September 15, 2004
Election About Bankrupting America
On November 2, you can vote for Sen. John Kerry and bankrupting America. Or, you can vote for Bush and bankrupt America twice as fast. This is according to new research and reports from government agencies and other institutions who are adding up the numbers of Kerry and Bush campaign promises. In the final analysis, if Bush wins, our national debt will reach over 11 Trillion dollars and under Kerry about 9 trillion dollars, so far.
An excelent article on this subject appears in the Washington Post. What isn't mentioned in the article is the penchant the Bush administration has for underestimating the costs of its programs. The Medicare legislation that President Bush pushed for in Congress had a price tag according to the White House in January of 530 billion dollars, or 1/3 more than advertised before the bill passed. This was reported in the NY Times by Robert Pear.
This failure by the administration to confess to the real cost of the Medicare overhaul legislation is now not only adding to the national debt, but is going to cost senior citizens dearly as well. The White House, according to USA Today, announced early this month that "Monthly payments for Part B of the government health care program for older and disabled Americans — doctor visits and most other non-hospital expenses — will jump to $78.20 from $66.60, a 17% increase..." For those on fixed incomes, this is going to hurt. Another USA Today story reports
Information the Bush administration excluded from its 2004 report on the Medicare program shows that a typical 65-year-old can expect to spend 37% of his or her Social Security income on Medicare premiums, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses in 2006. That share is projected to grow to almost 40% in 2011 and nearly 50% by 2021.
President Bush estimated that our costs in Iraq would be reimbursed by about 2 Billion in 2003 and more in 2004 to come from Iraq's oil revenues. That never materialized. In fact, the Washington Post article above states "The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost." That does not include the costs of the 'war against terrorists' in Afghanistan and the transfer payments being made to Pakistan and other nations in return for their cooperation. The Post article goes on to state
A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.
In fact, the estimates of Bush's campaign promises are reaching by some estimates over the $4 Trillion mark added to the national debt. The Washington Post reports
Peter R. Orszag, a senior fellow in economic policy at the Brookings Institution, said a conservative estimate for the cost of Bush's permanent tax cuts and Social Security accounts would be about $4 trillion over 10 years. But Bush's agenda was vague and did not include details of how he would add Social Security accounts.
So, according to President Bush, Kerry would put Americans $2 trillion dollars closer to bankruptcy, while examiners of Bush's promises put his costs at over $4 trillion dollars. No matter how one slices it, the Bush agenda takes America toward bankruptcy twice as fast as Kerry.
Let there be no mistake. Behind the scenes, economists are getting worried. These kind of national debt levels may not be so troublesome if we had a never ending GDP growth rate of 4 to 5% and trade surpluses. But that is not, and very likely will not, be the case. As Reuters reports on the 2nd quarter trade deficit:
The gap -- the broadest measure of trade and investment flows between the United States and the rest of the world -- came in well above analysts' expectations for a $159.35 billion shortfall and could fan concerns about the U.S. dollar and the nation's ability to continue to fund the deficit.And note the deficit of which they speak is the current 7.4 trillion dollars.
(For those who like context, an 11 trillion dollar national debt equals an average tax obligation for every working person in America of $78,571.00)
Posted by David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 04:38 AMGood info. to have David. The only problems I see with it is that (1) in the near future, another one will come up that says the exact opposite, to make the conservatives happy so they will continue to support Bush and (2)the partisan slant towards kerry.
I mean, let’s face it, neither side cares about what’s best for the American people. Instead of helping our own, our govt. sends billions and billions of “free” dollars each year to foreign countries. They continue to give “free” money to special intrest groups, save this and save that funds and racists groups. They give “free” handouts to people who think welfare is a way of life, starting unnecessary wars, and they keep giving themselves raises, futher seperating themselves from the common American. And now the govt. even gives “free” money to churches. “Free” health care is a joke. It doesn’t work in other countries, won’t work here. But if it will get votes, then its on the ballot or on a bill.
The problem: “it is not free money,” it is our tax money that is supposed to be used for us. The numbers here say one thing and later some numbers will say the opposite, thus keeping the taxpayers confused, and sadly, divided.
