Because of Nate Silver, I never read news articles about the latest polls. Instead, I check his blog (at least twice a day) for the overall projection and read his posts about the different polls and what they mean.
And Nate Silver’s blog at the NY Times is telling us President Obama has a really good chance (77.5%) of being re-elected. If this is accurate, then it looks like I was wrong. I thought he wouldn’t be re-elected because he hasn’t done enough or even tried hard enough on the economy. I wasn’t prepared for how bad Romney’s campaign would be (see birth certificate joke, consulate attack comments, Clint Eastwood, 47%, etc). And I hadn’t realized how strong the incumbent position is - which is probably the biggest reason Obama is so strong*.
And if Obama wins, I will be very relieved. Though I don’t think the Republicans can do much long-term damage, Romney has a radical agenda and will make it a really rough 4 years for the low income and unemployed and will really affect America's ability to compete and grow businesses (ie cuts to education, infrastructure, research, etc).
*By the way, I've been meaning to comment on this. The political science blogs I have been reading (really just Monkey Cage and 538) talk about the fundamentals, including incumbency and the economy. But really the incumbency factor is very strong.
I find it a little sad though because it says that voters aren't really evaluating the candidates very much and more often making quick and simple decisions. It's not as much about politics and policy. Instead, if the economy is getting better, might as well leave the incumbent in for another 4 years. This will likely give us Obama again, which is good, but this factor also gave us Bush again in 2004. It is hard to say though whether overall it is better. Is the country better with four more years of Bush and eight years of Obama than it would have been with 4 years of Kerry and 8 years of a Republican (or 8 years of Kerry)?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Tackling the Debt
I tried this new budget debt tool - it gives you options for cutting the federal deficit over a ten year period. It is pretty user-friendly, though there are a few options that I don't fully understand (even with the explanations).
First time through I ended up with a big surplus (almost $2 trillion). My choices were pretty liberal - almost $2.5 in revenue increases for every $1 in expense cuts. I think I let the Bush tax cuts expire and then added more tax brackets at the high end. Speaking of the Bush tax cuts, this debt tool makes it clear how expensive those (unfunded) tax cuts really are. Which again reminds me of the amazing hypocrisy of the GOP's focus on the deficits and debt since they passed the tax cuts.
I didn’t raise the Medicare or SS age. And I wasn't harsh on military spending at all. It almost felt too easy. Then again, the tax increases would never fly. Unfortunately.
When I ran through it a second time, the big decisions became clearer. One of course is the taxes. The Bush tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion. Preserving just the middle income costs $3.7 trillion. And the tax reform I selected generates $1.3 trillion.
The other is the overall government spending levels. If you let government grow with the economy as I prefer, which is a growth of 5.1%, it costs you an extra $2.4 trillion. If you let it expand with inflation, which is just under 2%, it only costs $0.8 trillion.
The bottom line is that balancing the budget over the next 10 years mostly involves just a few big decisions - how much do we want to raise in taxes, and how much do we want to spend on discretionary programs.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama said that he would take a scalpel to the budget, not a sledge hammer. It was a great talking point, except that it was vapid and ridiculous. Obama was trying to say he could balance the budget with a lot of small cuts in programs that aren't working. Knowledge of the budget and this tool show that isn't possible.
In the end, you kind of need both the scalpel and the sledge hammer. Or rather, you need a blue print and set guidelines. Then you can use whatever metaphorical tool you want. Obama's talking point was a cute way of avoiding discussing his guidelines.
At risk of overwhelming this post, I do want so say that I think the discussions of budgets are more detailed this year than in 2008. Sure Romney and Ryan are light on details, and Obama is forced into more clarity due to his position as the incumbent president, but there is more substance overall. With Romney's plan, you can see what would have to happen to achieve his goals. Compare that to Obama's scalpel and McCain's call to balance the budget by eliminating Congressional discretionary spending (ie pork) which isn't even a drop in the bucket.
First time through I ended up with a big surplus (almost $2 trillion). My choices were pretty liberal - almost $2.5 in revenue increases for every $1 in expense cuts. I think I let the Bush tax cuts expire and then added more tax brackets at the high end. Speaking of the Bush tax cuts, this debt tool makes it clear how expensive those (unfunded) tax cuts really are. Which again reminds me of the amazing hypocrisy of the GOP's focus on the deficits and debt since they passed the tax cuts.
I didn’t raise the Medicare or SS age. And I wasn't harsh on military spending at all. It almost felt too easy. Then again, the tax increases would never fly. Unfortunately.
When I ran through it a second time, the big decisions became clearer. One of course is the taxes. The Bush tax cuts cost $4.5 trillion. Preserving just the middle income costs $3.7 trillion. And the tax reform I selected generates $1.3 trillion.
The other is the overall government spending levels. If you let government grow with the economy as I prefer, which is a growth of 5.1%, it costs you an extra $2.4 trillion. If you let it expand with inflation, which is just under 2%, it only costs $0.8 trillion.
The bottom line is that balancing the budget over the next 10 years mostly involves just a few big decisions - how much do we want to raise in taxes, and how much do we want to spend on discretionary programs.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama said that he would take a scalpel to the budget, not a sledge hammer. It was a great talking point, except that it was vapid and ridiculous. Obama was trying to say he could balance the budget with a lot of small cuts in programs that aren't working. Knowledge of the budget and this tool show that isn't possible.
In the end, you kind of need both the scalpel and the sledge hammer. Or rather, you need a blue print and set guidelines. Then you can use whatever metaphorical tool you want. Obama's talking point was a cute way of avoiding discussing his guidelines.
At risk of overwhelming this post, I do want so say that I think the discussions of budgets are more detailed this year than in 2008. Sure Romney and Ryan are light on details, and Obama is forced into more clarity due to his position as the incumbent president, but there is more substance overall. With Romney's plan, you can see what would have to happen to achieve his goals. Compare that to Obama's scalpel and McCain's call to balance the budget by eliminating Congressional discretionary spending (ie pork) which isn't even a drop in the bucket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)