The Thurston Mittens the 3rd Veep Megathread

[DGuller]

I have a plan for tackling deficit.  Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses.  I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later.  What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.

This is not clever even by your standards.

I know my audience. 

[katmai]

I think i may have been insulted...

[The Minsky Moment]

[You seem to be contradicting yourself in the part about overall discretionary spending amounts and reaching zero in 20-30 years.  Either he provides hard numbers for discretionary spending, including zero, or he specifies discretionary spending as whatever residual is needed to meet deficit targets, in which case it could reach zero but then the unspecified caps make no sense.

I not contradicting myself so much as trying to put into words as best as I can that which inherently makes no sense.

The Ryan proposal as submitted to CBO for analysis in 2010 called for federal spending/GDP to fall to 20.25% in 2012, 18.75% in 2040,  and 14.75% in 2050.  Under his own proposal the budget doesn't hit balance until 2040 so that the later figures are not merely aspirational and optional but essential to the concept.

The last time outlays were under 15 percent GDP was before WW2.  To even suggest such a thing automatically puts one in Ron Paul nutbag territory. 

The last time outlays were under 19 percent was almost 50 years ago (1966).  At that time mandatory entitlement spending was under 5 percent, now we are at 14-15 percent.  14-15% mandatory spending means that even if such spending is capped as % of GDP, there would be only 4% of GDP to spend on everything else combined by 2040, and less than nothing by 2050.

Ok.  But what if Paul Ryan waves his magic wand and magically reduces the mandatory spending by a third without throwing codgers and dying poor people out on the street and gets the total to around 10 percent GDP.  Then the 2040 figure looks almost reachable, even if the 2050 one is still a pipe dream.

But right now we are just hitting the front end of the wave of retiring boomers and we can also expect life expectancy to keep rising, which historically has been a driver of entitlement costs.  So the fantasy of achieving really deep cuts in health and pension spending in the future is just that.  The reality is that we will really have to struggle to keep total fed spending under 25% of GDP unless we are willing to radically reconsider the structure of our economy, our government, and the social contract.

My take from all this is that I don't see how anyone who is not zombie-Norquist ranting ideologue looks at the plan and can take it seriously.

[The Minsky Moment]

One more thing:
If you really start to squeeze down on the federal budget, one thing that has to take a big hit is aid to the states.
But the states are getting killed right now - if anything more federal aid is needed now more than ever to maintain essential services or forestall some nasty tax hikes.

Squeezing the states just to get the federal accounting aggregates into balance is kind of pointless because it just shifts the problem to another sovereign in the same federal system, and one that happens to be more vulnerable and volatile.

[Admiral Yi]

What confuses me about your first post is, what's the point of submitting the plan to CBO analysis if you already have the debt/GDP ratios?  That's the whole point of CBO analysis, to determine what effect proposed changes to tax laws and spending rules and amounts will have on the deficit, and on GDP growth.

As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries.  It also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.  If the people of a given state want to set the bar for Medicaid low, or pay their employees generously, or provide cheap higher education to large numbers of residents, let the residents of that state pay for it with their taxes.

[dps]

Not sure what you're getting at.  Fully socialized medical care in old age is a right given by God?

Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.

[The Brain]

I have a plan for tackling deficit.  Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses.  I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later.  What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.

You can't be president.

[Martinus]

Ok, I may be completely wrong but my take on this is: Romney/Ryan seem like a not-so-offensive ticket, much easier to swallow for moderates or even Democrats who concentrate on cultural issues. So it will not mobilize that many Democrats to go and vote. On the other hand, Obama has a very strong negative electorate among the God and guns crowd, so they will rush to vote to put the "Negro in chief" out of power even if Romney/Ryan are not their ideal pair. So this seems like an overall good choice for Romney.

[DGuller]

I have a plan for tackling deficit.  Basically, my plan calls for the reduction of difference between revenues and expenses.  I don't have the details yet, but that can be worked out later.  What I have now will already pass Yi's muster.

You can't be president.

  My brilliant plan has gone to waste. 

[Martinus]

Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience.

They are going 100% on economy which just might work.

[Razgovory]

Can't spout bullshit about natural law on the stump, and then use Ayn Rand for your budget.

The only people who are going to buy that line are the people that already believe in the right to free money.

What do you mean by "free money"?

[CountDeMoney]

Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience.

They are going 100% on economy which just might work.

Democrats tried that for years.  Didn't work.

[Martinus]

Interesting to see the Republicans going with a ticket with zero foreign policy experience.

They are going 100% on economy which just might work.

Democrats tried that for years.  Didn't work.

Well, I don't know about the US but at least here, the economy is traditionally considered the conservatives' forte by the general public (even those who vote left wing), whereas the left is better on social and human rights stuff.

But yeah it reminds to be seen whether Romney will be another Kerry or not.

[CountDeMoney]

They are going 100% on economy which just might work.

Democrats tried that for years.  Didn't work.

Well, I don't know about the US but at least here, the economy is traditionally considered the conservatives' forte by the general public (even those who vote left wing), whereas the left is better on social and human rights stuff.

But yeah it reminds to be seen whether Romney will be another Kerry Mondale or not.

[Razgovory]

I don't think he'll go down as bad as Mondale, but perhaps like Kerry.  In fact, I suspect he actually is Kerry in a clever disguise.