About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

So now it's fiscally conservative to oppose deficit reduction?

November 23, 2009 4:34 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Apparently the Washington Post's Perry Bacon thinks so.  Either that, or he somehow missed the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says the Senate health care bill would reduce the deficit: 

Arlington, VA: Of all the Senators, only Voinowich of Ohio, a Republican, did not vote. As he voted on other legislation that day, could the non-vote indicate that he might be supportive of the health care bill?

Perry Bacon Jr.: I'm pretty sure he will be a no, he's retiring, but known as a strong fiscal conservative.

Bacon didn't bother to explain why being a "strong fiscal conservative" makes Voinovich likely to vote against legislation that would reduce the deficit.

I'm fine with "fiscally conservative" becoming synonymous with "running up massive deficits" -- that is what conservatives have done for the past few decades.  But I doubt that's what Bacon meant.  So why does he think a fiscal conservative should vote against deficit-reducing health care reform?

Tags: The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bruce1ace (November 23, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
      2  
      It's great that the CBO projects this current health care bill to reduce the deficit. There are a few details to work out before passage so the CBO will have to do new projections on the new bill that may or may not pass.

      Keep in mind that projections that haven't occurred yet don't actually reduce the deficit. Only until those years occur and the projections are proven to be accurate does the deficit get reduced. I'm not a fan of celebrating future years deficit reductions that haven't happened yet. Stuff tends to come up that takes priority over balancing the budget.

      AND YES, REPUBLICANS SUCK AT BALANCING THE BUDGET!!!

      I get that. I wish somebody would do it. It was great when Clinton did it. Maybe we could do it again someday.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (November 23, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
          1
        bruce...you're exactly correct, "Only until those years occur and the projections are proven to be accurate does the deficit get reduced".

        The claim of deficit reduction by relying on CBO numbers is a farce...but a good bluff. The CBO knows that their projections are never very accurate. Their purpose is to compare the relevant financial differences between two or more competing bills...not predict future cash flows.

        This from a 2001 PBS interview with Barry Anderson, the deputy director of the CBO:

        -- Here's our budget and economic outlook that we just issued this past January 31 that projects that the surpluses for the next ten years will be $5.6 trillion...

        If we have the same errors in the future that we've had in the past, then we can expect with some probability that instead of $400 billion surpluses, we might have a deficit five years hence of $50 or $60 billion...

        I know the Congress needs estimates that go out ten years and we will supply them. But we make no bones about it that there is an awful lot of uncertainty about what our projections are ten years hence. ..

        I would bet you many times $100 that Congress will enact legislation that will change those projections somewhere different than the $5.6 trillion. --

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (November 23, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
          1  
          So you, Wesley, are then just nothing more than the dime-a-dozen conservative regurgitating talking points, I see ...

          Only if the GOP, Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck say an act of Congress lowers the deficit, is it real, is that it?

          Because the non-partisan CBO teamed with accountants and economists must be off their rocker, right?

          Wesley and the conservatives know the real score, y'all: deficit reduction only counts when the American people get nothing back in return!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (November 23, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
              1
            I believe the CBO (non-partisan as it is) works with numbers provided within the bill under consideration and with assumptions that have in the past proven to be not very accurate.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (November 23, 2009 9:20 pm ET)
               
            -- Only if the GOP, Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck say an act of Congress lowers the deficit, is it real -- mk

            I don't need the GOP, Limbaugh or anyone else to coach me in my beliefs that our govt. is out of control...one only has to be awake and breathing to see the folly of congress.

            -- Because the non-partisan CBO teamed with accountants and economists must be off their rocker -- mk

            Nope...I've said repeatedly I don't fault the CBO...they are not charged with predicting the future...they are charged with scoring the bills in order to determine the difference between proposed legislation.

            Just as the CBO deputy director said, "I would bet you many times $100 that Congress will enact legislation that will change those projections".

            You would have to be stupid, naive, or blindly partisan to base your decision on the financial projections of healthcare legislation based on CBO projections.

            I don't thing Foser or mmfa is stupid or naive...