Thanks for posting that, David. It’s a sobering report of the folly of our republocratic mishap of a government’s fiscal responsibility.
Not to mention though, we’ve had a really busy and costly hurricane season, and that money’s not going to manifest out of thin air. On top of all the damage, businesses will report major losses and expect the government to stretch a net beneath them.
What about next year? The years to come?
Posted by: Will at September 15, 2004 10:37 AMOh yeah, and lets not forget to thank them for all the hard work lying to us must be.
Posted by: Will at September 15, 2004 11:27 AMBut by golly, Bush is going to protect his stock dividend and estate tax cuts no matter what!
Bush’s record on fiscal responsibility stinks. He’s a known entity.
And a hypocrite, to boot. I can’t get over the fact that he’s slamming Kerry’s $2 trillion proposals while putting forth his own $3 to $4 trillion proposals.
Kerry, at least, has announced his programs with the caveat, “John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending.”
Clinton came into office with a bunch of proposals, but quickly decided that they wouldn’t be taken seriously unless he proved he could lower the deficit first. Kerry (unlike some other Democrats) supported Clinton on that from day one.
I think it’s obvious that Kerry will be more fiscally responsible. Clinton controlled a spend-crazy Republican Congress. Bush let them run wild. Based on everything he’s said, and on his Senate voting record, I think Kerry will rein them in again.
Oh yeah, and lets not forget to thank them for all the hard work lying to us must be.
And just how are the Republicans going to pay for that? Oh, that’s right. They’re going to raise the debt limit for the third time in three years.
I can’t believe Republicans are balking at Greenspan’s suggestion to “reinstate laws requiring Congress to pay for both tax cuts and new spending programs by either spending cuts or tax increases in other areas,” and Americans aren’t going nuts.
“You cannot manufacture a consensus for statutory controls when the consensus for budget discipline is not strong enough,” said Representative Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the House Budget Committee.“I do not believe, unfortunately, there is a broad enough consensus necessary to enact budget controls into law.”
The Senate, the House, and the administration are dominated by allegedly fiscally responsible Republicans, and they can’t find a consensus for controlling government spending!!?
“Clinton controlled a spend-crazy Republican Congress.”
Funny, AP, do you remember who supported and who opposed the balance budget amendment?- which, by the way, would have saved us from the terrible situation we have today… The BBA was based on the understanding that we cant trust those in power to control themselves- so the constitution must do it in this way. It was a great idea, too bad clinton and his people shot it down…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 15, 2004 12:19 PMAP,
David’s article elicited the same thoughts from me: 1) Kerry has been forthcoming & acknowledged his programs are goals, & that spending may have to be trimmed, and 2) When one party controls the Executive & Legislative branches, the checks on spending fall by the wayside. ‘Spend and borrow’ Republicans have turned a budget surplus into a massive deficit. We’re two years into the Bush recovery, past the point where blame can be assigned to 9/11 or the recession. How deep does the crater need to be before people become concerned?
Ya know, the self raises thing goes way back. Notice that in 2001, the democrats actually had more votes for the raise, all under the watch of our beloved Dubya. However, also take note of the slim margin:
Dems: 35y 15n
Reps: 30y 18n
See, when greed is the wildcard, all faces become emotionless.
Hey, if I may ask a serious question; Who or what actually granted our house of congress to promote thier salaries without the approval of the people they serve?
Posted by: Will at September 15, 2004 12:45 PMWill, you will love hearing that the House is about to give itself another $4000 per person raise for the wonderful work they have been doing in the new Federal Pay adjustment bill coming up.
It would be laughable if not so utterly sad and destructive for our and our children’s future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 01:47 PMNot that our fuzzy little congresscritters need any defending, but that raise is basically the same cost of living raise that all federal employees are getting, including the military. Once in a great while they also approve raises for the Prez and Vice-Prez, but certainly not in an election year. Same old game.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 15, 2004 02:21 PMNOTOTH, it would only have taken an a sentence or two in the bill to exclude Congresspersons from this $4000.00 a year raise. Until Congress ends deficit spending and quits charging our future pay checks with more tax hikes, I want to see their pay going down, NOT UP!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 03:36 PMYou’re right David, we need to get back to a balanced budget.
