Democracy in America

American politics

Barack Obama's budget

Dealing with the debt

Feb 18th 2012, 14:04 by R.M. | WASHINGTON, DC

WE HERE at DiA left it to our colleagues at Free exchange to break down Barack Obama's budget this week. And they've done a fine job (see here and here), so consider this an addendum to their coverage.

Yesterday James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute highlighted an interesting chart which, it might surprise you to know, came from the president's budget.

The chart is too obvious to be terrifying. That change in the slope of the debt-to-GDP curve starting in 2022 is caused by America's increasing number of retirees and the rising cost of health care. There's nothing original in noting that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the main drivers of America's long-term debt problem. But there it is in stark relief. And on Thursday it led to this entertaining exchange between Tim Geithner and Paul Ryan.

Mr Geithner's comments suggest that the administration is taking a two-track approach to America's debt problem. The first track involves whittling down America's short-term deficit to reasonable levels. So the budget released on Monday reduces the deficit to 2.8% of GDP by 2019, and maintains that level for the rest of the ten-year window. As my colleague notes, "That's close to primary balance—the government's books would nearly balance net of interest costs." Not bad, but it's on the second track that the administration really disappoints. That track involves dealing with America's out-of-control spending on entitlements, and this year's budget largely avoids the problem. Hence, you get Tim Geithner telling Paul Ryan that the administration doesn't have a definitive solution, "we just don't like yours". And it didn't like the one put forward by its own deficit commission. Which leaves Mr Pethokoukis to conclude that "Obama has no interest in being Clinton 2.0, the Debt Cutting President. He wants to be FDR 2.0, the Expanding Welfare State President."

Actually, it seems he wants to be both. Mr Pethokoukis forgets that Mr Obama pursued a grand bargain with John Boehner that would've raised taxes and cut the safety net. And he forgets that Mr Obama's largest new programme, health-care reform, was fully paid for (and then some). Moreover, in the early days of Obamacare there was a real effort to include significant cost-cutting measures in the final bill. The Republicans, in turn, demagogued the issue, alluding to death panels and forsaken seniors. Still today the president is paying a price, as Mitt Romney nonsensically criticises him for ignoring America's "entitlement crisis" while "cutting Medicare benefits for seniors". But I imagine if Mr Obama does win re-election, making the electoral ramifications of his actions a second thought, and the economy stays healthy, he'll push to curb entitlement spending, and put Republicans on the spot. I could be wrong, but there seems to be just as much evidence pointing to Mr Obama as being Clinton 2.0 as FDR 2.0. And I think Mr Obama's team realises that if another Democratic president embraces the mantle of fiscal responsibility, the party will have earned ownership of the issue for some time to come.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

RajKanodia

The fundamental problem America faces is the "jobs deficit". Lower-end middle class jobs, mostly in manufacturing, have been exported to China (and other Asian countries); higher-end middle class jobs, mostly in research and development, have begun to be exported to India and Europe. Low-end jobs, mostly in services, are expanding, but they can not provide enough tax revenue to balance the budget and also maintain the level of services expected by a "developed" society. In the foreseeable future the debt will only grow because of the budget deficits created by the jobs deficit. The jobs deficit also creates the trade deficit, which, due to "wise" policy of China, is funding the  debt. To solve the long term debt problem, we have to solve the problem of the "jobs deficit". Obama administration is attempting to create more jobs, but it will take nothing less than a complete overhaul of US tax system to address the jobs deficit (consider this: profits on investments made in other countries are taxed at lower rates than low-end earned income. Why would anyone want to create any job in the US?) Democratic politicians are more interested in providing a safety-net for those without jobs (and those with low-end jobs) than creating new jobs; Republic politicians are more interested in preserving record profits that multi-nationals are making by selling goods in America that are manufactured elsewhere. Hence, the budget deficit and the huge debt are likely to grow and persist for sometime to come, or until people get really fed up and see through the smoke screens created by the politicians across the board.

jedo92082

Some issues have Republicans being unhelpful- but guess what folks, this is a President who INCREASED the budget deficit and REJECTED any and all debt reducing plans. Oh, and Obama's insurance plan repayment claim hinges on economic forecasting, or better known as "guessing".

I disagree with Obama's social views- I knew that- but he could have earned my vote this time around if he (and his Administration) actually attempted to address America's greatest national security threat. And on that part, he is an absolute failure (and is Congress sans Paul Ryan)

sanjait

I loved Geithner's answer. "We just don't like yours".

