You know, I think we've already had a president from the Tea Party. You see, the Tea Party is in favor of balanced budgets. Now which president has presided over a balanced budget in the last 30 years?
Reagan? Ha ha ha, no way.
Oh, maybe it was a Bush? Nope!
The only time since 1980 that we enjoyed a balanced budget was during the last four terms of President William Jefferson Clinton.
So I think the tea-baggers should embrace President Clinton as the ideal president.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
The Cato institute has the real scoop here.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
It was a GOP congress. Not opinion but Cato analysis.
I certainly wouldn't call him "the ideal president," but I'd take him over this current disaster every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I've never been a fan of Clinton, but at least he was able to shed his ideology in favor of pragmatism at times, for the good of the country (at least in his view). From this new budget, it's clear that Obama is an absolute ideologue through and through.
To me, it seems as though everybody wants to just ignore the major entitlement problems. Take social security: both Dems and Reps want to avoid doing anything for fear of the large bloc of elderly who almost always vote. But also, to avoid admitting that they (all of them) squandered the trust fund that social security was supposed to be. Dems kept spending and Reps kept cutting taxes and spending -- spending the money that was coming in from social security. Oh there are govt bonds for all that money they raided from the Social Security trust fund, but, well, is that going to cut it? What happens when the bonds come due and the baby boomers start holding their hands out for their social security?
Reps say privatize it. Bah! Never work. Dems say, well, not sure what they say. I guess they say it isn't broken, but that isn't reality.
Instead of bailing out corporations the govt should be bailing individuals by allocating that raided money back to the trust fund where it should be. And let's not give out COLA raises when the cost of living is NOT going up.
And while we're at it, let's stop fighting wars in the Middle East. They seem to be perfectly capable of fighting their own wars without our involvement.
Maybe I should just stop ranting now...
I find it interesting you are bringing up entitlement reform at this time. I seem to remember a post from you awhile back about how we could eradicate the deficit by reducing defense spending(and I totally agree it is something we have to do and have said so), but when I brought up the fact entitlement spending is the major budget problem we face you disagreed. Have you changed your mind(if you have, good for you)?
"Oh there are govt bonds for all that money they raided from the Social Security trust fund, but, well, is that going to cut it? What happens when the bonds come due and the baby boomers start holding their hands out for their social security?"
Generally, the government will sell new bonds to replace the retiring old ones. The problem is who will buy the new bonds and at what interest rate they will be tempted to buy them. If we keep spending money the way we are, bond buyers will exact a much higher rate or not be tempted at all. Both big problems.
"Reps say privatize it. Bah! Never work."
And what evidence do you have that it wouldn't? We have never tried this method. And how is it better to rely on an entity which has proven over and over again it cannot be trusted with the Trust Fund? How is it better to rely on representatives who do not have a stake in Social Security(Medicare and Medicaid I'll leave for another day)over the ingenuity of the people who do have a stake in the program?
"Dems say, well, not sure what they say. I guess they say it isn't broken, but that isn't reality."
No argument there.
"Instead of bailing out corporations the govt should be bailing individuals by allocating that raided money back to the trust fund where it should be."
The federal government shouldn't be in the business of "bailing out" anybody. If people were to have the ability of providing for themselves and if the federal government incentivized savings instead of consumption, this could become a reality. Should there be a safety net for people who for whatever reason fall through the cracks? Yes, and at a state level. Is the current SS the answer? No.
"And let's not give out COLA raises when the cost of living is NOT going up."
I believe the last two years there hasn't been a COLA raise, at least that is what I have heard from the elderly people who underwrite my paycheck.
One more thing, and getting back to the original topic of this thread,I read an interesting article in Reason magazine a few months ago about the "Clinton Surpluses". I don't think it was an original idea put forth in this article(though it was festooned with economic graphs as evidence for her point), but it was the first time I had ever heard the idea. And it was this, the federal government(or any government)because of it's very nature and purpose, doesn't economically account(in the accounting sense)for things(money) like a business would. And since it doesn't there are certain things which do not end up in reports of governmental accounting(which would be against the rules for a for-profit entity)and one of those things which do not get "accounted" for is the accrued liability for federal government workers pensions and health care. The author of the piece took the published government numbers from the Clinton era and then "accounted" for the liabilities aforementioned and voila, the surpluses went *poof*. All gone, and in the real world. I think of this article every time I hear the proud pontifications of the left and the "Clinton Surpluses".
As for Clinton himself, a mid-tier President, who as I have posted many times before, the luckiest(figuratively and literally)politician I have seen in my lifetime. One thing I will say, I agree with G; much more preferable than our last two.
Yes, I agree that entitlement programs are causing problems for a number of reasons. And yes, I still "believe" that reducing defense spending can solve a lot of current problems, but entitlements are still going to cause looming problems unless we attack them now. (Alas, we won't.)
Why won't privatization work? Because most people are idiots. Give them more money and they'll spend that money. And then when they get old and can't work they'll still come to the gov't with their hand out. Same reason we "need" health care reform. Because the needy go to the emergency room and get treated anyway - so we do it inefficiently.
As I grow older, I think I am moving toward wanting a more Platonic system a la "The Republic." Just so long as that philosopher/king is not an Ayn Rand greedy shithead like the current model of right winger.
Yup, Clinton was lucky. Smart, too. And willing to bend. He probably has been the "best" president of the last 35 or so years. But that says more about the shitty presidents we've had for the last few decades and less about the abilities of Billy boy.
"He probably has been the "best" president of the last 35 or so"
Ha Ha, really? He is president of a brothel or bakery? He certainly could not have meant the US.
Thank you for that well thought out comment JJ.
this is a test post to try to get back to real posting
Post a Comment