The New Republic

Mr. Cohn excuses the President from proposing a responsible long term fiscal blueprint on the grounds that the Republicans savaged his proposed Medicare cuts in the context of the ObamaCare debates last year. Obviously, Mr. Cohn needs little pretext to play the role of lap dog. When would Mr. Cohn think it appropriate for us to expect the nation's leader to propose the tax and entitlement reforms necessary to avoid the ever more imminent fiscal train wreck - a 12% yield on treasury notes? Abolition of the Republican party? A constitutional amendment giving Obama a 12 year term? When?

- jkodak

February 14, 2011 at 2:03pm

Jkodak: How about: "When he either has the political capital necessary to push such a blueprint through on his own," (he doesn't) or "When we can presume some minimal measure of good faith from the other side of the aisle over the issue, in negotiations and propaganda, rather than, on the contrary, presuming that they'll shoot down the proposals out-of-hand while making Obama pay politically." That good enough for you? I'll do you one better: the current budget crisis is a result of irresponsible policies enacted between 2001 and 2005 by the Republican party. It's ridiculously hypocritical that they now not only refuse to deal with the problem rationally, but, contrary to fact, try to blame Obama for it. Go run the numbers. When you're done with that, if you can make a credible case that the current deficit problem isn't a product of Republican policies (hint: you can't), then we'll listen to your self-righteous whining.

- Curran1

February 14, 2011 at 4:37pm

Only after we we abandon the unsubstantiated belief that higher top tax rates and the lower capital gains and dividend tax rates are economic necessities, will we be able to make progress. If the economy is at full strength, many government obligations are lessened. The ideas that spending has less of a stimulus impact on the economy than top tax cuts and that top tax cuts provide a significant stimulus for the economy are ideas that serve as obstacles to a balanced budget.

- Nusholtz

February 14, 2011 at 9:36pm

Curran: For the sake of argument, I'm willing to indulge your extreme partisanship and concede that every problem faced by our country for the past century can be placed squarely and solely at the feet of the Republican Party. Yes, the sorry state of urban schools too. Tell me, how does this concession obviate the need for President Obama to behave like a president and begin to defuse this fiscal time bomb? It should be all the more obvious to you, given your WHY MOMMY IS A DEMOCRAT view of the political landscape, that Obama must act forcefully. After all, do you expect help or solutions from those Republican meanies? The irony here is that, sooner or later, this leadership vacuum will bring about by default what the Libertarians could never have achieved in the politcal arena, an eviscerated welfare state. Decrying this sad state of affairs hardly makes me a self righteous whiner.

- jkodak

February 14, 2011 at 11:06pm

Jkodak: "blah blah blah mommy extreme partisanship." There's no partisanship in stating the truth, or the obvious: the present deficit was caused by an unpaid for tax cut, an unpaid for prescription drug benefit, two unpaid for wars, and a large recession. All but the the last are republican policies, and the last is at least arguably the result of right-wing policies. The stimulus, the only recent major left-wing contribution to the deficit, is now expired. As for the rest, it's a straw-man argument. I commented only on the deficit, the absurd unwillingness of the right to face reality or responsibility concerning it, and their additional practice of making political hay over the opposition's desire to take even moderate steps to rein in spending. ...And, of course, your contradictory desire to place all the blame on the left. You've addressed none of this. Look me up when you have a real argument.

- Curran1

February 15, 2011 at 12:49am

Curran: My only argument has been that regardless of who wins the lawsuit, it would have been better for all involved to have avoided the accident in the first place. But since you demand the blame game tally, here it is: Debt held by the public at end of 2010 - $9.018 trillion (CBO) Lost revenue as a result of all Bush tax cuts from 2001 - 2010 was orignally predicted to be 1.6 trillion by CBO. The latest credible estimate comes from the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice which places it at $2.5 trillion. The Congressional Research Service published a report Sept. 2, 2010 placing the total cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other GWOT operations since 9/11 at $1.121 trillion. The latest CBO estimate of Medicare Part D I could find places the total cost through 2013 at $558 billion. Now it seeems a bit silly to attribute all of these costs to Bush and the Republicans. After all, I seem to recall significant Democratic support for Afghanistan and the President campaigned on expanding opertions there. I also seem to recall Democrats criticising Part D for being too stingy and have now subsequently closed the donut hole. But even if you one is willing to overlook all of these and other complications to your benefit, your assertion that Bush is responsible for our current debt is still 54% false. Given the numbers, intellectual integrity forbids one from endorsing your position.

- jkodak

February 15, 2011 at 11:24am

Now we're getting somewhere--your numbers look about right. Here's the problem: 54% of that figure would be an acceptable level for public debt, and the levels at which debt would be increasing would, likewise, be acceptable (and modest). The approximate doubling of the debt since 2001 which you more or less acknowledge, and (even more importantly) the continuing large deficits heading into future years (i.e. larger than about 3% of the economy which is often taken as the maximum sustainable amount) are what put us in the nasty situation we're in now, and, again, they're largely a result of Bush policies. According to your numbers, the total debt we'd be holding now without the fiscal changes of 2001-8 would be...only a little greater than when Clinton left office, i.e. the debt would have declined slightly as a percentage of the economy (a good place to be). Part D has been criticized for several reasons--including for creative accounting re: the donut hole that everyone assumed would eventually be filled in, but the fact is that it was Republican leadership that pushed the policy through in its unfunded state, while the filling of the hole that happened later (under Democrats) was done as part of a bill that was fully funded by revenue increase and spending offsets. This is a good demonstration of the difference in how Dems and Republicans have made policy since 1981, and neatly illustrates how Dems have been responsible over spending, within the limits political reality forces on them. Republicans have not been. ....The last time Dems did more or less what you're asking: put together a budget package that restored fiscal responsibility through a combination of large spending cuts and modest tax increases, they were crucified for it (1993). The situation was very similar: they were fixing the nasty fiscal mess created largely by Reagan. Yet the Dems took the blame for being responsible, while Republicans dishonestly made political hay of it. Because of that precedent, and the continuing bad faith of the right in refusing to take any responsibility over the matter, and, in fact, attacking the left if they try to fix things, the Dems will only stick their heads out so far; that is the reality. Best, C

- Curran1

February 15, 2011 at 12:33pm

Well said, Curran, especially the conclusion. Until the Republican Tea Party ends it's intransigence and belligerence, there are no grounds for whining about Democrats not risking their political careers to fix everything that's wrong with the federal government, again.

- GSpinks

February 16, 2011 at 11:06am