But there was another answer I wish he also gave, and that is, "This administration is dealing with the multitude of massive problems it inherited one at a time, despite Republicans deliberately obstructing at every step. We'll get to the long term Medicare problem later..."

jedo92082 in reply to sanjait

Later as in when? Guess what- when a politician puts re-election above the nation, he or she should be impeached. No matter who they are and whichever party they are a part of- putting selfish gain above the duty of office is a crime against 300 million Americans

ShakaUVM

Obama's health care reform is not "fully paid for and then some".

They played tricks with the 10 year cost estimation window to pretend-make it balanced.

ShakaUVM in reply to sanjait

The CBO is required by law to estimate revenues and expenses over a 10 year window. By starting revenues (taxes) three years before any expenses would go out, they rigged the accounting to make it look like it was balanced.

If you amortize it out over a long period of time, it is not balanced.

guest-ilmaise

All that needs to be done is to raise the retirement age substantially (say, to the average life expectancy) and the entitlement problem goes away. It's quite simple, when these programs were put into effect, most people didn't live long enough to collect. We have to get back to that point where most people work until they die and most people don't live long enough to collect. I for one, being 27 years old, don't expect to ever collect from the system so I take personal responsibility to save for my own retirement.

sanjait in reply to guest-ilmaise

We've seen with Social Security that raising the retirement age saves next to nothing, because a lot of people near retirement age end up on social security disability instead.
And dumping 65 year olds back onto the private health insurance market might save the government some money, but the private health care expenses would rise by a greater amount, because those people would be sent back to a system that is substantially less efficient than Medicare. Why would the American people choose a path to "save money" that actually costs more money (and creates major hardship for seniors in the process!)? It's a net loss for the nation...

sanjait in reply to JamesD65

James,

Here is one reference on this issue:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-125

The picture is complicated a bit, because Social Security actually has two different "retirement ages" - the full retirement age and the early retirement age. What the report concludes is that raising the early retirement age actually loses money for the SS trust fund, because it induces more people to claim disability late in life, which tends to create higher payments and higher administrative costs. The report does say that raising the full retirement age can save the system money, but again, those disability claims subustantially offset that if you try to raise the early retirement age to trail the full age. (clear as mud?).

For Medicare, the picture is much clearer. Raising the age saves the Medicare system money. But it does dump seniors onto private insurance markets, where the same quality health care costs 30% more to deliver. So in a total system (public and private) sense, raising the retirement age doesn't save money, but rather increases costs and then transfers them, which makes it very bad policy.

Last thing ... also keep in mind, when we talk about the entitlement spending crisis, we tend to lump SS and Medicare together, but it's really mostly Medicare that is responsible for the spending growth.

Buddyg04

Obama's healthcare bill was fully paid for? AND THEN SOME?

It was "paid for" by diverting the 2007 Iraq Surge funding that extended out through 2020 and using that money for health care.

Of course, there was

NEVER

Iraq Surge

funding

through 2020,

so there was no money to divert,

except of course according to

(1) Democrats,

(2) Fools, and

(3) The Economist.

sanjait in reply to Buddyg04

Where do you get this stuff from?

Everything I read (from the CBO, who is the one who actually does the estimating...) showed PPACA paid for primarily by a combination of reductions in Medicare and new taxes. I never saw a line item for "Iraq Surge" funding, nor any suspicious line items of significant that weren't clearly not that.

JM3

How much of this budget problem is directly the problem of unsustainable rise of health care costs?

That is as much a problem for private budgets as for the government budgets. Once that problem is solved, maybe the budget problem will not be so intractable.

martin horn

With regards to Medicare, I expect a flat lifetime spending cap per person to be instituted once we reach the point where politicians on both sides can't demagogue the issue any longer (we're getting close).

In this scenario, Medicare becomes extremely progressive (the guy who paid the Medicare payroll tax for high incomes get the same amount of money out of the system as the guy who paid the tax on a low income), and the government limits its liability.

I'm going to be extremely blunt about this. If you're over age 65, and you've reached a point where you require hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care to stay alive, you're not going to bounce back and live a vibrant life for decades.
You're *hoping* for a couple of years and that's usually with a high degree of disability and dependence on others.

The data is clear. When an elderly person starts receiving healthcare at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, doctors are merely delaying the imminent.

blue asgard

Don't expect Obama 2.0 to be anything like Obama 1.0. After all, he's not looking to see if he's going to get re-elected.

So look for somewhat more forceful tactics in getting legislation through congress, including appealing over their heads to the people. It's not a tactic which will make it more likely you get re-elected, but it is a tactic likely to get things done. One or two end-runs like that will make congress realise that their relevance is in question and improve their interest in bipartisanship, but it won't improve either party's attitude to the White House incumbent.

After that it may become possible once again to get some significant legislation through congress, like a more realistic balance between direct and indirect taxes, a bonfire of the tax dodges, and taxation matching what's needed to balance budgets.

