When you're having a heart attack you need to do something NOW.

Paying the ambulance, the doctor, and the hospital, while necessary, can be postponed until you're on your feet, back at WORK, and are once again getting a paycheck.

For those who do not understand the analogy; taxes pay for deficits, and taxes come from people with jobs. . .

This is a good article, too bad it's in Politico, a solid member of the hacktocracy. Let's note 2 things, first, federal revenues for FY10 are budgeted to be only 14.9% of GDP, well below the average of between 18-20% with 1% of GDP equal to about $130 billion. So this years deficit is $650-910 billion higher than it could be.
Second, the current deficits would be much more manageable if during the G.W.Bush 8 year debacle, he (and a Republican Congress for the last 6 years of a 12 year run and with Democrats running Congress for the last 2) hadn't rung up $5 trillion in on-budget deficits.

All of those people (mostly in the GOP, but an occasional blue dog too) who say that deficit spending is a burden on future generations -- like today's young people -- seem to ignore that the economic crisis is severely damaging young people's lives RIGHT NOW. Massive cuts to education, wide-spread unemployment and underemployment among the young, skyrocketing health insurance costs, and so on. And if the current young generation is unable to get a good education and find good jobs, the generation after them is also going to suffer, so using the national debt as an excuse to do nothing is unacceptable.

"...which is anathema to modern Republican thinking -- taxes can't go up, on anyone, ever."

As ususal, Benen is either lying or completely misrepresenting republican economic philosophy! As a class, my wealthy republican friends and I are willing to support selected tax hikes.

Among the taxes we are willing to see increased are:
- Social Security payroll taxes, provided that the cap is not increased.
- Taxes on unemployment and welfare benefits.
- Taxes on socially undesireable products, such as cigarettes and alcoholic beverages.

Walker is a kook.

Paul Krugman DESTROYED every one of his goofy doomsday arguments recently on Charlie Rose:

CHARLIE ROSE

Cooperating with anyone affiliated with the Peterson org is like playing with a vampire.

The problem is that the Democrats (the one relevant political party is the U.S. ) has never shown itself to make draconian cuts and raise taxes during the good times. Higher government spending now causes the ratchet effect on spending during the good times.

If states like California had cut spending during the good times, they would not be running budget deficits today.

The problem is that budget deficits today cause more deficits tomorrow. Why not take the medicine now and get spending under control at the same time that the problems in the private sector are being resolved.

If the U.S. is going to run two trillion dollar deficits today, then it will be running four trillion dollar deficits in the next recession.

Walker has no problem with more deficits, just more ammo to cite to tear up Social Security and Medicare.

Jobs, Steve? Jobs?

Say, remember back when Obama said that if we passed his stimulus package, unemployment would not go above 8 percent.

I bet you don't remember that, Steve...eh?

“The problem is that the Democrats (the one relevant political party is the U.S. ) has never shown itself to make draconian cuts and raise taxes during the good times.”

President Clinton and the Democratic Congressional Majority raised taxes on the Rich & Corporate.

“Higher government spending now causes the ratchet effect on spending during the good times. If states like California had cut spending during the good times, they would not be running budget deficits today.”

Except for the Military Industrial Complex, Corporate Welfare, and tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, spending is not really the problem. Lack of revenue is the problem.

After the four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate between 2001 and 2004, federal income tax revenue plummeted down to 1950s levels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Btw superdestroyer: California gave away tax increases during the good times, as in Arnold's public celebration of "hasta la vista, baby" to the $4 billion annual vehicle tax, and simulatenously increased its borrowing to pay for its unfunded requirements. So California is an instance of exactly what Krugman is saying in his Op-ed piece, further exacerbated by California being one of three states that require a 2/3's majority for passing a budget and having a cartoon character for a governor. Maybe, if this state had passed the budget and tax reforms it should have passed during the good years, the current budget crisis would not have led to the wholesale slaughter of its public services, especially the neutering of the number one public university system in the world. But that sort of reform takes leadership and political courage as well as bipartisan ownership of the public interest, characteristics lacking at the state level and at the nation level.

And so it goes.

Joe,

Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes before the boom times and probably slowed the economy in 1994 and 1994. The best thing that happened to the Clinton Administraiton was having a Republican controlled Congress that hated his guts.

the Republican Congress spent six years voting against spending and keeping the Democrats from starting any new programs, creating any new regulations, and allowed business to function under the same rules for six year.

However, even in the boom times, the Democrats from 1996-2000 proposed no draconian cuts and actually grew non-defense spending. Real Keynesian policies would have create massive cuts in government and reducing entitlement spending.

You should look at high tax states versus low tax states. The high tax states are having as bad or worse fiscal problems than low tax states.

Politicians will spend every dollar collect plus more no matter what the tax rate. The only solution is draconian cuts and a reduction of expectations for government goodies.

One mistake critics make: they compare how much spent to a single year's salary. That is misleading. Most jobs last for several years.