We need to start by cutting spending. Cut spending first, then we can talk about tax increases.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at September 15, 2004 05:49 PMMisha, your perception of the BBA regarding our present plight is slightly off base. The BBA allowed for deficit spending in times of national emergency. Hence, the budget deficits we experienced since 9/11 would have occured under the banner of naitonal emergency anyway. Please, don’t tell me the pent up frustration of Congresspersons would not have exploded into even larger deficits if the BBA had been in force prior to 9/11. Every ounce of sociology and psychology research on frustrated desire would dictate differently.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 05:51 PMTell it to Bush, Eric. And right after he pulls two trillion out of his spending plans making them equal to Kerrys, it will be time enact Kerry’s rollback of tax cuts for the wealthy. Touche’
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2004 05:56 PMNOTOTH,
Didn’t Bush just hold back a cost of living raise for federal employees in 02 or 03 because they didn’t have enough money?
Oh my gosh. I campaign for Kerry everyday. This is the perfect article to convince any Bush supporter [Comment deleted for flame baiting - WatchBlog Manager] There is no argument in this article. It’s funny how some of the Republicans are keeping a little quiet on this article. Maybe the truth is sinking in. Thank you very much David for the fantastic article.
Posted by: Noel Phillips at September 15, 2004 07:23 PMNoel, we appreciate all perspectives on politics here, but, we must insist that WatchBlog participants avoid insults against other persons here at WatchBlog. There are plenty of other sites to visit if flame wars are what you want. WatchBlog maintains a policy of civil discourse and debate. Your cooperation in this matter will be very much appreciated.
Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at September 15, 2004 07:35 PMDavid,
I don’t think the election will bankrupt America, but I can’t help wonder if most citizens understand why their future is at risk with who every they pick.
The next President and Congress will have the distinct honor of resetting our economy to a more even keel. Greenspan mentioned the problem last week in a senate committee meeting aired on c-span.
Bush or Kerry will need to address the “Living Standard Income” and our economic leaders will handle the realienment of future gross income between professionals and the unskilled labor pool of this nation. Now, I don’t want to scare anybody, but our you sure you want Bush to tell you how to live your life?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 15, 2004 09:56 PMHenry, was that the committee meeting where Greenspan told Republicans, “You should not be borrowing for your tax cuts.” ?
Didn’t that prompt Republicans to reply there’s no concensus for fiscal responsibility in the Republican controlled Congress?
It was a great idea, too bad clinton and his people shot it down…
And yet Misha, Clinton vetoed bill after pork-laden bill (republicans wouldn’t give him a line-item veto) until he balanced the budget. And bequethed Bush a surplus!
Obviously the BBA isn’t what’s needed. We just need to elect more responsible representatives.
We just need to elect more responsible representatives.
Hehhe - right. Next thing you know, they’ll be electing themselves … all by themselves … wait that already happened. :O
Posted by: Will at September 16, 2004 10:54 AMAP,
I’m not sure of the committee’s name, I was just going to sleep. However, he said alot more than just borrowing on tax cuts. In fact, he warned congress that something had to be done about the inbalance of our two teir labor force (Hence the Two America’s Edwards talk about).
It seems that the professional pay raises over the last 24 years has out paced the unskilled labor wages to the point that our economy is ready to filp. He even went as far as mentioning the mass illegal Aliens are part of the problem.
If you really are interested in seeing what he is talking about web search the words “Living Standard Income.”
The different articles you will find show why our goverment is facing the inability to ensure domestic tranquility unless something is done quickly. Tax the professional to level their pay with the unskilled labor force, reclassify Standard of living, or raise minimum wage by 150%.
This issue needs to be addressed in the next year or America will face a 40% devalueation in the dollar on the open market and an IMF warning about investing in our country. Though, smart chioce need to be made quickly.
Besides that I really don’t think people would like to find that we have become a country of classes. No, not rich vs, poor, for that one would be to easy. Professional (college educated) vs. Unskilled (high school grad). The real loser in this war will be our society and everyones standard of living. The small business people and workers must come together and stop they maddness.
