Excellent post -- I too hope he takes Benen's advice to heart. Otherwise it will lend a great deal of credence to Republican complaints that we begin to get the debt down -- just at the moment when 1) we need cash to create jobs and restore confidence; 2) bickering over the costs of restoring our economy has become a great game for the republicans to play while they watched the nation burn up cash for the last 8 years.
Obama will begin a series of talks with democrats and republicans on a plan to begin to pay down debt -- but until he wants to get into the FDR cycle of taking care of debt "too soon" (1938-39) then it should be a plan for the "future." On Feb 21, 7:14 am, "Sumerian.." <[email protected]> wrote: > shersy17 wrote: > > Obama Beats Down Another Big Bush > Lie > By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly > Posted on > February 20, 2009, > President Obama has only been in office for a > month, and I'm already tired of the phrase "change you can believe in." When > he > does something great, his supporters use it ("That's change we can > believe in!"). When he does something misguided, his detractors use it > ("Whatever this is, it's not chance we can believe in"). This has become > rather > tiresome. > > That said, the whole point of "change you can believe in," when it was used > during the presidential campaign, was to highlight Obama's commitment to > changing the way the system works. Americans had been misled so often about so > many aspects of government over the last eight years, Obama wanted to return > some integrity and intellectual honesty to the political process. The cliche > was > practically intended to be literal -- he would change the system, so that > we could believe in it again. > > And with that in mind, this > is exactly the kind of change Obama promised to deliver. > > For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four > accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit > projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget > that > is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would > otherwise appear, according to administration officials. > > The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, > Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster > responses. > > But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative > minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy > from > using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax. > > While budget sleight of hand and "magic asterisks" had become the norm, OMB > Director Peter Orszag explained, "The president prefers to tell the truth, > rather than make the numbers look better by pretending." > > It's about damn time. The smoke-and-mirrors approach to which we've grown > accustomed was ridiculous. It was a problem policymakers recognized, but > didn't > want to talk about, and had no interest in fixing. It's not only heartening to > see Obama bring some sanity to the process, it will also have key practical > consequences -- honest budgets lead to better policy making. > > Noam > Scheiber added that it will be "kinda helpful to have a budget that actually > means something when you're debating public policy," and added the political > upside to using honest budget numbers for a change: "Why not make the > long-term > deficit look as large as possible at the beginning of your term? Not only can > you fairly blame your predecessor at that point; the bigger the deficit looks, > the easier it is to show progress, which Obama will need to do as he runs for > re-election. To take one example, you can't claim savings from drawing down in > Iraq if you don't put Iraq spending on the budget in the first place (which > Bush > mostly didn't)." > > I think that's largely right, but the politics might be more complicated than > that. By bringing some integrity to the budget, Obama will also show some > steep deficits, which will likely cause a major-league trantrum on the > Hill. > > John Cole offers the administration some excellent advice: > > The very first thing I would do if I were Peter Orszag and company, and > this is one of the very few times I actually hope someone in government > listens to me, is to go back and re-score the last decade or so of budgets > using the new accounting system, so when they roll this out they can say > "Here > is what this year's budget would have looked like under the old system. Here > is what it looks like under the new system. Here are the past ten years > worth > of budgets under the old system. Here they are under the new system." For > political reasons, this simply has to be done. > > Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online > blog, Political Animal. His > background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a > variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, > the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of > the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder > Show," > and XM Radio's "POTUS '08." > © 2009 Washington Monthly All rights > reserved. > View this story online at:http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www. > washingtonmonthl y.com/128032/ > > ======= > S1000+ > ======= > > --- On Sat, 2/21/09, [email protected] < wrote: --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
