lily
04-26-2008, 12:13 AM
Seems none of them have their act together. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/25/fiscal_discipline_not_on_agend.html?hpid=topnews)
Fiscal Discipline Not on Agenda for Democrats
By Dan Balz
It's too bad there won't be a Democratic debate in North Carolina this
weekend. Thanks to the good work of my colleague Ruth Marcus and an
editorial in Friday's Washington Post, there would be plenty of questions
for both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton about how they plan to
prevent blowing a new hole in the federal deficit.
The Democratic race has featured much talk about new initiatives for
expanding health-care coverage, paying for rising college tuition costs,
creating jobs, providing displaced workers new skills, investing in
alternative energies and giving tax cuts to middle-class families.
For the first time, The Post editorial page added up the cost of these
promises. They amount to about $330 billion annually for Obama and about
$265 billion annually for Clinton. Roll in the cost of rolling back
President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and some other tax
changes and the budgetary gap is instantly clear.
The candidates' spending promises have come despite assurances, particularly
from Clinton, that they recognize the need to restore some fiscal discipline
in Washington. Clinton has talked about this since before becoming a
candidate. Here's what she said in April 2006, speaking to the Economic Club
of Chicago:
"I think a return to fiscal discipline, living within our means, is
essential to our long-term health. It is also critical to whether or not we
control our own destiny as a nation. ... Red-ink fiscal policies will
undermine America's competitiveness. We have to ask ourselves whether our
taxing and spending policies are in line with our economic goals."
Her campaign has often pointed to ways in which she would offset the cost of
new spending -- with revoking the Bush tax cuts and ending subsidies to oil
companies the favored new revenue sources for the new programs. But as The
Post editorial suggests, the potential gap between real spending and
imagined savings could be substantial.
Obama has been even less, shall we say, disciplined about fiscal discipline.
If the budget deficit worries him, he rarely lets it show. His politics of
change do not feature as a central tenet a break from the often
irresponsible approach to deficits practiced by the Bush administration and
by many Democratic administrations of the past.
The Clinton administration was an exception. With a valuable push from the
Gingrich-led Republicans in Congress, President Bill Clinton presided over a
balanced budget. The combination of a robust -- even overheated --
tech-driven economy and a political détente on the budget brought about a
sudden and significant shift in the fiscal picture.
The rosy projections of budget surpluses quickly disappeared once Bush took
office, thanks to massive tax cuts and a war in Iraq that has far exceeded
even the costliest estimates at the time of the invasion in 2003.
Among the Democratic candidates, only John Edwards spoke forthrightly about
the deficit. He didn't particularly care whether it grew while he was
president. Edwards was candid in saying that, given the trade-offs, he
preferred to spend $100 billion or so annually to achieve universal health
care and additional resources into other new programs than to worry about
the budgetary consequences. At least with Edwards, the voters knew what they
were getting.
With Obama and Clinton, that is far less clear. Clinton has resisted
outlining any plans for dealing with the fiscal health of Social Security by
arguing that until Washington brings back some fiscal sanity, there is no
point it tackling the looming entitlements problem. But as The Post
editorial makes clear, getting to that promised land of manageable red ink
or better will be far harder than she's acknowledged.
Obama has been more forthcoming about Social Security -- and Clinton has
hammered him for doing so -- but overall appears to be less a fiscal hawk
than she is.
The candidates know they can dance effectively away from most questions
about whether their plans add up. The press has little patience for that
kind of debate, particularly given the other elements of this contested
Democratic race. Voters say they care about the deficit, but their concerns
don't rise to the level of their fear of losing a job or trying to pay for
gasoline or health care.
The Post editorial does not give John McCain a pass either. The champion of
spending discipline has suddenly become a supply-side tax cutter this
spring. He too has questions to answer about how he would manage the budget.
What is at issue here is credibility as much as economics. Experts long have
debated what constitutes a manageable deficit -- and even whether sustained
surpluses are healthy. The question is whether voters can trust any of the
candidates when it comes to speaking honestly about the deficit. At this
stage, as The Post editorial page makes clear, they have appear to have a
credibility gap.
