From the Atlantic Monthly: If Republicans want to reduce the deficit--and they say they do!

They don't. Nor do Democrats. Nor does the Tea Party.

When the Democrats controlled BOTH houses AND the White House, THEY did a GREAT job on deficit control, didn't they?

Oh, wait, I know - that was Bush's fault, right?

When the Democrats controlled BOTH houses AND the White House, THEY did a GREAT job on deficit control, didn't they?

This response is classic deflection: Well, those guys over there are mugging old ladies for drug money, why aren't you giving THEM a hard time?

Well, Bill Clinton managed to reduce the deficit during his term...and even gave us a projected surplus. And before conservatives say it didn't happen, then why did Bush start the practice of giving stimulus checks? He certainly acted and spoke like there was a surplus operating.

And some conservatives will give their standard line...the robust economy was due to Reagan. Four to twelves years after his last term ended, and conservatives insist on undue credit for the economy we had during the Clinton years.

When the Democrats controlled BOTH houses AND the White House, THEY did a GREAT job on deficit control, didn't they?

The Democrats' argument was that deficit spending was necessary to avoid a depression, and that the deficit could be dealt with once the economy recovers. Whether you find this credible is up to you, but that's their line. What happens in the next couple of years will show whether Obama is serious at all about the deficit (and Republicans, too).

Nor does the Tea Party.

Why would you say that? Isn't that what the Tea Party's about -- responsible spending?

Well, Bill Clinton managed to reduce the deficit during his term...and even gave us a projected surplus.

1. With a Republican Congress.

2. He included welfare reform, which The One and his allies in Congress have subsequently undone.

3. Those projected surpluses where based on the stock market continuing at the pace it was going during the Internet stock bubble. How'd that work out?

Those projections are made of the same smoke & mirrors that projects Obamacare reducing the costs of medical care: a lot of wishful thinking and irrational exuberance.

then they should find some damn spending cuts to match the gargantuan tax cut they just demanded

Hey, Megan:

1. It isn't your money.
2. Tell me how raising taxes in a weak economy will improve the economy and lead to job growth, and not crash the economy?
3. It isn't your money.
4. All the wealthy who want to pay more in taxes should be encouraged to send additonal checks to the IRS. They'll take it, cheerfully.

I'm going to disagree.

Politicians may be slow learners but they are not completely oblivious. The Republicans lost Congress in large part to their excesses in the Bush era. The Democrats turned out to be bigger spendthrifts, and many of them were shown the door. Anyone who wants to keep a job has noticed.

The Tea party doesn't care about spending? On this planet, that's why it exists.

There are Democrats and Republicans from safe districts and states who can do pretty much what they please. That isn't true for those in the middle. Both parties, reluctantly, are going to make cuts because they have to.

Raising taxes in the middle of a recession isn't exactly a conventional economic strategy, but I don't write for the Atlantic. After TARP, Stimulus I and II failed to boost us out of recession, I see Obama put in a Social Security Tax cut. It appears the consensus is that the rates are too high and we are only arguing about what spending to cut to offset it.

The Goddess Writes: Why would you say that? Isn't that what the Tea Party's about -- responsible spending?

No. That's what they say they're about, to garner votes from their gullible supporters. The Tea Party candidates did indeed campaign on responsible spending. But you know politicians, I hope...unlike the Bambi-eyed Tea Party supporters, who smugly and self-righteously declared that their candidates were going to bring responsible spending and no earmarks back to Washington.

Whose elected, as of last month, demanded over a billion in earmarks. Didn't they play their supporters for fools? I'm only mildly disgusted with the Tea Party's elected reps...they're politicians, after all. If you encounter a snake, you expect it to act like a snake, not St. Francis of Assisi. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Tea Partiers however, for being that stupid.

Whose elected, as of last month, demanded over a billion in earmarks.

Ummm... could you give a link for that assertion. The only reason I ask, is that with, I believe, 4 exceptions, the Tea Party candidats didn't get seated until 2 days ago, so I'm not sure how they demanded those earmarks.

