So we hit the debt limit...

[grumbler]

You know, this would be fucking hilarious if it weren't so serious.  Or at least if it weren't about to happen to us.  I can't believe we have people who are willing to tank the US economy if they don't get their way on a budget.  I'm not exactly sure even why they are actually doing it.  I don't buy the concern about the debt.  They didn't care about it the debt and deficit 10 years ago, what suddenly made them see things differently?  I suspect that as soon as Republican President is a elected, they'll forget all about this debt and deficit talk.  I mean, they've done that twice in the last thirty years.  What indicator is there that they won't do it again?

Total US debt tripled under Reagan and doubled under Dubya.  The miraculous restoration of the fiscal virginity of the Republicans is not convincing.

[crazy canuck]

Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.

The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise.  That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.

But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides?  In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time.  But they cant hold the country to ransom.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.

The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise.  That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.

But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides?  In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time.  But they cant hold the country to ransom.

It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process.  The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation

[crazy canuck]

It seems to me your system works pretty well outside of budgetary matters.  For example you have sub-committees that seem to work in a number of areas.  As an outsider looking in it seems that the sub-committee system isnt really used for budget creation.  Instead you get people taking hard positions and then only meeting at the last minute.

[Barrister]

Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.

The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise.  That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.

But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides?  In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time.  But they cant hold the country to ransom.

Did you suddenly forget about the last 6 years of minority rule?

[Admiral Yi]

I'd like very much to know the details about the proposed cuts to Medicare.  One huge problem with proposing cuts to Medicare is that there is in effect no Medicare budget, only a target.  And if that target is breeched then next year's payment schedule is supposed to be reduced, unless Congress votes to not reduce the schedule.  Which Congress has done every year except one.  So if Obama's proposal is more of the same then I'm not that impressed.

[Martinus]

I admit, I don't fully know the difference between debt and deficiet.  My understanding was that debt was how much you owe total and deficit is how much in the red you are on a yearly budget.

That's correct.

Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?

[grumbler]

It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process.  The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation

I think some of our northern neighbors just don't get the system of checks and balances (having nothing like it except by tradition), and think it is a major flaw in the US constitutional arrangement.  I don't really blame them; they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful.  The US system of government was set up to avoid the flaws of the British system, and ended up with some flaws of its own, but I still think it works far better than a Parliamentary system in most areas.  In budgeting, maybe not so much.

[Admiral Yi]

Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?

It does not include the interest portion of debt servicing.

[Martinus]

Also, this may be a dumb question, but if you can't find enough ways to reduce the expenses, how about, you know, doing it the way all normal countries do, and raise taxes?

[grumbler]

Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?

Debt service is a budget line item (or series of them, actually) and so included in any operating deficit.

[Martinus]

Does the deficit figure already include the cost of servicing the debt or is it counted on top of the deficit?

It does not include the interest portion of debt servicing.

What other portion is there?

[Admiral Yi]

What other portion is there?

Principle coming due.

[Martinus]

Is there any movement in the US to make your budgetary process work better.

The budgetary process isn't really the problem; the problem is that the political system as a whole is designed to require political compromise.  That is fine in concept but breaks down if there are enough individual officeholders for whom compromise is anathema.

But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides?  In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time.  But they cant hold the country to ransom.

It's a weakness of the entire constitutional architecture, nothing specific to the budgetary process.  The budget, because it involves the lawmaking process, has to conform to the general rules that apply for all legislation

I think what CC means is that in many countries (for example, Poland) you have special constitutional rules for the budget. Stuff like fast track voting, limited ability of the Parliament to add items to the budget proposed by the cabinet, or a right of the Head of State to dissolve the Parliament if the budget is not approved by a certain date.

[Martinus]

What other portion is there?

Principle coming due.

I assumed this is just rolled over.