Spokane7
65°
April 17, 2011 in Opinion
Budget talk, from soup to nuts
Oh no! He’s back with another number-infested column about that most scintillating of topics: the federal budget. Bet his idea of a good time is a bowl of soup and an evening with C-SPAN.
You know, I could do a Charlie Sheen-like rant, but I see that his road show was just canceled. So I figure America is finally coming to its senses and is ready for a serious discussion.
But first, a joke: This guy walks into his doctor wiggling his hand and says, “It hurts when I do this.” The doctor replies, “Then don’t do that.”
Hmm … I’m sensing a transition into the dry-as-Melba-toast stuff.
There’s a lot we’ll need to stop doing if we have any hope of controlling budgetary pain.
Nailed it! Oh, yes, please. Tell us about the pain.
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who served on President Barack Obama’s deficit commission and endorsed its report, said, “We keep kicking the can down the road and splashing the soup all over our grandchildren.”
You have to admit that would hurt, particularly if it were heated first.
What is it with you and soup? Anyway, nice use of a Republican to show bipartisanship.
Thanks. I would’ve used U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, but as a commission member he voted against the plan. Instead, he’s calling for an overhaul of Medicare as one of the ways to cut government spending.
Yeah, like that’s gonna happen. What next? Ending Social Security as we know it?
Actually, he avoided that altogether. But you’re right about reality. In a recent Gallup Poll, respondents were given four options on Medicare:
1. Overhaul it
2. Major changes
3. Minor changes
4. Don’t try to control costs
Let me guess. The liberals said, “Hands off! Spend whatever it takes!”
Actually, that was the top choice of Republicans. Democrats liked “minor changes” best. An overwhelming majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents preferred one or the other.
Fell right into that trap, didn’t I?
Pretty much.
That doesn’t bode well for Ryan’s plan within his own caucus, does it?
No, and I get goose bumps every time you say “caucus.” Been sneaking in a little C-SPAN yourself?
Just when I’m avoiding commercials on “Two and a Half Men.” So in reality, Ryan’s plan is dead on arrival. Now what? Obama’s plan?
Doubt it. First, many will reflexively oppose it because he proposed it. Better to look at a bipartisan effort.
You’re circling back to that deficit commission, aren’t you?
Yep. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles were the chairmen. One is a folksy Republican. The other is named Erskine Bowles. It just screams “bean counter.”
I doubt anyone would scream that. Except you.
The panel notes that debt as a portion of Gross Domestic Product is over 60 percent at this point. Under its plan, it would dip to under 40 percent by 2040 and continue dropping from there. Under current law, meaning Congress passes no legislation to alter the budget, such as continuing the Bush tax cuts, debt would rise to above 80 percent of GDP by 2040. Under some likely policy moves (e.g., renewal of tax cuts for those with incomes below $250,000, annual Alternative Minimum Tax patches, continuing the “doctor fix,” meaning raising how much Medicare will pay them), debt would rise to 100 percent of GDP in about a dozen years and to 200 percent around 2038.
Wow, you actually read the report. OK, so what? I’ll be dead.
By 2025, we’ll only have enough revenue to finance Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. For everything else, we’ll have to borrow the money.
Well, that is a bit alarming. But how would the commission solve this?
With cuts to just about everything, including defense, Medicare and Medicaid. It reforms the tax code to generate more revenue over current projections. It keeps “Obamacare” but accelerates its provisions that control health care costs. It also calls for some changes to Social Security to put it on firmer long-term footing by gradually increasing the retirement age and lowering annual benefit increases.
Oh, is that all? Now I have a joke for you. This guy walks into a psychiatrist and says, “Nobody will talk to me.” And the psychiatrist says, “Next!”
I know the feeling. And so does Erskine Bowles.
Smart Bombs is written by Associate Editor Gary Crooks and appears Sundays on the Opinion page. He can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or at (509) 459-5026.
Smart Bombs: Greatest generation? Not us 
hawken on April 17 at 8:26 a.m.
Gary Crooks,,,, Leonard Pitts,,,, Leonard Pitts,,,, Gary Crooks.
A Few Facts on the Record:
1- House Republicans have written and passed a budget which cuts $6.7 trillion over 10 years. Not supported by a single Democrat.
2- Obama and the Democrats chose not to even do a budget for 2011 due October 1, 2010. Why? November elections 2010. Democrats did NOT want to seen as the big spend liberals they are.
3- Obama’s so-called, recent budget proposal consists of a so-called, 9 page fact sheet. No details. I guess he’s keeping with the Pelosi line,,, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it.”
4- The only reason they have even a 9 page fact sheet, is because they had to do SOMETHING to respond to Paul Ryan’s Republican budget. Otherwise, even the most gullible and naive would see the smoke and mirrors of the Democrats for what it is.
5- Presidents typically submit a detailed budget to the congress. So where is your “detailed budget Mr. President?”
6- Obama’s $800 Billion “stimulus” is a proven “bust.” Now, we’re $800 Billion more in debt.
Unemployment remains very high. The U6 unemployment rate remains over 15% (15.7% in the most recent, March Report).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Didn’t Obama assure us that in spending the $800 Billion that are unemployment would be less than 8%??? Last summer?
7- Under Obama’s watch, the FED has printed $600 Billion in fresh, new, crisp, dollar bills,,,,, out of thin air, thus devaluing the value of the dollar even more.
8- Inflation is here. It is real and it will get worse. If you have any doubts, you don’t buy groceries or gasoline.
*Obama has demonstrated that he is the “champion” tax and spend, big government liberal.
*Obama has demonstrated his ability to “run up record deficits.”
*Obama has also demonstrated his inability to lead and govern.
*Obama has also demonstrated that he is the “Quintessential Campaigner In Chief.”
DickAdams on April 17 at 9:01 a.m.
I don`t why I even waste my time reading Crooks. Soup to nuts, is correct. Nut case Gary Crooks et al.
gmorton on April 17 at 10:38 a.m.
That was a funny column, Crooks. You may be a political naif, but you know how to write.
hawken on April 17 at 11:32 a.m.
gmorton:
Excellent use of “naif” as an adjective in your writing!
I’m assuming that your usage is an abbreviation of “faux-naïf.” Which would be even more excellent.
greenlibertarian on April 17 at 8:25 p.m.
Naif is a noun.
Decrease the ignorance, please.
Any plan that doesn’t make major cuts to the defense budget AND doesn’t raise revenues is not a serious plan but merely a joke.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 18 at 5:14 a.m.
The elephant in the room is the “Defense Budget” both on and off the books spending on war and mayhem. There in lies the rub… the answer is within our own human nature, part of which is to kill and control and abuse other people…. john
garyc on April 18 at 12:37 p.m.
Thanks, Mort.
Under current law, the CBO projects the debt to balloon to 67 percent of GDP by 2022; under Ryan’s plan, the CBO expects it to rise to 70 percent.
gmorton on April 18 at 8:12 p.m.
ChefGus wrote,
“The elephant in the room is the ‘Defense Budget’ both on and off the books spending on war and mayhem.”
That is only one of the elephants in the room. There are whole herd of them.
gmorton on April 18 at 8:21 p.m.
garyc wrote,
“Under current law, the CBO projects the debt to balloon to 67 percent of GDP by 2022; under Ryan’s plan, the CBO expects it to rise to 70 percent.”
Well, we should take the CBO’s (or indeed anyone’s) economic projections 10 years out with a grain of salt. But they are likely right that Ryan’s plan is insufficient. If he would cut defense with the same enthusiasm that he brought to cuts in domestic programs, modest though they are, he would at least reverse the trend. But balancing the budget within 10 years will require far deeper cuts in both the welfare state and defense.
greenlibertarian on April 18 at 8:50 p.m.
Totally agree gmorton. Any spending/revenue projection more than 5 years out…, well there’s a low confidence level in those numbers.
Obama played games with this as well, 12 years out, ridiculous.
Also agree that cutting defense spending is absolutely necessary in any meaningful budget reform.
greenlibertarian on April 18 at 9:48 p.m.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135464226/reagans-budget-director-taking-no-sides
Nothing but smoke and mirrors.