Page 14 of the President’s FY2010 budget “blueprint” contains a section called “Fiscal Irresponsibility” that deserves scrutiny:Ah, politics.
“Another manifestation of irresponsibility is the large budget deficits we are inheriting. These deficits, over time, will harm economic growth and impose burdens on our children and grandchildren.”
True.
“Between 2000 and 2008, real Government outlays increased at a 3.6 percent annual average rate, three times the 1.2 percent annual average rate between 1992 and 2000…Furthermore, the amount of debt held by the public has nearly doubled to $6.4 trillion from 2001 to 2008. We are now living with the fallout of this deep fiscal irresponsibility.”
True.
“Unfortunately, we are also inheriting the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression—which will force us to increase deficit spending temporarily as we try to jumpstart economic growth.”
Time-out. The administration accurately states that federal spending and debt have increased at a detrimental pace this decade. Then it says we’re in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And the solution to the economic downturn caused in part by too much spending and debt is to increase deficit spending and further run up the national debt? By the administration’s own logic, shouldn’t we be experiencing economic growth with all the deficit spending it “inherited?”
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama on Deficits: Good or Bad?
I was not going to comment on the Obama speech because I am more concerned with policy than politics, but I two things have stuck with me to the point where I feel I need to get them out. Number one, I lost all respect for David Brooks, he's a friggin' idiot. Number two, I couldn't help but notice a seeming contradiction to the fact that Obama was praising pro-deficit spending now while lamenting the defits he inherited. Tad DeHaven at Cato also noticed:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Just curious Justus - you said you lost all respect for David Brooks and that he's a complete idiot, and then provided a link to one quotation. Care to expound and explain yourself, or am I to simply conclude that you're a huge fan of Bobby Jindal's and thought his performance was spot on?
I don't have a fully formed opinion of Jindal, and I think he hacked his way through his first national address. Regardless of his performance, I am not ready to declare his political life over, and his ideas, better articulated in many other appearances and writings, deserve attention.
David Brooks completely lost his mind on that video clip, calling non-interventionism stale nihilism. He states that anyone suggesting a reduced size or role for government is insane, and that doing so would bring certain disaster.
Justus:
I completely agree that Jindal blew his chance in the spotlight in spectacular fashion.
Re: Brooks, sure he overstated his point. But by saying he "lost his mind" and you lost all respect for him, aren't you simply doing the exact same thing in the very opposite direction?
I'm not attacking here, I'm just reiterating that I hold this blog to a higher standard than most others because I appreciate the thoughtful insight, the differing opinions, and well-articulated reasoning. Also, as someone who doesn't have the benefit of fully understanding the knowledge and experience you bring to your posts (although I'm still working on Ropke), its far more persuasive when you explain your opinion.
As always, keep up the good work, Justus. But heed the word of the wizened sage Ice Cube: One must never fail to check oneself.
Haha. I certainly don't want to wreck myself or the blog, so OK, I shouldn't have called Brooks an idiot. Maybe misguided dolt would be a better term. Still, I find it funny that you relish in saying Jindal "blew" his first time in the spotlight in "spectacular fashion" while coming to the defense of a seasoned media personality as simply "overstating" his case in claiming that anyone that supports government restraint is insane.
I don't relish saying Jindal blew his opportunity. I honestly hoped he would present a coherent alternative to the substance of Mr. Obama's State of the Union. In my estimation, he provided nothing of substance other than the a recapitulation of President Regan's reduce taxes/reduce regulation talking points. Such a presentation worked in 1981, but it will not work in 2009. Furthermore, he compounded his lack of substance, with a style that further diminished his message.
In short, Jindal has a singular opportunity to present and alternative narrative that would compel further thought and discussion while capturing the imagination. To score on either front would have been a victory, to do both would have been a grand triumph. In my opinion he did neither.
However, I was sympathetic to his position - he was swimming against a strong current. I've been in that place before, having to argue a minority position before a skeptical audience and in the wake of a talented orator. He does score points for standing up in the first instance - that at least is something.
By the way, this is what maternity leave looks like.
Post a Comment