RestrainedRadical in reply to blue asgard

"So look for somewhat more forceful tactics in getting legislation through congress, including appealing over their heads to the people."

ObamaCare was a very big deal passed by Congress over the objections of the people. Now what's Obama gonna do with a Republican Congress?

blue asgard in reply to RestrainedRadical

You are assuming it will be a republican congress, right? Obama is if nothing else a formidable campaigner, and the Republicans have handed him a Fortress-worth of ammunition to blast them for unprincipled obstructionism. Indeed Republican congress's standing in the opinion polls is lower than Obamas and goes down every time they obstruct him.

Do you really think that a formidable campaigner like Obama - whom one gathers already has a war chest that the Republican candidates other than Romney can only dream about - do you really think he's going to hold back on the hustings?

I don't. The Tea-partyists would be his natural victims if they were up for re-election but for the most part they won't be, so the Republicans will suffer from that self-inflicted wound right through his second term.

Try

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/obama-explained/8874/

It's good stuff - echoes everything I said in an earlier post of mine which got me my largest number of recommendations ever. Look up my post under 'the right republican'.

http://www.economist.com/node/21542180

bampbs

All you have to do is look at a graph of Federal debt as a percentage of GDP since 1981 to laugh until your sides ache at any suggestion of GOP fiscal responsibility. They're the "Deficits don't matter" Boys, unless a Democrat is in the White House, when they all put on their "Deficit Doom" t-shirts and caps.

50 Cent Peasant Troll in reply to bampbs

Well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only cost ~2tt total over ~10 years. If America could get its healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP to UK levels, it would have saved ~1.05tt in 2011 alone, which actually makes the defense budget relatively insignificant to the debt crisis compared to healthcare.

But the post-Bush GOP's solution to the budget deficit is to cut all government healthcare (and they are correct in saying that Medicare and Medicaid really ARE very inefficient programs), which actually would work.

And according to most outside economists the GOP solution is actually better than the DEM solution to the debt crisis. Seeing as how both sides are only able to come up with odd compromises that nobody is happy with, and unable to compromise for a logically better solution, then I would rather take the GOP solution.

So basically what I'm saying is that America moving to an efficient NHS style universal healthcare is a pipe dream, as there are way too many cushy jobs and paychecks at stake in those insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors for Americans to ever adopt efficient healthcare, so you might as well slash all government program and let the private sector go at it.

A purely private healthcare system would still suck, but it would suck less than the odd mix that America has right now.

(Those people with cushy paychecks consist of 16% of America's GDP and will fight until the end via the political system to make sure the system does not change, so it really is ridiculous to expect America to adopt efficient healthcare in any foreseeable future.)

bampbs in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

Reagan and O'Neill took the heat back in the '80s to shore up Social Security. Now, medical care and payment for it are the looming disaster. We've still got time, but not a lot. What we need is an honest-to-God statesman to tell us the truth about hard changes: going from fee-for-service to capitation, from administrative chaos to nationwide standardization of paperwork, and - hardest of all - from spending half a lifetime's medical expense just to buy six extra months of misery at the end.

I don't see our current electoral system doing it. I think we were much better off in the days when we had only a few Presidential primaries. Normal people have lives, so only the extremes get involved. I suppose we'd have to switch to non-partisan redistricting, too, so that pols would have to persuade people of differing points of view to vote for them. Fat chance.

50 Cent Peasant Troll in reply to bampbs

"What we need is an honest-to-God statesman to tell us the truth about hard changes"

So basically you bought into the Ron Paul rhetoric... (I think)

BTW which god is God? It sounds like one the Christian gods is your god but I cannot tell if it's the Mormon god who lived in New York in the 19th century or the Catholic version who likes to speak to the Pope.

Well I don't actually advocate for that solution, but default to it because the Republicans will never allow for change.

What do you do with you have a crying arrogant, ignorant, and rigid baby on your hands?

Looks like America is doomed to mediocrity at best....

50 Cent Peasant Troll in reply to bampbs

Just FYI, due to the fact that the vast majority of voters are unable to think logically for themselves, politicians will always say what they think voters want to hear in order to get elected.

It's not because they want to lie, but because pandering to voters is the logical move for someone who wants to be elected.

If Ron Paul thinks that telling his libertarian truth will get him elected, then he will do so. But it seems like what he's doing isn't working...

bampbs in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

I think that Ron Paul is a crank.

"Honest-to-God" is not a religious expression, but an idiom meaning "genuine"; but feel free to plug in your own God if you like. If you have none, the equivalent idiom, "honest-to-goodness" will do. The latter is actually more likely to be used by the devout, who would consider saying "honest-to-God" to be taking the Lord's name in vain.

bampbs in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

True almost universally, but there have been very important exceptions. Those exceptions are statesmen. We need another one, soon, who will sacrifice political expediency to the good of the nation.