Please, read some of the articles and tell me what you think. It will open your eyes to why Bush and Kerry is both a joke when it comes to our economy.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 02:08 PMJohn Kerry has adopted Nader’s campaign stump item of “Pay as you Go”. This definitely puts Kerry in the plus column over Bush on our deficit debt issue. That and the fact that Kerry’s campaign promises come to 2 trillion dollars or so less than Bush’s budgets, promises and tax cuts.
On fiscal issues, it appears Kerry is winning hands down on being more responsible with Americans tax dollars. Too bad America won’t pay attention to anything but 30 year old memos and medal issues.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 16, 2004 04:59 PMDavid,
When faced with the turth about our economy, Kerry and Edwards realize that a major overhaul in the system is needed. Bush and Cheney thinks that the big engine is running fine. No competition!
Web search the words “Living Standard Income” and check out the different links. Almost everyone of them show the inbalance of income. Problem America faces right now is that the top half is bigger than the bottom half need I say more.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 08:43 PMOh my gosh. I campaign for Kerry everyday. This is the perfect article to convince any Bush supporter [Comment deleted for flame baiting - WatchBlog Manager] There is no argument in this article. It’s funny how some of the Republicans are keeping a little quiet on this article. Maybe the truth is sinking in. Thank you very much David for the fantastic article.
Posted by: Noel Phillips at September 15, 2004 07:23 PM
It is funny how both parties keep quiet on this issue. Republican here. But this a serious enough issue that all americans should stand up together
and make it the issue that politicians start talking about! When asked about what concerns them most, this should always be one of our first responses.Someone said earlier “cut spending first.” That cry got heard I think it was 12 years ago, but we let them change the subject.
As always David, thanks for bringing up this subject. If more people would be as steadfast on this as you are, it really could be the discussion that would be the “common ground” to end the ridiculous bitterness on both sides.To common folk todays politicians all look like a bunch of spoiled rich kids fighting over a toy, whining and calling each other names. I’ve lived in the same medium sized military town (home of Camp Lejune N.C.)since 1975,so I have many friends in many ages,types,ethnic backgrounds,& classes.Military & civilian. Most don’t give a thought to politics. Virtually all of them that don’t say (I’m sure they say the same thing to you all) Politicians are all the same,they just say what they want you to hear! You can’t argue with them. In this case they are right. Just because they aren’t involved in the system, doesn’t mean that they are not perceptive.
David:
John Kerry has adopted Nader’s campaign stump item of “Pay as you Go”. This definitely puts Kerry in the plus column over Bush on our deficit debt issue. That and the fact that Kerry’s campaign PROMISES come to 2 trillion dollars or so less than Bush’s budgets, PROMISES and tax cuts.
Talk is cheap & any body can talk a good game (Bush included) but until someone steps up to the plate and takes some swings at it that is all it is,talk! Like a word used twice in your post, PROMISES,PROMISES! :-O
Posted by: averagejoe at September 16, 2004 11:36 PM
AP- the following statement: “We just need to elect more responsible representatives” while true misses the fundamental incite that our founders had. The quote from Federalist 10 is “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” (not the exact quote, but close enough). The bottom line is that people in power, no matter WHAT party, cannot be trusted to restrain themselves. This is why we have lots of constitutional limits on our government (even if the liberals have discarded most those of those checks via an unrealistic readings of the commerce clause over the last 70 years).
In any case, the BBA is exactly in the mold of our framing- because it places a pre-emptive check upon the powers that government officials can have, because we KNOW, as Madison knew in federalist 10, that enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. If you are hoping for fiscal responsibility from politicians who have a self-interest in giving away as many goodies to potential voters as possible, you will be waiting forever and we will go into an ever deeper hole (and if you think Clinton wouldnt have run huge deficits if it wasnt for the 1994 election, you are also kidding yourself- I hope deep down, you know that).
