Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

From the article:

"There's the paralyzing contradiction. The politics of "yes" must ultimately yield to the politics of "no" -- and the longer it's delayed, the more painful it will be."

It's as if the Bush administration saddled Medicare with a very expensive program that greatly benefits the Pharmaceutical industry in order to hasten the demise of Medicare itself by bringing it closer to insolvency, and making the budget less flexible in dealing with funding crises.

If the deficit continues to careen out of control, the axe will need to fall on many programs in order to right the ship. Medicare will feel the cut, and the argument about its unwiedly size will be bolstered by Bush's fiasco of a drug program.

Or maybe it just seems that way.

I thought the Samuelson article conflated social security and Medicare/Medicaid in a way that was not helpful. Even with moderate assumptions, the SS problem is limited. Medicare/Medicaid presents a much more severe problem with fewer clean solutions.

I think that Juan Peron might be an acceptable compromise on the Godwin's Law question. Probably Bush isn't really a Hitler, but it's not much of a stretch to call him a Peron.

Next: "Laura!", the musical. Julie Andrews would have been good in the lead part, but she can't sing any more.

I suppose that Madonna could reinvent herself again. That way Bush could strengthen his position with the all-important vogue demographic.

Were Democrats really that fiscally responsible in the 1980s and 1990s?

Brian wrote, "Were Democrats really that fiscally responsible in the 1980s and 1990s?"

1990s: Democrats raised the highest tax bracket (1993). See
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php#table

The most successful recent legislation for containing spending growth was the Congressional Budget Act, essentially a compromise between Bush 41 and Congressional Democrats. Congressional Republicans decided not to renew it (2001 or 2002).

Did Democrats really try and restrain the growth in non-defense domestic spending more than Reagan and Bush 41 wanted to?

[Yep.]

This is politically frustrating.

Fiscal discipline doesn't win votes, as exemplified by the recent election. The Republican party is coasting on reputation of fiscal discipline, but spending like mad.

They're happy to spend as much as they can on things they favor, while they've got control, and they've sold a lot of people on the idea that they're doing it so the money can't be spent later.

Clinton cut debt as a fraction of GDP by about 10%, but the Democratic Party lost control of Congress in the process of getting there.

Bush 43 wiped out that progress in just four years.

Now we've got a bunch of tax cuts that have built in sunset provisions. This, theoretically, means govt might start being paid for again around the turn of the decade, when demographics start working against balance.

But they also allow the GOP to keep hitting up their constituencies and accepting bids on which voting or contributing blocs get the goodies.

Progressives really need to figure out a way to put their newfound fundraising abilities to efficient use in elections. Mid-term election in 2006 is a prime opportunity.

I wonder what they think will actually happen as a consequence of their "starve the government" strategy -- cutting taxes to force an end to entitlement spending? When S hits the fan -- assuming the public is still allowed to vote on such things (Ohio brings that into question) -- I think the military budget is much, much more likely to take the hit than Medicare or Social Security. Medicare and SS is US and people we know and care about.

"If the deficit continues to careen out of control, the axe will need to fall on many programs in order to right the ship."

The first place the axe needs to fall is on the welfare, I mean tax cuts, for the rich.

"Fiscal discipline doesn't win votes, as exemplified by the recent election"

I am not 100% convinced. Historically the party the consistantly warns about the crisis and then wins and tackles that crisis is able to hold on to power for a very long time.
I would bring to the exibit gallery
Margaret Thatcher and the UK Tories in 79
Australian Tories in the 1980s
The Liberal Party of Canada in 1993

The Liberal Party of Canada example is perhaps the most important for Democrats because it shows how independents can become part of a center left voting block if the center left party becomes rock ribbed sound money types. Then conservative tax cutting ideas can become linked permanently with fiscal irresponsibility in the public mind. Progressives are then trusted with tax policy because they won't "sell the house"

But Democratic Congressmen have not really clued in to the potential of fiscal responsibility rhetoric and language. I would say Governors and state level democrats do understand this. Part of it is that the American Public do not really believe that America can falter. (Unlike Canadian politicians who were only too aware of how mercyless the international bond market could be).

But this is one of those occassions where it would pay for Democrats to be a bit ahead of the Public.

It will be fun if the dems can successfully use the "It's the economy, stupid" meme again in 2008.

Democrats: The party of fiscal sanity!