How you connect what I wrote to what Ron Paul says completely escapes me.

RestrainedRadical in reply to bampbs

Only if you look at the White House. Look at Congress. The best times were when there was a divided government. You should be rooting for Obama to get reelected and Republicans to take both houses. Or vice versa but that's less likely to happen.

Bfordc in reply to bampbs

I agree with your current assessment. The two parties with gerrymandering and 24 hour hack news stations play a zero sum game and have no incentive to change. Those who are succeeding in any system, bankers, lobbyists, teachers, medical professionals, fight against any kind of change.

Non-partisan redistricting, like California has moved to, is the best chance to change this. That, followed by taking the money out of politics.

So the chances are not good. Despite looming fiscal disaster, there is no serious belief that it will be prevented.

bampbs in reply to RestrainedRadical

Divided government was always my preference, but it's got to be Republican President and Democratic Congress, because the Republicans' rigidity makes them impossible in the legislative branch, and the Democrats' wishy-washiness makes them less effective as an executive.

I used to vote Republican back in the days when the Democrats wandered off into Left field, was glad they won Congress in 1994, but was horrified at what the party became once Gingrich and his boys took over. Rove's 50%+1 completely repelled me, and what was done to McCain in SC in 2000 was the last straw. Until I see the GOP shed the domination of it's lunatic fringe, as the Democrats eventually managed to do, I cannot wish them well.

Both parties ought to be fighting over the middle third of the electorate, or we need more than two of them.

bampbs in reply to 50 Cent Peasant Troll

I see. I wouldn't have noticed. I always keep both Flash and image display disabled except when there is something specific that I want to look at. I often disable Javascript, too, unless a page function I need requires it. That way, I am very little troubled by ads in general.

TS2912

It is pathetic that the Economist presents a childish chart drawn by a conservative think tank (the American Enterprise Institute) without any analysis re. its validity.
The chart meanders through 2020 and then shoots up into the sky completely disregarding the fact that BY 2050 MOST OF THE BABY-BOOMERS WILL BE DEAD and the US will have excellent demographics (i.e. ratio of young to old).

Strictly speaking in reply to TS2912

No, the boomers are part of the demographic problem, but not the core issue. The core demographic problem is a combination of ageing and falling fertility rates. The US will face the fiscal impact of these long-term trends regardless of what happens to the baby boomers.

Pacer in reply to TS2912

Yes but by 2050 all kinds of other foreseable challenges (fossil fuel shortages, climate change, aquifer depletion) will have come to the fore, and after paying for BB's Medicare there won't be any resources left to face them.

50 Cent Peasant Troll

So how about adopting European style healthcare and reducing America's expenditure on healthcare from 16% of GDP today to the European norm of 7-12%? Such a move alone would solve America's debt problems by transferring money wasted in private healthcare into a more efficient government, leave more money in the pockets of the private sector, and improve the overall quality of healthcare in America.

Oh wait, the Republicans hate socialized medicine, and the Democrats are unwilling to give up its hugely inefficient government programs.

Good job America! Enjoy your continued crappiness!

Just to add a point: a poster here suggested extending Medicare and Medicaid to everyone as America's solution to universal healthcare.

But such an action result in America spending an even larger % of GDP on healthcare, M&M were poorly negotiated government programs that pays way too much $$ to drug companies, hospitals, and doctors.

The only way America could adopt efficient universal healthcare is to scrap its healthcare system entirely and switch to a European model, but such a move is politically impossible in any foreseeable future because it would affect way too many jobs, and Americans hate change. (jobs consisting of 16% of America's GDP as of today)

So the alternative to the debt problem is to cut M&M. Maybe the Republicans were correct all along? When in a crappy situation you pick the leaset crappy solution.

Ok maybe they don't teach you this in your American dumb dumb schools, but capitalism and socialism are on the same scale. NO economist (including even those dumb dumb American ones) suggest that either pure capitalism or pure socialism could work.

The job of a government is to find the perfect balance on the capitalism-socialism scale and to make government as efficient as possible.

BTW the UK spends 8% of its GDP on healthcare while America spends 16%, and the UK beats America handily in just about every single health indicator. So yea....

(and the Brits are almost just as obese and unhealthy as you Yanks, so it's not a genetic or lifestyle thing....)

I cringe when people say we need to balance capitalism and socialism as if there's an equilibrium point or "perfect balance" as you put it. We should adopt capitalist policies where appropriate and socialist policies where appropriate. Nobody would claim that the movie industry is too skewed towards capitalism and that we need some government intervention even though you can make the same exact argument for movies that you made for health care.