"Whose elected, as of last month, demanded over a billion in earmarks. "

How did they manage that, patrick, when they weren't even seated yet? Damn, they're pretty impressive!

How did they manage that, patrick, when they weren't even seated yet? Damn, they're pretty impressive!

Here's your link. You forget that the Tea Party didn't just include newbies, but also incumbents.

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/12/tea-party-caucu.php

Thanks for the link. Interesting, that most of those on that list joined in the middle of this last year. Sounds to me like a bunch of political hacks who decided to jump on the bandwagon for political expediency, and not true conviction.

In other words, typical politicians. I'll be interested to see what the newly seated do over the course of the next couple of years.

I don't care at all about the convictions of the so-called Tea Party politicians. (I don't think anybody won who was not a D or an R.)

Again, I don't care about their beliefs. I just want their asses in the pews, singing the hymns.

Cut the spending. The 111th Congress, in all its glory, is done. What are they doing now?

Ask Dan Maffei what he thinks about the Tea Party. In normal times, he'd have been representative for life. Instead, he's on the street, by about Gore's margin of defeat in Florida.

Just keep watching. The majority want a smaller, less intrusive government. Nobdy who runs for office wants to downsize their job, so we need to keep watching them. There are certainly no indispensable men in Congress. I don't miss Dan a bit and if Ann Marie doesn't deliver, I won't miss her either.

Folks need to remember, cutting spending means cutting spending, not eliminating wasteful, unimportant stuff you don't like, while retaining, or enlarging, the vital programs you do like. Cutting spending would inflict some pain on everybody, at least temporarily, so it would be awfully hard to campaign on a platform of specific cuts. You'd have to endure a huge amount of abuse even from your own party:

- Whaddya mean, don't build that aircraft carrier? It's vital to our defense (and the shipyard's in my state)!

- Are you serious? Don't you know how important Department of Education is for the country? Think of the children (and the NEA money that went into my war chest)!

Do I hold out much hope? No.

Hey, if you look in the right places, the cuts are already happening. Namely the DoD... headline today about looking for $788B over the next five years. Of course, that's against baseline budgeting, but still, it's $788B that was planned to be spent that won't be, assuming the plan holds. We've already been told at work to expect that the contract we're on will not be renewed after this year, and that the odds of winning anything new to offset our losses is unlikely. Blackfive has a bit about cutting 70,000 troops; not sure where he's getting that number, but it's a plausible story. (Civil service, of course, will not be impacted.)

C'est la vie; it's a constant in the aerospace industry. I'll find other work. But I'm going to be really pissed if the two agencies that have traditionally been the budget whipping boys over the last four decades -- the DoD and NASA -- are the only agencies that take cuts, while the rest of the government cruises along with its 10% per year increases like nothing happened.

Thanks for posting the link, Christopher. I was quoting a different source, but yours works just fine.

I'm generally disgusted with Tea Partiers, though I admit, it's occasionally interrupted with a brief moment of pity. Naivete and trust has its charm...when the afflicted is about 12 years old or younger. In someone old enough to vote, it tends to be disappointing.

You're welcome, Patrick.

But I'm going to be really pissed if the two agencies that have traditionally been the budget whipping boys over the last four decades -- the DoD and NASA -- are the only agencies that take cuts, while the rest of the government cruises along with its 10% per year increases like nothing happened.

Yep. Gates deserves to be applauded for his plans to cut the Pentagon's budget, which to my eye seem sensible and don't compromise our defense.

Next up: sensible plans to cut Medicare and Social Security outlays. Any serious plan to address the deficit must include those programs.

I may have commented on this before: Old short story I read -- you had to do your income taxes online, once you were done filling out the income and deductions, etc. -- the next step was to allocate your money to the government agencies as you desired. As an example you paid $4751 in taxes, you could allocate $100 to the DOD and the rest to the EPA. Or split equally among all on the list.

If we had such a system -- those who were not paying into the system would have no real say. Those who were paying in would show their desires.

To sleep, perchance to dream....