« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Washington Post discovers fiscal responsibility.

The Washington Post, alas, gets this editorial wrong in the very first sentence:

NO ONE LIKES to be the bearer of bad news — especially when it could threaten your multibillion-dollar health-care reform bill.

Come, I will conceal nothing from you: considering the amount of time that the Right’s bloggers, pundits, and legislators have spent explaining why the Democrats in Congress needed to institute a Stop spending money we don’t have, you idiots policy, well.  We do live here, too, so our liking is hardly unalloyed – but we did say that this wasn’t going to work*.  Moving on:

And so the Obama administration did not exactly rush to publish yesterday’s required mid-session update to its federal budget estimates of last February. Still, once the numbers finally emerged in the dog days of August, they retained the power to stun: Instead of a cumulative $7.1 trillion deficit over the next decade, the White House now projects a $9 trillion deficit. These figures imply average annual budget deficits greater than 4 percent of gross domestic product through fiscal 2019, a rate of debt accumulation faster than projected GDP growth. This is not a sustainable fiscal path.

That passage is accurate enough, as far as it goes – one wonders if the Washington Post is still happy that it endorsed this state of affairs by endorsing the current President, but newspapers have a long history of not needing to repudiate their bad judgment calls – and so is its conclusion (again: Stop spending money we don’t have, you idiots).  But I’d like to take this opportunity to remind the Washington Post that if the Bush administration was ‘irresponsible’ in passing last year’s bailout, he’s in excellent company.  Never forget that this bill only passed on the second try, and with a minority of Republican votes even after some epic arm-twisting.

As it happens, I don’t particularly want to yell at either the President or Congressional Democrats for making what was at the time an emergency judgment call.  But I’ll be damned if I’ll let Bush take exclusive blame for it, either.

MoeLane

*And, for everybody about to complain about how bad the GOP was, here:

Apparently, when the Democrats complained about ‘out of control deficits’ they meant out of their control. They’ve certainly made up for it since 2007, huh?

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • Thomas_Hauber

    Look at the story posted here:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/08/26/projected-budget-deficit-based-make-believe-economics

    Seems that the budget revision Obama posted includes some things which are not necessarily true. For example Can n’ Trade and health care savings. The actual numbers might be closer to 11 trillion.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I think, in the end, I think deficit spending will kill health care. Right now, there are so many streams of attack tht are sticking.

    But this is the closer. Come October. Conservatives should have these figures memorized.

  • Jim

    “And, for everybody about to complain about how bad the GOP was, here:”

    So Bush and the Republican congress were really bad at balancing the budget, and Obama and the Democrat congress are really, really, terribly, scary bad at balancing the budget. So then I agree, both parties are woefully irresponsible and are driving this country into bankruptcy.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I’m guessing that you’re playing stealth third-party here; that’s fine, but putting words in my mouth is not. Don’t do it again.

    Moe Lane

    PS: The only safe response to that is “Yes, Moe.”

  • IJB

    If you can tell the difference in scale and proportion (and *intent*) between the two… well, don’t go away mad, just go away.

  • Jim

    …the *Democrats* are driving this country into bankruptcy.

    I will withhold any further comment out of fear of swift and merciless retribution. :)

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Well-played.

  • skorrent1

    Will likely be off by 200 billion or more. Next year’s estimate will likely miss the mark by half a T. Estimates beyond 2010 are pure fairy dust.

  • Flagstaff

    Simply hide the truth.

    This morning, on NPR’s Morning Edition, a guest explained exactly that. LBJ got Medicare passed by not revealing the true cost that they estimated–even though that undisclosed estimate was also way low.

    To quote NPR:

    We believe, after looking at the evidence, my co-author [David Blumenthal] and I, that if the true cost of Medicare had been known ? if Johnson hadn’t basically hidden them ? the program would never have passed. America’s second-most beloved program would never have happened, if we had had genuine cost estimates.

    Lying to a gullible public still works today, it just isn’t as easy.

    Johnson maneuvered every step of the way getting this bill through Congress, and one of the things he did ? and this is a little dicey in today’s climate ? was suppress the costs. So this young kid gets elected from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, in 1962, and Johnson is explaining to him [over the phone] how you get a health bill through. And what he tells him is don’t let them get the costs projected too far out because it will scare other people:

    Johnson’s words:

    A health program yesterday runs $300 million, but the fools had to go to projecting it down the road five or six years, and when you project it the first year, it runs $900 million. Now I don’t know whether I would approve $900 million second year or not. I might approve 450 or 500. But the first thing Dick Russell comes running in saying, ‘My God, you’ve got a billion-dollar program for next year on health, therefore I’m against any of it now.’ Do you follow me?

    We now expect them to lie, and we expect them to provide us with projections of future costs. LBJ did too good a job.