We Yanks have twice the rate of diabetes as Brits.

Actually there is a perfect balance point of the whole system in the sense that you should find the perfect capitalistic or socialistic policies for each individual need.

"We Yanks have twice the rate of diabetes as Brits."

Slap a tax on soda and use the revenue on healthcare. Problem solved... so easy....

BTW please don't give me the 'freedom argument' on why there isn't a tax on soda and 1$ double cheeseburgers.

The purpose of freedom is to increase happiness. If you can achieve happiness by taking away certain parts of freedoms (outlawing meth, taxing soda, etc.) then you should do it.

And to add to my previous argument if you actually do prefer to let people die of heart attacks rather than save them with public $$, then the idiots will realize that their safety nets are gone, give up on society, and turn to crime or other disruptive activities, and then so you have to spend more $$ on law enforcement to curtail such activities.

Libertarianism is basically a snowball of mess, and every credible economist understands this very well.

A heart attack is cheaper than a lifetime of illnesses ending in cancer. Not advocating increased risk of heart attacks but prevention doesn't save money.

I'm more paternalistic that I was in my "Milton Friedman for President!" days but less than I was even last year. The framework I currently examine paternalistic policies under requires that it not penalize rational moral actors. A soda tax penalizes rational healthy people and even rational unhealthy people who only drink soda rarely. A meth ban doesn't penalize any rational person. Having said that, I don't have a problem with democratic paternalism that doesn't infringe on the freedom of conscience since that's basically a voluntary surrender of freedom.

BTW, Milton Friedman wasn't a "credible economist?" Gary Becker isn't? Hell, probably like half of economists are libertarians.

"A soda tax penalizes rational healthy people and even rational unhealthy people who only drink soda rarely. A meth ban doesn't penalize any rational person."

But things are not black and white. Hypothetically for example you cannot say that you disagree with something that would help 310 million idiots but penalize ONE rational person.

You have to consider the magnitude of your actions, and a soda tax is such an obvious move given how stupid Americans seem to be.

"A heart attack is cheaper than a lifetime of illnesses ending in cancer."

Well the point is that you tax soda and $1 double cheeseburgers so people don't go through a lifetime of illnesses. Just look at Europe where super unhealthy food is expensive...

"BTW, Milton Friedman wasn't a "credible economist?"
-----
Nope not even a little bit... That's why no government or large institutions that heavily rely on economics (such as global banking regulations, Basel etc) are even anything close to Milton Freedman-y. So either everyone else is retarded or Milton Freedman had it correct all along....

Sorry that should have been ........ or else Milton Friedman was either wrong or simply rhetorically radical so he could gather more attention for his cause.

Not even Ron Paul or any halfway-rational libertarian today is a pure libertarian. Libertarians want small government but not no government (aka pure libertarianism). They (hopefully) only resort to radical rhetoric in order to gain attention to their cause, but if their rhetoric is taken literally they risk alienating the rational.

BTW not even the movie industry is entirely capitalistic and not even Medicare is entirely socialistic. Both have their own capitalism-socialism scales.

If you weigh each individual capitalism-socialism scale by percentage of GDP then combine them you get an overall scale.

Hence why people say America is capitalistic and France is socialistic.

I don't need to watch an overpriced movie in order to live.

You seem to have made the layman's error of comparing a necessity (health care) with a non-necessity.

(As I've said before, anytime you folks want to end your misconceptions is fine by me.)

Regards

Agreed, and to add to your point, someone being denied of movies because of price does not give up on society and turn to crime and other disruptive activities, which would end up costing more for society to contain.

Someone who is denied healthcare because of price does often give up on society.

Also the Republicans and most independent voters will never end their misconceptions, and even Obama has backtracked in his rhetoric on his healthcare bill quite a bit since he passed it because of how unpopular it became in America.

There are way too many cushy jobs and paychecks at stake in those insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors for Americans to ever adopt efficient healthcare, and these people will fight until the end to make sure the system does not change.

BTW there are many Swiss and French and other countries' drug and medical manufacturing companies that cannot make enough money in their home markets so they make America their highest profit margin market lolololol

So thanks guys.

But as you stated yourself, different needs have different most-efficient solutions.

For example I think we can agree that movies are most efficient when mostly privatized, but building roads or running fire departments are most efficient when mostly socialized.

The point of any institution, government or private, is to maximize efficiency, regardless of which method is used to maximize such efficiency.

So basically most economists usually say that capitalism is good because capitalism beats socialism in efficiency in MOST but not ALL things.

But ~99%+ of Americans, basically everyone who isn't a credible economist, pick and choose a side between capitalism and socialism and loose track of the fact that the whole point of capitalism OR socialism is to maximize efficiency.

