January 26, 2010
THE RELATIVE PRICE TAG OF CHANGE.... Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who's been pushing aggressively for a spending freeze (despite being a model "deficit peacock"), appeared on MSNBC to tout the new administration proposal.
As part of his endorsement of the plan, Bayh also said the White House took the wrong tack on health care reform: "[G]oing with the large bill in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s and a major new expenditure at a time we were running a $30 trillion deficit just didn't resonate real well."
Igor Volsky noted how misguided this analysis really is.
Bayh is wrong to suggest that health care reform is antithetical to reducing the nation's $1.4 trillion deficit. After all, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the Senate health care bill would reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years (or up to $409 billion over 10 years according to a Commonwealth study) and lower Medicare spending per beneficiary from 8% growth rate to 6% growth rate. [...]
Health care reform would complement the administration's new focus on deficit reduction by slowing the fastest growing part of the deficit.... As he told Congress during his address in February, "Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else."
In fact, one of the great ironies of the current political debate is that much of President Obama's domestic agenda -- all the talk about spending and deficits notwithstanding -- saves the country money. The biggest elements of the to-do list just aren't expensive (as compared to, say, huge tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and two foreign wars).
Health care reform would cut spending and reduce the deficit. The cap-and-trade proposal not only combats global warming and helps create new jobs in a burgeoning sector, it also lowers the deficit. The student-loan overhaul saves money. Cleaning up Wall Street doesn't cost much at all.
Lawmakers are feeling panicky and are desperate to prove how fiscally responsible they are. But in reality, this White House, unlike the last one, isn't asking Congress to be reckless with the public's money -- it's asking for key policy breakthroughs that put the nation on stronger financial footing.
—Steve Benen 2:05 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (15)
So, why are our Congressmen afraid to vote for sensible, cost-effective solutions? Are any of the Democrats still Democrats?
Posted by: freelunch on January 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK
If only Evan Bayh had been around in th 1930s, he might have been able to stop the New Deal. Seriously, what was FDR thinking with all that spending when a depression was on.
Posted by: christor on January 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK
The domestic cost of unwinable Afghan and Iraq wars becomes more and more obvious. Where are the calls in Congress or elsewhere to pay for the wars-- past, present and future costs?
Posted by: gdb on January 26, 2010 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK
With friends like Bayh, who needs enemas?
And the Dems will be SHOCKED when no one comes out for them in Nov.
Posted by: Dems lose huge in 2010 on January 26, 2010 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK
I smell a whiff of calling bluffs in Obama's spending freeze. The Bayh gambit of proposing huge giveaways to the wealthy via estate tax reforms while giving lip service to caring about the deficit shouldn't escape scrutiny.
Posted by: danimal on January 26, 2010 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK
Isn't military and "defense/security" spending our deficit problem?
Posted by: AnnaMerkin on January 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK
Isn't military and "defense/security" spending our deficit problem?
That plus the tax cuts for the rich that Evan Bayh can never get enough of.
Such brilliant politics. Evan Bayh and Fred Hiatt love this proposal, core Democratic voters will hate it, and the Republicans will relentlessly mock it as the sham it is (and bring the much-vaunted independents with them). Got to admire the political "geniuses" who came up with a cheap political gimmick that has no upside at all. That's some kind of reverse political Holy Grail.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne on January 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK
Evan Bayh's resemblance to a peacock doesn't end with his (temporary) position on deficits - the peacock is perhaps the stupidest bird that is not extinct or in iminent danger of so becoming.
Posted by: Mark on January 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK
OT, but since we're talking money here, I wonder how much cash has gone into these Newsmax ads ridiculing Obama.
TalkingPointsmemo, HuffPo or here, all progressive fora, and one of the first things you notice is these ads and polls.
Maybe they don't have any effect on most readers here, yet these ad buys are just part of the larger Republican effort at shaping/distorting the healthcare reform debate.
Posted by: keoke on January 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK
Democrats - "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is what we do".
Posted by: ckelly on January 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK
Who has the guts to talk about military spending cuts? Take one look at this chart (via Yglesias), and tell me there is a dollar or two that can be cut without impacting our security?
Posted by: Ohioan on January 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK
$30 trillion dollar deficit? Ol' Evan's trying to make "teabagger math" look good. For his next trick, he will give Beck the Blatherer a "buhzillion dollar raise"....
Posted by: S. Waybright on January 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK
This is why I was really hoping that Pence would run against Bayh, so at least he'd be replaced by a real Republican and we'd be rid of this idiotic DINO who undermines sound policy by adopting GOP talking points.
Posted by: Allan Snyder on January 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK
p.s. Bayh, Lincoln, and Ben Nelson are all saying no to reconciliation for HCR. Anyone surprised?
*crickets*
Posted by: Allan Snyder on January 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK
This is hardly news, the GDP of the US in 2008 was $14.2 TRILLION. This makes the deficit of $1.4 TRILLION only about 10% of GDP, PERFECTLY in line with normal spending during a recession and may be a little low. The NY Times and others flipped out over this, number but not over the percentage.
Now, this is understandable because nobody expected such a HUGE economy to develop over the past 30 years, but it has. The GDP in 1980 was $2.8 TRILLION. So the economy is five times larger than it was in 1980.
So when people think of the grand size of the antional debt, they are thinking in 1980 terms or 1970 when the GDP was one TRILLION dollars. And of course it seems large, but when you consider that its 2010 and the economy is 14 TRILLION dollars. People who are freaking out are just pretending to and because the media likes drama, they are playing along with it.
Posted by: Kurt on January 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK