So we hit the debt limit...

[derspiess]

They were until they got strong-armed into voting for it.

Where are you getting this from?  I heard reservations expressed about certain parts of the original proposal, but not the entire concept.

On a certain level, everyone on both sides of the aisle favored some sort of "health care reform".

But anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865363472782519.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/blue-dogs-backsliding-on_n_212730.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-10/politics/house.health.care_1_blue-dogs-public-option-medicare-rates?_s=PM:POLITICS

[Neil]

I wonder how one strong-arms a Congressman?

Plenty of ways.  Withhold election funds from the national committeee.  Withhold presidential drive bys during the campaign.  Withhold choice committee assignments.  Give him a shitty office.

Do the Democrats treat the Blue Dogs especially well vis-a-vis committees?  And would they want Obama showing up to glad-hand them in their districts?

[Admiral Yi]

Do the Democrats treat the Blue Dogs especially well vis-a-vis committees?  And would they want Obama showing up to glad-hand them in their districts?

I know Pelosi threw Blue Dogs under the bus wholesale, but I think things are handled differently in the Senate.  For example the chairman of the Senate committee (Budget? Health and Human Services?) that handled Obamacare is a Blue Dog.  So maybe you're right, that's not a useful whip.

[Admiral Yi]

On a certain level, everyone on both sides of the aisle favored some sort of "health care reform".

But anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865363472782519.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/blue-dogs-backsliding-on_n_212730.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-10/politics/house.health.care_1_blue-dogs-public-option-medicare-rates?_s=PM:POLITICS

Only managed to slug my way through your first link, but the concerns mentioned in that article appear to have been accomodated.  No public option.  Revenue neutral (sort of).  Too onerous for small business (don't really know about this one).

[grumbler]

Which would you say was more important in turning the deficit into a surplus:  The Budget Act of 1993 or the dot-com bubble?

The budget act; the dot-com bubble is over-rated as a revenue enhancer, IMO, though it certainly had an effect (amplified by the increased taxes on top earners).

The whole economy was growing in this period, not just the dot-coms.  I'd say welfare reform (which came after the Democrats lost both houses of Congress, but still supported by many Democrats) was also more important than the dot-com bubble in allowing for budget surpluses. 

This isn't to argue that we can "trust the Democrats" today, since the character of the Democratic Party appears to have shifted to the left since then (at least amongst elected Federal representatives).  It is just to argue that the argument that Democrats always want to increase spending faster than the economy is growing doesn't seem to be true. 

[grumbler]

Fine-- so the Dems showed that they can raise taxes and benefit from the tech bubble to balance the budget.  How about we revert to Clinton-era tax rates *and* spending levels?

I would certainly support that.  There is no question in my mind that spending is a problem today; the question is whether or not spending cuts should be the only solution attempted (and whether or not unemployment is a bigger problem than spending).  I don't believe so on the former, and am undecided on the latter.

[dps]

Do the Democrats treat the Blue Dogs especially well vis-a-vis committees?  And would they want Obama showing up to glad-hand them in their districts?

I know Pelosi threw Blue Dogs under the bus wholesale, but I think things are handled differently in the Senate.  For example the chairman of the Senate committee (Budget? Health and Human Services?) that handled Obamacare is a Blue Dog.  So maybe you're right, that's not a useful whip.

IIRC, in the Senate, senoirity is still pretty important when it comes to chairmanships and committee assignments.  In the House, not so much.

[Razgovory]

Fine-- so the Dems showed that they can raise taxes and benefit from the tech bubble to balance the budget.  How about we revert to Clinton-era tax rates *and* spending levels?

I would certainly support that.  There is no question in my mind that spending is a problem today; the question is whether or not spending cuts should be the only solution attempted (and whether or not unemployment is a bigger problem than spending).  I don't believe so on the former, and am undecided on the latter.

It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible.  Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class.  Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.

[derspiess]

It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible.  Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class.  Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.

Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible

But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.

[KRonn]

It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible.  Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class.  Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.

Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible

But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.

Heh, they're debating about getting the budget balanced in 5 to 10 years! Then there will be the need to start  paying off a by then 15-20 trillion dollar deficit! Staggering sums of money.   

The US is a staggeringly wealthy nation, to be able to rack up such massive debt!   

[MadImmortalMan]

But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.

I actually have no problem with doing that. I don't see why it must go up 7% a year as a baseline at all. Inflation isn't anywhere near that.

[Razgovory]

It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible.  Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class.  Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.

Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible

But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.

I am skeptical. 

Note that Democrats did agree to spending cuts.  Where are the Republicans agreeing to tax increases?

[DGuller]

It seems like a reasonable option, but all but politically impossible.  Nobody is that keen on tax increases, the Dems have made it a point not to raise taxes on the middle class.  Republicans are anathema to the idea of any tax increase.

Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible

But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.

We're going to have to freeze population growth too. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Allowing all the temporary tax cuts to expire, and cutting spending deeply in both domestic and defense will, I think, be the fastest road to recovery.  I think people don't trust sweet-tasting medicine, and I think that, in this case, they are right not to.

Even the modest plan adopted by Congress anticipates cutting defense + discretionary domestic spending to under 5.5% of GDP within a decade.  You would have to go back a long time to get to that low a spending figure.  I don't think it is feasible, even if the international security situation improves over the next 10 years (and IMO the opposite is more likely).

Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that is where the money is.  In the federal budget, the money is the "mandatory" spending categories, and entitlements in particular.

[grumbler]

Taxes aren't what makes it impossible-- cutting spending from 3.8 trillion (projected for 2011) to 1.8 trillion (2000 budget) is what would be politically impossible

If we simply spent FY2000 dollars (to which you make the comparison) today, we'd reduce the deficit by almost a trillion dollars.  If we spent 1985 dollars, we'd have the same government expenditure as 2000 without cutting a thing.

I think it is politically possible to cut spending from 25% of GDP to the 2000 level of 18% of GDP.  What is probably much more difficult is getting federal revenues from 14% of GDP to 18%, since the wackos have sworn to not allow this, and I don't think the Republicans can pass any laws with the six Congressman who didn't take the oath. 

But hell, if we simply froze (in real terms) federal spending at the 2011 amount without doing anything about revenue, we'd have the budget balanced by 2015 or 2016.

I very much doubt that.  The economy would have to grow much, much faster than inflation for that to happen, and no such growth is forecast.