Also anyone who has ever worked in strategy consulting (Mitt Romney for example) understands this very well, so I hope for America's sake that he's only pretending to pander to voters during the election and will actually try to maximize the efficiency of the US government if he's elected president.

I don't think government-run fire departments are the most efficient. Government-built roads solve a collective action problem. My problem with those arguing that Medicare-for-all is the most efficient solution is that unlike roads or law enforcement, there's nothing about health care that necessitates socialism. Like fire fighting service or car insurance, you can mandate that people get private coverage but there's no reason why it has to be government-run.

Well again there really is no theoretical difference (but there is a practical difference as observed in the world today) between government and the private sector.

For example Sweden's government is much more efficient than Italy's private sector, and America's private sector is much more efficient than Greece's government.

If you can find a way for private healthcare or fire departments that are more efficient than governments then by all means you have the better solution, but nobody in the world has ever accomplished such things.

I have the right to choose which insurance provider I want.

BTW... by law, I am madated to have auto insurance in order to drive, where is the outburst of whining for that?

Hopefully you'll never get clobbered by an uninsured motorist.

(I love how people with irrelevant arguments use words such as "socialism".)

Regards

I don't think government-run fire departments are the most efficient.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Irrelevant.

You state a false premise and then make up what you want.
Do some research and PROVE they are not efficient.

And thank the families of those firefighters in California who die while putting out wildfires - because the Mega-Mansions have to be protected.

(Does the state send those Mega-Mansion owners a bill for putting out those fires?)

Regards

Well Obama himself has lost track of the fact that the goal of government is to find the most efficient solution, regardless of whether it's socialism or capitalism.

He has done many inefficient socialism things during his first 3 years, such as pandering to the labor unions (NLRB-Boeing for example) and blocking the Keystone XL pipeline (his environmental excuse was just pandering to his environmental voting and donor base), so the Republicans have legitimate claims that Obama has been too "socialistic" during his first term at the expense of the overall efficiency of the USA.

teacup775 in reply to RestrainedRadical

"I don't think government-run fire departments are the most efficient."

the reason municipal fire dept got their start was because the private outfits would fight over the right to put out a fire, let a place burn, and also loot the building they were saving. they probably werent beyond torching places for change.

same goes for police, but if you want private protection call cosa nostra.

teacup775 in reply to RestrainedRadical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Fire_Department

Cant see where you get private fire dept serving the city. But feel free to operate in a town where the cops are in it for the highest bidder. Like I said, cosa nostra probably will be willing to talk to you.

Corruption occurs anywhere, and cerainly municipal safety personel get away with all sorts of mischief, from pensions to double dipping, to charging protection money.

"We still have private fire departments. It can be done efficiently."

Even if what you state is true, it still sounds like you are taking a principled bias toward the private sector over the government. Again there is no theoretical difference between the two, and the only thing that matters is efficiency.

So far you have offered zero evidence to suggest why private healthcare or fire departments are more efficient than government ones. I have offered plenty of evidence for why government healthcare is more efficient, and cannot offer evidence for fire departments because private fire departments do not exist as far as I know.

"Thing is we have the VA, so if we required everyone to serve in the military, no exceptions, everyone would be covered, but I think Medicare etc cost so much because in part the rest of the system is indescribably bad."

That's one of the two main reasons why Medicare cost so much. The second reason is that Medicare was very poorly negotiated by the government, as if it were just another lavish private health insurance rather than a frugal government program, and pays too much $$ to the private sector profiting off of it.

Medicare will need to change regardless of whether America shifts to universal healthcare or not.

RestrainedRadical in reply to teacup775

I never said I'd privatize law enforcement. There's a free-rider problem. You see, when I advocate socialist policies, I'm trying to solve a problem. Others advocate socialist policies simply because they don't like to pay market price.

"it still sounds like you are taking a principled bias toward the private sector over the government. Again there is no theoretical difference between the two"

Rolling eyes.

"I have offered plenty of evidence for why government healthcare is more efficient"

No, you haven't. You can try but you'd be wasting your time because all the regularly cited stats in favor of socialized health care are easily debunked.

"private fire departments do not exist as far as I know."

All you had to do was Google.

"No, you haven't."

Yes I have; UK vs US was the perfect example.

"Rolling eyes."

Blindly the private sector over government without considering efficiency of the two makes about as much sense as blindly accepting Jebus Chris over Buddha. You can do it, but you won't convince anyone, and it's good thing that you're not the one making decisions in America.

"UK vs US was the perfect example."

The fact that the US has twice the rate of diabetes is your example? The fact that Americans receive more end-of-life care is your example?

Once you start looking deep into the data, you see why things are they way they are.

Outside of health care and a few select industries, I don't have to convince people that the free market is more efficient than government. The world is already convinced.

