 |
 |
   Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
 Last year there wasn�t a single fatal airline accident in the developed world. So why is the U.S. health care system still accidently killing hundreds of thousands? The answer is a lack of transparency.
|
   |
|
|
October 27, 2010
GET TO KNOW 'CUTGO'.... The "Paygo" policies of the 1990s proved to be pretty popular and effective. It's a basic idea -- in a nutshell, if policymakers want to increase spending or cut taxes, they have to figure out a way to pay for it. The point is to prevent increases to the deficit by telling officials to "pay as you go." It helped Clinton eliminate the deficit altogether and deliver some of the largest surpluses ever. Republicans of the Bush era didn't care for the policy, and quickly scrapped it. The GOP couldn't pay for massive tax breaks, or two wars, or Medicare expansion, or No Child Left Behind, but they passed them all anyway, each time just throwing the costs onto the deficit. It's how Republicans managed to add $5 trillion to the national debt in just eight years. Last year, Democrats brought Paygo back, though they waived it for emergency spending. When Dems took up health care reform, for example, they made sure it was paid for. Indeed, all of the major Democratic initiatives considered in this Congress, other than the Recovery Act, were careful not to add to the deficit at all. (When Senate Dems voted to bring back Paygo, literally all of the Republicans balked -- including the Republicans who claimed to support it.) With Republicans apparently poised to regain power -- ironically while talking about fiscal responsibility -- the GOP is once again poised to scrap Paygo, but Boehner & Co. intend to replace it. The new plan is to go with something called "Cutgo." And what's Cutgo all about? Instead of paying for new initiatives as they're considered, Republicans want to cut existing spending to offset the costs of any new spending. If this sounds dubious to you, there's a good reason. Jon Chait explains:
Right. This is precisely the kind of shell game one expects from politicians who don't take policy or fiscal responsibility seriously. Republicans don't like the idea of "paying for" policies, because that opens the door to all kinds of possibilities. If they want trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, for example, Paygo ties their hands, since they can't find trillions of dollars in spending cuts to make up the difference. Indeed, some crazy people, drunk on communist wine, might even try to pay for new programs by, say, closing tax loopholes. Worse, they might go so far as to raise a tax on someone by some amount at some point, in order to help deal with the budget mess Republicans created through 2008. And since that's wholly unacceptable on its face, Boehner & Co. prefer "Cutgo," precisely because it limits options. If policymakers are going to make new investments, they're going to have to cut -- and only cut -- somewhere else. Republicans exist, in other words, to (a) cut taxes; and (b) prevent tax increases. It's a shallow, destructive charade, but that probably won't matter on Tuesday. —Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)
Comments
Cutgo can be described with two words: magical thinking. Magical thinking is described as being symptomatic of a mental illness. -Z Posted by: Zorro on October 27, 2010 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKActually, "a) cut taxes and b) prevent tax increases" is the most concise description of a Republican I've ever seen. It's exactly what they're about, and have been for a long time. Posted by: IndigoJoe on October 27, 2010 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKThis reminds me of how the "wildly unpopular" Obamacare (not yet even implemented) is castigated by the Right, yet BOTH sides are curiously silent on the cost of the unfunded Prescription Drug Giveaway passed by the GOP under Bush. Posted by: DAY on October 27, 2010 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKThis is the damage wrought by 8 years of the Bush Administration, a devastated budget caused by spending without any means to pay for it. It is a constant source of anger and bewilderment that Republicans can still say that they are for the following in public without being immediately carted off to the loony bin: Yes, no surprise and considering the typical irony among the "conservatives" that Dick Cheney said "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." But they have to pretend they really want to balance out (any real conservative would have to accept Paygo on principle, regardless of what actual amount of spending to have) but they can't and won't - hence all the running away from interviews, callers etc. BTW did you hear about the retweeting find; Republicans inflating tweet popularity (kind of inverse of their Digg scandal) in Science: I think it may be even more obvious than that. 1, Start a war "Cutgo" could be fiscally responsible, and still comply with GOP anti-tax ideas by making both new spending and taxes subject to offsets. So, they want to give big tax cuts, that's fine, what are we going to cut? We may not like that policy objective, but at least it looks to be fiscally acceptable. But, of course that's not the GOP. I'm waiting for CutGo 2.0 which they will implement when we start reducing the defecit: All spending cuts should be given back to the "people" in the form of tax cuts. ("People" means "corporations", natch.) Posted by: joe bloew on October 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKThe central problem w/GOP budgeting- the main bit of magic in their magical thinking- is that defense spending, the biggest single chunk of the Federal budget (~23%), is considered inviolable. -Z Posted by: Zorro on October 27, 2010 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKActually, cutting existing taxes and never raising any tax has been the only common thread holding the RepuGs and the old Republicans together for generations. But, of course, there is nothing wrong with User's Fees is there as St Ronny and the Reaganauts believed? That was his 12th Commandment. Thou shalt never call User's Fees taxes. Posted by: berttheclock on October 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINKDude, you are really missing some words on your keyboard today. The point is prevent increases to the deficit by telling officials to "pay as you go." It helped Clinton eliminate the deficit altogether deliver some of the largest surpluses ever. Indeed, some crazy people, drunk on communist wine, might even try pay for new programs by, say, closing tax loopholes. You might want to get one of those new keyboards with the "to" and "and" keys. Posted by: josef on October 27, 2010 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINKWouldn't it be more correct to say that Republicans doubled the national debt during Bush's 8 years? Of course, additional debt will be added as the policies continue to remain in effect. War costs and Part D costs continue. Tax cuts also continue, and will add over $4T to the debt over the next ten years. More or less the de-energizer bunny which keeps going and going. Posted by: tomj on October 27, 2010 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKThe Republicans could have kept PayGo and still maintained the Bush policies of cutting taxes, increasing the size of government, and growing deficits. First you pass a tax increase and have a matching program. Then you immediately pass a tax cut to offset the increase. Net result: a popular program, such as trillion-dollar Iraq war or Medicare Rx, with no tax to pay for it. The recipe also calls for waiting for the President following Bush to take the blame for the deficits. Posted by: JohnJay60 on October 27, 2010 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK"Cutgo" sounds more like a Republican program involving FARTS, real stinky, smelly FARTS, one "cut" loose by a Republican before they could "go" to the restroom. "Hey, Boehner, was it you or McConnell who cut loose with that fart? Call HAZMAT!!! And don't either of you go blaming the dog again." (cough, gasp, gasp, gag, retch). Posted by: The Oracle on October 27, 2010 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly |
||||||
