A Conservatives View

[Palehosefan]

What's he gonna say? I have voted for every bill that would increase the budget but I promise not to in the future even if I agree with it? Don't forget who's hand-picking these bills for Bush to sign. Its gonna take more than just Bush gone for big economic changes from the house and senate.

 

Kerry's economic plan is flawed also.

 

"Despite Kerry's attempts to outflank Bush on the deficit issue and portray himself as the more fiscally responsible candidate, the data behind Kerry's rhetoric tell a different story," said NTUF Policy Analyst and study author Drew Johnson. "Enactment of Kerry's 'revised' spending agenda in its entirety would still mean higher taxes, a larger national debt, or likely both…… By exempting a series of major discretionary categories, Kerry's so-called 'strong' spending caps are actually so porous as to be no more effective than the restraints George W. Bush has sought," Johnson concluded. "In the final analysis, the 'winner' of the 2004 election could very well be the federal deficit -- leaving taxpayers with a landslide loss of their economic freedom." (Source: "Study: Kerry's Fiscal Agenda "Makeover" Won't Improve Budget Picture for Taxpayers," NTUF, http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?...9&org_name=NTUF, 7/12/04)

 

 

Doesn't look good for us from either side :-(.

[Rex Kickass]

Palehosefan:

 

Here's a little history for you. For the last ten years, the House of Representatives, the body which primarily deals with the budget has been REPUBLICAN controlled. For 8 1/2 years of the last ten years, the Senate has been REPUBLICAN controlled. John Kerry is a DEMOCRAT.

 

Who hand picks the bills for Bush to sign? That's not John Kerry. That's Tom DeLay, that's Dennis Hastert, that's Bill Frist, that's Dick Cheney. That's not John Kerry.

[Palehosefan]

and thats EXACTLY my point. Why would Bush veto a bill thats been hand-picked for him from his Republican Senate and House?

[Rex Kickass]

So if the Congress won't change, which it most likely won't. Why would you vote for a President who will continue to bankrupt the system. Why not, instead, vote for a divided government - which tends to be more fiscally conservative.

[Palehosefan]

I can agree a split government would be better for all of us. The problem with hoping for a split system is that both the democrats and republicans are hoping for a majority. It would be nice if you could trust both parties to keep it split, but you know as well as I do we can't. The minute the democrats have a chance to take the majority, they would jump at it, as they should. They want what they want passed and the best way is to have your party in control as you know. So in eseence you are asking me to vote for the Democrats by asking for balance right now, and thats not gonna happen until we can have complete trust in politicians. Thats not happening.

[Rex Kickass]

Of course they would. But here's some reality for you. The best case scenario the Democrats could have is a 51-49 majority in the Senate and a Kerry-Edwards presidency. This would leave a Republican House and a divided government. So if you think divided government works best - you shouldn't vote for the incumbent this time around. Pure and simple.

[Palehosefan]

Here's some more reality for you. Getting ahold of the house and senate come in cycles. One party holds it for a decade or so and then it shifts back. Right now the republicans have it and I don't want them to give it back. But good debate, I'm off for the night and probably the weekend.

[Rex Kickass]

History. Most parties lose seats in Congress when the President is that party. A democrat president would most likely lead to four more years of Republican congressional control.

[jackie hayes]

You gotta atleast have a plan to make something work. Kerry didn't even have a plan for SS, he just said when the problem arrives they will take care of it. How easy of an answer was that? Bush could have said that about everything. The war and defense spending account for the majority of the deficit. Take a look at this.

 

"The President's FY 2005 Budget manages to accommodate a 10 percent increase in discretionary homeland security spending and a seven percent increase for defense while limiting total discretionary spending to just under four percent.  While in office the President has restrained the growth of non-defense, non-homeland related spending, slowing it from 15 percent in 2001 to below one percent in 2005. "  ("Mid-Session Review," OMB, 7/30/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/05msr.pdf)

 

Here's another quote backing up the assumption that Bush can cut the deficit in half in 5 years. Unless you consider the Wall Street Journal biased also.

 

Bolten: "By continuing the President's plan for economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to strengthen the economy and cut the deficit in half.  The MSR estimates the deficit will decline from 3.8% as a share of the economy in 2004 to 1.5% of GDP in 2009." (Joshua B. Bolten, "We Can Cut The Deficit In Half," The Wall Street Journal, 12/10/03)

 

The end of the war and a steady defense budget will cut the deficit significantly for ANY president, whether it ends up as Bush or Kerry. Here is a quote from Alan Greenspan on what needs to happen with Social Security.

 

"Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement."

 

That sounds eerily like Bush's answer to social security. I would be willing to trust Greenspan over any Kerry advisor. Is asking today's youth to save money possibly a disaster waiting to happen? Sure. But do you or does Kerry have a better answer?

Some responses -- The war and defense have NOT made up most of the change in the fiscal position. The tax cuts did.

 

Bush has a plan, taking money out of SS -- a plan, any plan is not always better than no plan. He has not proposed benefits cuts, that's not in his plan, although he hints that they may be necessary (he only states that "near-retirees" won't have benefit cuts) -- so I don't think the Greenspan quote really describes his plan. (Anyway, Greenspan is not an expert on SS -- there's a new book by Kotlikoff and a coauthor, and Kotlikoff has spent a career studying these issues.) There's a reason Bush is avoiding the issue of benefits cuts in his plan -- consider that SS is already in bad shape and in need of benefits cuts (over 50% cuts, according to Kotlikoff), before privatization takes place. After that money (trillions of dollars over 10 years, estim of $2 trillion over the next 10 years) is taken out of the budget, the cuts needed for solvency will be that much larger. Bush's plan is to gut SS ("trimming" benefits won't cut it) -- has he presented that honestly?

 

The average increase in nondefense discretionary spending over Bush's term is much higher, closer to 10% (don't recall the exact number). The small 2005 budget increase was due to this being an election year.

 

The WSJ is biased, just look at their editorials (this is a well-known slant, Wall Street in general seems to support Republicans). But this isn't even the WSJ, this is a piece from the Director of the OMB. Here's a snippet of his bio from the OMB website:

From January 2001 through June of 2003, Mr. Bolten was Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the White House. From March 1999 through November 2000, he was Policy Director of the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign. Mr. Bolten also served as Policy Director of the Bush-Cheney transition.

Are you going to tell me that this guy is an impartial analyst? The Midsession Review comes from the President, so why is this claim informative at all?