It sounds like you're trying to argue with me like you're do with the DEMs in your country.

I fully acknowledge that both Medicare and Medicaid are poorly negotiated government programs and either need to be reinitiated or scrapped.

But the US private sector healthcare is also massively inefficient if you perform cost benefit analysis on it then compare it to European models.

So what the US needs to do is to scrap its healthcare system entirely and adopt one that works. Otherwise enjoy your continued debt deficits and ever devaluing dollar forever because neither side will accept the other's solution.

"The fact that the US has twice the rate of diabetes is your example? The fact that Americans receive more end-of-life care is your example?"

The fact that the UK has a 5% admin fee, doctors get paid less, hospitals get paid less, drug companies get paid less, medical device manufacturing companies get paid less, and insurance companies don't make money yes. In the UK, the money spent on healthcare ACTUALLY GOES to treating the patients in a cost-effective way. Ask any firm to perform cost-benefit-analysis on NHS compared to the US system and they'll agree. (these CBAs may even be available online. but I don't have the time to find them for you)

Sounds like you're trying to make an argument from a false analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

"Outside of health care and a few select industries, I don't have to convince people that the free market is more efficient than government. The world is already convinced."

Outside of health care and a few select industries, the private sector ACTUALLY IS more efficient than the government. But it sounds like you've accepted Jebus Christ economics to actually accept logical economics, so whatever... no point in arguing with you....

BTW maybe they didn't teach you what efficiency means in those dumb dumb American schools, but if YOUR goal is to provide healthcare to the population, then the efficiency of your healthcare system is how high you score in a cost-benefit-analysis on the system.

Insurance company profits, doctor's salaries, hospital salaries, drug company profits, medical device company profits, are all NEGATIVE efficiencies from YOUR POINT OF VIEW. (those guys have their own POVs and have their own efficiencies)

Your goal is to obtain a desired amount of service for as little money as possible. Ever heard of the supply and demand graph? Well healthcare is like that but much more complicated and has many different potential supply-vs-demand equilibriums depending on how much service you want to provide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Government vs private sector are only intermediary steps of trying to achieve your ultimate goal of efficiency, and really has nothing to do with anything.

"Sounds like you're trying to make an argument from a false analogy."

I didn't make any analogy. I stated directly why Americans spend more on health care.

Administrative cost is not a terribly useful stat. What's better getting an MRI for $100 plus a $10 admin cost or getting it for $200 and a $10 admin cost? The latter has the better admin cost ratio.

All the other price controls you mention has negative consequences. Think about it for a minute. You can probably figure them out yourself. The cost-benefit makes sense if you only count the direct costs.

And yes you would be correct (most Republicans do) in saying that the European model is rationing healthcare.

In America there are some people who receive the best healthcare in the world, and some who receive almost none. If you perform CBA on the system as a whole, then America's system is inefficient. For example obviously it's more cost effective to provide annual checkups and medical advice to those idiots rather than let those idiots become diabetic and develop heart problems and go heart attack on you.

America should cut the fat in its healthcare system (with some negative consequences) and redistribute it toward a more efficient universal system.

Think about it, does a surgeon making $400k a year instead of $500k a year really affect his performance? In a free market people will always try to maximize their profit, and sometimes you can take some profit away without affecting the services they provide.

And to preemptively refute your Movie false analogy:

If you cut the profit that Movie companies make, similar to healthcare you would end up with some negative consequences but still be able to deliver a still-functional Movie system. You can theoretically develop a very efficient socialized movie system, but such an feat would be very difficult and so you might as well do the easy thing let the private sector go at it.

The DIFFERENCE is that people who are restricted to movies do not go diabetic and heart attack on you, forcing you to eventually save them later anyways. So therefore there is no INCENTIVE to intervene in the private sector in movies like there is in healthcare.

Normally the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, so you want to intervene as little as possible. But you have to apply the efficiency test to each individual need rather than just take a blind principled approach as you are doing.

Again false analogy...

"For example obviously it's more cost effective to provide annual checkups and medical advice to those idiots rather than let those idiots become diabetic and develop heart problems and go heart attack on you."

No, it's not. You might've noticed that people have stopped talking about preventive medicine recently. The evidence is that most of it doesn't work. Obese people aren't sufficiently deterred by someone telling them that they need to eat less.

"Think about it, does a surgeon making $400k a year instead of $500k a year really affect his performance?"

Yes. Less supply. Supply and demand. They teach that in our "dumb dumb schools" like Harvard.

"You can theoretically develop a very efficient socialized movie system, but such an feat would be very difficult"

But it's not difficult for health care?

"Yes. Less supply. Supply and demand. They teach that in our "dumb dumb schools" like Harvard."