This should be sent 100 times over to every editor, pundit and newscaster -- 10,000 times over to Fred Hiatt. Nancy Pelosi said it pretty well: you can't attack the deficit very well if nobody can pay taxes because they don't have a job.

superdestroyer,

“Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes before the boom times...”

Even better !

“and probably slowed the economy in 1994 and 1994.”

Nope.

Raising taxes on the Rich & Corporate has, so far, been quite beneficial for the national economy.

“The best thing that happened to the Clinton Administraiton was having a Republican controlled Congress that hated his guts. the Republican Congress spent six years voting against spending and keeping the Democrats from starting any new programs, creating any new regulations, and allowed business to function under the same rules for six year.”

I’m afraid not.

Newty and the Blowhards did not take office until January 1995, and never got any major budget legislation signed into law until after they shut the federal government down twice in January and February of 1996. Well before that the federal budget was in net surplus and the national economy and stock markets were already skyrocketing.

The Republicans were comepletely irrelevant.

“However, even in the boom times, the Democrats from 1996-2000 proposed no draconian cuts...”

Why would they ? The federal deficits were disappearing and turning into surpluses.

“Real Keynesian policies would have create massive cuts in government and reducing entitlement spending.”

Why ?

Neither are drivers of our current deficits. Tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate are the drivers of our current federal deficits.

“You should look at high tax states versus low tax states. The high tax states are having as bad or worse fiscal problems than low tax states.”

Myth.

“Politicians will spend every dollar collect plus more no matter what the tax rate.”

False.

After raising taxes on the Rich & Corporate, the Clinton administration not only turned federal deficits into federal surpluses, but paid down more than $500 billion of the Reagan/Poppy Bush federal debt, and produced a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 Trillion.

“The only solution is draconian cuts and a reduction of expectations for government goodies.”

Once again, those are not the drivers of our federal deficits and debt.

Democrats will either raise taxes, or run larger deficits, or both, because there's no more wiggle room. Republicans will point to this as irresponsibility and a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes this great country work. They will promise to restore good times for everybody with no additional tax burden. People will believe them.

Whoever said, "There's a sucker born every minute" (usually attributed to P.T. Barnum, but arguments sometimes credit David Hannum) was a pessimist.

Joe,

How can you claim that the Republicans were irrelevant when the Republicans controlled Congress during the last six years of the Clinton Administration.

Remember that the Clinton Administration was proposing higher taxes on gasoline in 1993. You should also look up the economic performance of 1995 when the stock market went side ways and the government was running deficits.

Remember that the Clinton Administration was trying to nationalize health care in 1993. If they had succeed, the budget deficits would have been massive.

Six years of no new programs did wonders for the economy and create a huge economic growth that only of which was a speculative bubble.

And last, the Clinton Administration was running deficits in current accounts before the end of CY2000. Once the dot.com bubble was over, the Clinton Administration was shown to not really know that much about the economy.

And are you really going to argue that Maryland, Mass, or California are not having worse budget problems than Texas or New Hampshire?

Anyone who is complaining about the deficit better never have taken a mortgage or car loan. When they did that, they went into a deficit and they had to pay it back later, but in the meantime they had the benefit of the use of something that made life a lot easier for them. They could pay back the car because they could get to work. They could pay back their mortgage because they weren't spending money on rent that was even higher.

The same thing operates here. If you get people working, there is tax money coming in. If they are unemployed, the net money flow is away from the government to unemployment insurance.

And last, the Clinton Administration was running deficits in current accounts before the end of CY2000
As if that means....what, exactly? From '84-88, the current account deficit was higher than at any point in the 90s except for '99 and 2000 and then...

The current account hit an all-time high 6.6% of GDP in fourth quarter 2005. Just as a point of reference, because if a current account deficit means the gov't knows not what it does, then Republicans in Congress didn't know squat, which we already knew.

The only part of the 1993 tax bill that directly affected middle-income families was a 4.3-cent-per-gallon boost in the gasoline tax. This cost the average family $45 a year and accounted for less than 10 percent of the total revenue raised. Just so we're clear about the effects of the increase.

GDP growth in 1995 was 4.6% higher than in '94 (nominal $s) as can be seen in the NIPA tables. It was 6.2% in 94 vs. 93 and was 5.7% 96 vs 95.
Really, 4.6% growth is sideways? Is that a definition from Conservapedia?

superdestgroyer,

“How can you claim that the Republicans were irrelevant when the Republicans controlled Congress during the last six years of the Clinton Administration.”

It’s called a historical fact.

“You should also look up the economic performance of 1995 when the stock market went side ways and the government was running deficits.”

The deficits were continuously declining and the stock market was up:

DJIA 01/02/95 - 3834.44

DJIA 01/02/96 - 5177.45

“Remember that the Clinton Administration was trying to nationalize health care in 1993. If they had succeed, the budget deficits would have been massive.”

No, it would have saved us trillions.

