short-term fiscal austerity" doesn't make any kind of sense. It'd be like a pack-a-day guy deciding that it's hard to quit smoking so he's going to stop eating bananas.

This goes on and on, and it would appear that the problem is not so much the economics since even John McCain's former economics guy doesn't think cutting spending now will fix anything.

Wrong direction - more "hard" economics plus history

by: Lucy Edwards

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:55:14 AM EDT

If anything, the initial stages of our own recent crisis were more severe than the Great Depression. Global trade, industrial production and stocks all dropped more in 2008-9 than in 1929-30, as a study by Barry Eichengreen and Kevin H. O'Rourke found.

Penny pinching

by: Lucy Edwards

Mon Jun 21, 2010 at 06:56:49 AM EDT

However, this does make some sense to this layperson:

Penny-pinching at a time like this isn't just cruel; it endangers the nation's future. And it doesn't even do much to reduce our future debt burden, because stinting on spending now threatens the economic recovery, and with it the hope for rising revenues.

Judd Gregg to New Hampshire workers: "Drop Dead"

by: Michael Marsh

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 11:58:04 AM EST

Not exactly earth shattering, but every little bit helps when we are in the worst recession in our lives.  

Judd Gregg to Cut Deficit

by: Dean Barker

Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 20:07:35 PM EST

The Monkey Wrench swings in any direction it wishes, apparently.