Fiscal Discipline Not on Agenda for Democrats
By Dan Balz
It's too bad there won't be a Democratic debate in North Carolina this
weekend. Thanks to the good work of my colleague Ruth Marcus and an
editorial in Friday's Washington Post, there would be plenty of questions
for both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton about how they plan to
prevent blowing a new hole in the federal deficit.
The Democratic race has featured much talk about new initiatives for
expanding health-care coverage, paying for rising college tuition costs,
creating jobs, providing displaced workers new skills, investing in
alternative energies and giving tax cuts to middle-class families.
For the first time, The Post editorial page added up the cost of these
promises. They amount to about $330 billion annually for Obama and about
$265 billion annually for Clinton. Roll in the cost of rolling back
President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and some other tax
changes and the budgetary gap is instantly clear.
The candidates' spending promises have come despite assurances, particularly
from Clinton, that they recognize the need to restore some fiscal discipline
in Washington. Clinton has talked about this since before becoming a
candidate. Here's what she said in April 2006, speaking to the Economic Club
of Chicago:
"I think a return to fiscal discipline, living within our means, is
essential to our long-term health. It is also critical to whether or not we
control our own destiny as a nation. ... Red-ink fiscal policies will
undermine America's competitiveness. We have to ask ourselves whether our
taxing and spending policies are in line with our economic goals."
Her campaign has often pointed to ways in which she would offset the cost of
new spending -- with revoking the Bush tax cuts and ending subsidies to oil
companies the favored new revenue sources for the new programs. But as The
Post editorial suggests, the potential gap between real spending and
imagined savings could be substantial.
Obama has been even less, shall we say, disciplined about fiscal discipline.
If the budget deficit worries him, he rarely lets it show. His politics of
change do not feature as a central tenet a break from the often
irresponsible approach to deficits practiced by the Bush administration and
by many Democratic administrations of the past.
The Clinton administration was an exception. With a valuable push from the
Gingrich-led Republicans in Congress, President Bill Clinton presided over a
balanced budget. The combination of a robust -- even overheated --
tech-driven economy and a political détente on the budget brought about a
sudden and significant shift in the fiscal picture.
The rosy projections of budget surpluses quickly disappeared once Bush took
office, thanks to massive tax cuts and a war in Iraq that has far exceeded
even the costliest estimates at the time of the invasion in 2003.
Among the Democratic candidates, only John Edwards spoke forthrightly about
the deficit. He didn't particularly care whether it grew while he was
president. Edwards was candid in saying that, given the trade-offs, he
preferred to spend $100 billion or so annually to achieve universal health
care and additional resources into other new programs than to worry about
the budgetary consequences. At least with Edwards, the voters knew what they
were getting.
With Obama and Clinton, that is far less clear. Clinton has resisted
outlining any plans for dealing with the fiscal health of Social Security by
arguing that until Washington brings back some fiscal sanity, there is no
point it tackling the looming entitlements problem. But as The Post
editorial makes clear, getting to that promised land of manageable red ink
or better will be far harder than she's acknowledged.
Obama has been more forthcoming about Social Security -- and Clinton has
hammered him for doing so -- but overall appears to be less a fiscal hawk
than she is.
The candidates know they can dance effectively away from most questions
about whether their plans add up. The press has little patience for that
kind of debate, particularly given the other elements of this contested
Democratic race. Voters say they care about the deficit, but their concerns
don't rise to the level of their fear of losing a job or trying to pay for
gasoline or health care.
The Post editorial does not give John McCain a pass either. The champion of
spending discipline has suddenly become a supply-side tax cutter this
spring. He too has questions to answer about how he would manage the budget.
What is at issue here is credibility as much as economics. Experts long have
debated what constitutes a manageable deficit -- and even whether sustained
surpluses are healthy. The question is whether voters can trust any of the
candidates when it comes to speaking honestly about the deficit. At this
stage, as The Post editorial page makes clear, they have appear to have a
credibility gap.