And David- yes, you are right that BBA wouldnt of solved the post-9/11 problem- but the increase in discretionary spending that isn’t related to security measures during this administration would certainly have been stemmed.
avergejoe, thank you for the comments. Too true, promises, promises, don’t mean a thing unless the voters hold the politicians to them and vote their heinies out when they don’t.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2004 02:22 AMMisha, the real problem here is how to write the BBA law so that it is immune to omnibus spending bills in times of emergency, just as Congress is likely to do here shortly. Tack on huge pork spending with a the words “homeland defense” or “foreign intelligence” of “military R&D” attached it.
I am not opposed to a BBA at all, I just for the life of me cannot figure out how to 1) politically pass it, and 2) write it in such a way that it serves its intended purpose and only its intended purpose.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2004 02:28 AMTalk is cheap & any body can talk a good game (Bush included) but until someone steps up to the plate and takes some swings at it that is all it is,talk!
avg, they said that about Clinton, too. I say Bush has blown his chance. We know he’s not interested in lowering the deficit. It’s time to call for the relief pitcher to save the game.
Misha, I’m sure you’re aware that Clinton’s first budget was a huge fight against big spenders in Congress on both sides of the aisle. If I remember right, Gore had to break the tie. We need another President like that. Someone who is willing to face the wrath of his own party as well as the other in order to restore fiscal sanity.
AP
Misha, I’m sure you’re aware that Clinton’s first budget was a huge fight against big spenders in Congress on both sides of the aisle. If I remember right, Gore had to break the tie. We need another President like that. Someone who is willing to face the wrath of his own party as well as the other in order to restore fiscal sanity.
If I remember right, didn’t it raise taxes 500b & increase spending 500b? (tax & spend) is hardly how to restore fiscal sanity. And the parties voting along straight party lines isn’t very impressive either.That gave Gore the vote.That’s just what we need! Look at him now,proving himself to be a nutcase! I would like both parties to respect the other enough to realize that if you can’t draw a reasonable amount of votes from the other side, somethings wrong.Because that other half represents the other half of america (supposedly) Maybe a super majority on spending bills would help?
Posted by: averagejoe at September 18, 2004 09:21 AMavg, I think it was $35b, mostly through taxes on fuel.
You’re making my point for me, pointing out that every single Republican opposed reducing the deficit and increasing the national debt. Thanks!
…and for increasing the national debt.
David & AP
All jokes a side check out this figures. Bush and Kerry says trillions of dollars?
Health Care Solution
Introduce a two dollar increase in living wages to pay for all working people have full health care. Cut Work Men’s Comp all together and replace it with a disability clause in the health care coverage. Set newer limits on compensation of all work related accidents under new package of insurance.
Further reduction in cost can be found by replacing Unemployment and Welfare with a Community Work Program. This program would help pay for their health care and other public assistance in exchange for volunteering throughout their community. Involvement into the decisions that affect their life and what it takes to build a real community should keep scholars busy for years.
Money required: 49 million citizens at
Pay Raise: $2.00/hr X 40 hours a week= $80/wk
$80/wk X 4.3= $344.00/mth
$344.00/mth X 12= $4,128/yr
$4,128/yr X 49 million= $202.272 billion dollars/yr
The American chooses:
Increased wages which are a tax write off or increase in taxes of the rich.
We Blog! You decided
Hey, if I may ask a serious question; Who or what actually granted our house of congress to promote thier salaries without the approval of the people they serve?
There is a check that the people have—we can choose not to keep electing selfish idiots that only give themselves pay raises.
In my mind, there’s two investments we need to make RIGHT NOW in order to save our economy from complete disaster: 1) Invest in education. This should be obvious; 2) Invest in renewable energy technology. Getting off oil dependence is the first step towards fixing our economy. Instead of paying billions of dollars to oppressive governments (Saudi Arabia anyone?) we could actually fund many of the much needed social programs like universal healthcare, a living wage, you name it.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at September 19, 2004 11:33 AMDaniel, add “Invest in non-incumbent candidates”.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2004 06:58 PMThanks, nice article David. Yet another reason to vote for Badnarik, especially if you live in a safe state.
Posted by: robertLP at September 21, 2004 10:02 AMThank you robertLP, we third party and non Republocrat independent folks need to reinforce each other whenever possible.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2004 10:16 AM