“And last, the Clinton Administration was running deficits in current accounts before the end of CY2000. Once the dot.com bubble was over, the Clinton Administration was shown to not really know that much about the economy.”

From the 'Congressional Budget Office':

1998 - $069 billion SURPLUS
1999 - $126 billion SURPLUS
2000 - $236 billion SURPLUS
2001 - $128 billion SURPLUS

I’m afraid you’re clueless.

Joe,

Arguing that the Republican control of Congress had nothing to do with the budget success from 1995 to 2000. Divided government is the best thing that can happen to the budget since neither party has the chance to do stupid things like start up new programs.

If you will look at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/pr022002.pdf, you will see that the government was only operating without a deficit in 1999 and 2000.

If you will look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf,(on page 26) you will see that the U.S. ran a budget deficit on-budget of $32 billion. Your numbers include the social security budget surplus which will eventually have to be paid back in the future. And is you look at the entire Clinton Administration, it ran a deficit six out of eight years.

Remember that the Clinton Administration was the one that tried to limit welfare spending and made big defense cuts.

Maybe the Obama Administraiton should do what the Clinton Administration did and do nothing for six years and let the private sector grow. However, the Obama Administration appears to want to do the opposite and proposing one major policy change after another to make risk management in the private sector impossible.

Sure, you answer Joe......

superdestroyer,

“Arguing that the Republican control of Congress had nothing to do with the budget success from 1995 to 2000.”

Yep.

“If you will look at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/pr022002.pdf, you will see that the government was only operating without a deficit in 1999 and 2000.”

The independent nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is the official arbiter of the impact of all congressional legislation, disagrees:

1998 - $069 billion SURPLUS
1999 - $126 billion SURPLUS
2000 - $236 billion SURPLUS
2001 - $128 billion SURPLUS

“If you will look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf,(on page 26) you will see that the U.S. ran a budget deficit on-budget of $32 billion. Your numbers include the social security budget surplus...”

The same rules that Reagan and Poppy Bush operated under.

“which will eventually have to be paid back in the future.”

There’s nothing to pay back.

“Remember that the Clinton Administration was the one that ... made big defense cuts.”

Nope.

Chimpy Bush inherited a level of military spending from President Clinton that was more than 22 times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Chimpy Bush inherited a level of military spending from President Clinton that was more than five times larger than the military budget of Russia, the second largest military spender on the planet.

Chimpy Bush inherited a level of military spending from President Clinton that was more than that of the next 12 biggest-spending nations on the planet, COMBINED.

“Maybe the Obama Administraiton should do what the Clinton Administration did and do nothing for six years and let the private sector grow.”

You are delusional.

This only makes sense if you believe that government spending actually creates jobs (theory) rather than actually kills job creation (reality we are living through right now)
You see, small business owners did not start a business or stay in business because they are idiodic. They realize that this spending will have to be paid for by somebody, and that someone is them. I for example, am seriously considering quitting my job, and becoming a one income family, rather than have two incomes and have my income go straight to the government.
People will always act in their families own best interest, as they should. The family is the unit that cares for individuals, not the government.
The founding fathers accepted this truth, and designed our government around it. Progressives keep trying to change human nature, but both laziness (why should I work if the government will pay for me) and self-preservation (why should I work if the government is just going to take it from me) will always exist. People are not designed to act as a collective, and Thank God! We are not the Borg.

One point that the author and others alway make is that Republicans oppose tax increases no matter what and they always refer to the Bush tax cuts. The problem with these arguments is that Bush raised tax revenues from the rich. The upper 25% paid more income taxes after the Bush tax cut than before or during the Clinton era. The Bush tax "rate" cuts generated more revenue but more revenue meant congress could spend more. Out of control spending is the problem and the drunken sailors in congress (my appologies to drunken sailors) don't get it.

Selective tax increases for budgetary purposes and deficit reduction will be nessessary and the pain will (and needs) to be felt by all so that anger at the over spenders can be expressed. Taxation for the purpose of social engineering should be oppposed everytime. That is not congresses job, although they think it is.

Gmason,

“This only makes sense if you believe that government spending actually creates jobs”

It does.

“They realize that this spending will have to be paid for by somebody”

You should have worried about that when Chimpy Bush and the Republican Congressional Majority enacted four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, which is where the bulk of the federal deficits and debt derived from.

paul,

“The problem with these arguments is that Bush raised tax revenues from the rich. The upper 25% paid more income taxes after the Bush tax cut than before or during the Clinton era. The Bush tax ‘rate’ cuts generated more revenue but more revenue meant congress could spend more.”

Wrong.

Both the U.S. Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office disagree with you. After four rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, federal income tax receipts plummeted down to the lowest level since 1959:

CBO Budget Review

“Selective tax increases for budgetary purposes and deficit reduction will be nessessary and the pain will (and needs) to be felt by all”

Why would the pain need to be felt by all ?

The federal debt is overwhelmingly because of the tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, why should anyone else pay for the debt they created and benefited from ?