            Report Abuse
            • Author by mk3872 (November 24, 2009 9:57 am ET)
                 
              LOL! In other words, base your projections and forecasts on the source that WESLEY chooses. You know, one that shows huge deficits and the $2.5T made-up number from Sen Gregg.

              BTW, Wesley, if you honestly think that accountants and economists DON'T provide forecasts and projections, then you ought to just drop out of the conversation, because it is very possible that you know absolutely NOTHING about the topic!!
              Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (November 23, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
             
          Why are you reminding us of the fiscal outlook before Bush's tax cuts? It wasn't inaccurate; it just presumed we'd stay sane.

          You don't get to call out the government for sucking when it's your own party doing the sucking by passing bills that you wholeheartedly supported.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bruce1ace (November 23, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
               
            There you go, a perfect example of why projections don't mean squat. Stuff happens.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (November 23, 2009 10:13 pm ET)
                 
              So you either know enough to never vote for your party again, or you disagree with me.

              It doesn't sound like you disagree with me.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bruce1ace (November 23, 2009 10:46 pm ET)
                   
                Well your party and the guy I voted for this time has increassed the deficit by about 600 billion this year in an effort to fix the economy. There's always a reason for doing it but it's not just one party that does it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by steeve (November 23, 2009 11:13 pm ET)
                     
                  It's just one party that does it irrationally. There wasn't any semblance of a reason in 2001 or 2003.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (November 23, 2009 5:55 pm ET)
          1
        It sounds like if this program would reduce the deficit, all we need to do to get completely out of debt (as a country) would be to turn all programs over to the government. That would work, of course, as well as reducing taxes to near zero, because tax reductions build government revenues.
        Guess I need to go back to school and take a new economic theory class.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (November 23, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
          1  
          Yes, Oscar, you are 100% right!

          You DO need to take an economics class ...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (November 23, 2009 7:25 pm ET)
             
          Oscar, of course, thinks that a near-depression is the perfect time to pass massive tax hikes heavily weighted towards the poor.

          Deficits in bad times, surpluses in good times. I know we've rarely had surpluses in good times, but that's just because good times are when voters think it'll be fun to give those cuddly republicans another go.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (November 23, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
               
            We've rarely had a revenue problem in the history of our country...but we've always had a spending problem.

            Spanning republican and democrat presidents...republican or democrat congresses...the US treasury has nearly always received more annual revenue each year than the preceding year.

            It's spending that has run the deficit out of control...by the drunken yahoos in congress. Their abysmal behavior goes well beyond partisan rancor...it's a universal disease inflicting nearly all members of congress.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (November 23, 2009 10:48 pm ET)
                 
              The disease is so universal that it inflicts every single human being in the united states.

              There is nobody -- not one person -- who can even outline spending cuts on paper that significantly impact the budget. Whenever someone tries, they end up decimating real services that lots of real people really need.

              Throughout the 2008 campaign the republican party harped almost exclusively on earmarks -- less than 2% of spending, and even much of that was really needed. All the think tanks, all the bloggers, all the voters, unable to put down a plan to balance the budget on spending cuts.

              I wish we could throw the bums in congress out, but they can't even be theoretically replaced by people who will balance the budget on spending cuts.

              It's a last resort, I know, but it sounds like we'll have to raise taxes on the rich, which just so happens to work every time it's tried.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by RedChocobo (November 23, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
      1  
      Fiscally Conservative = No Taxes

      As much as they try to push that conservatives are against spending, with the neverending "War on Ideology" that they started, it's hard to believe that.
      But then again, that sort of spending goes right into their pockets and not to help the people of this country.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MeanMrSpicyMustard (November 23, 2009 7:45 pm ET)
         
      It's a nice sentiment to express (i.e., fiscal responsibility is not automatically at odds with government spending), but the point's kind of moot since Voinovich will most likely not be voting for the bill anyway. I'm from Ohio, and I've got a pretty good sense of the guy's voting record, and I doubt very seriously he'll be crossing party lines here. Makes me glad Sherrod Brown is on board with it and has become very vocal in the past few days in favor of reform.
      Report Abuse