No nearly the SAME supply. Someone who wants to be a surgeon will still be a surgeon regardless of whether he makes 400 or 500k. In this case by cutting 20% of the cost, you lose maybe 1% of the surgeons in this scenario.

Also I'm sure you didn't study economics at Harvard, except perhaps the very basics at the undergrad level at most.

"But it's not difficult for health care?"

It's very difficult, but also very necessary.

Remember supply and demand curves in real life are often not linear. For example you can make a good change and then you can cut costs by 20% while suffering only 1% of the negative consequences. (You can also make bad changes vice versa) As I've stated many times before, it's really all about maximizing efficiency.

"Remember supply and demand curves in real life are often not linear"
...
In common economic theory, supply and demand curves are quadratic. Linear graphs are just used because a lot of people have a hard time grasping the nature of quadratic graphs. Which happens because parents and schools in the modern world-- both Europe and the USA I should note-- are stupid and put the fear of math in to students at an early age.

So I think the point that you're missing is that the amount of money spent on healthcare does not linearly correlate with the quality of healthcare.

America spending twice the amount of money on an MRI (than Europe for example) does result in a better MRI, but not a twice-as-good MRI.

If you maximize efficiency in MRIs by spending a lot less money for slightly poorer service, then you can save that money and spend the money elsewhere that would result in better efficiency.

Where did you study graduate economics?

The supply of doctors is probably very elastic considering the fact that compensation is largely based on the work you put in, not risk-taking or innovation. But for sake of argument let's accept your 1% claim. That isn't inconsequential. There'd be a corresponding drop in quality. There's a reason why the US has the best health care money can buy. You can't introduce price controls without affecting quality. The solution is to raise the floor (through subsidies), not lower the ceiling (through price controls).

Where I studied economics is irrelevant to this discussion. I can claim to be Ben Bernanke IRL but it doesn't add anything to this argument.

Again you missed the point. Of course you can provide better healthcare simply by pouring money into it, but at the expense of decreased efficiency. Read my previous post for an explanation.

Spending less for lower quality is a rational consumer decision, not one that needs government to dictate. The exception is emergency care where the consumer doesn't have a choice. And I've already said I support government intervention in emergency care. But even there, I want negotiated fee-for-service or capitation, not micro-management (e.g., wage controls).

But it makes sense for government to dictate when people go diabetic and heart attack on you and so you have a lot of money to save their asses anyways.

All libertarian argument to healthcare eventually comes down to emergency care.

Remember heart attacks are not the only version emergency care. If diabetes goes untreated they will eventually need emergency care too.

So you might as well just save their asses before they go diabetic or heart attack on you. (eg via soda tax and annual checkups)

So force them to eat less via adding a soda and $1 double cheeseburger tax. What's the difference between the UK and US? The price of unhealthy foods.
.
Again the purpose of freedom is to maximize happiness, and if you can take away some freedoms (-happiness) and prevent millions from going diabetic and heart attack (+happiness), and you end up net +happiness, then you should logically take away such freedoms.

So basically it's a collective action thing.

Penalizing responsible people like you a tiny bit results in some -happiness, but I think we can both agree that saving millions from diabetes and heart disease results in a lot of +happiness. Also you would save a lot of money by not having to provide emergency healthcare to those people, which also results in +happiness.

America has too much high-quality farm land which results in too much cheap food if not taxed. The US really needs to get rid of its $1 double cheeseburgers for the greater good.

What about subsidizing broccoli? Net happiness is very hard to measure. But let's do this mental exercise. First, I see no reason to target soda and double cheeseburgers and not just all calories. So suppose the proposal is for a penny tax per 10 calories. You'd then have to take a survey asking people, "On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being absolutely opposed, 5 being absolutely in favor, and 3 being neutral, what do you think of a penny per 10 calories tax?" Of course, you'd also have to inform people how much they can expect to pay since they may not be well informed. You'd have to account for people gaming the survey by taking an extreme position they don't actually believe in just to skew the results in their favor. Then you aggregate the results and you'll get a rough approximation of the effect of the policy on happiness. Do all that and maybe I can get behind it. My guess is that it wouldn't pass. Other paternalistic policies could like a smoking ban.

Cancer is interesting in that the US does more cancer screenings than other countries with universal health care. Encouraging less prevention would actually save money.

See the thing is that people often do not do not know what makes them happy (for example meth addicts), and are unable to think logically for themselves especially over the long term with many not-easy-to-foresee variables, so a survey like that would be pretty useless.
.
I know practically that you, like many other Americans, will never get behind something like a calorie tax. But many countries such as Singapore already perform such paternalistic policies and it works very well for them, while America is left sick, fat, and diabetic. (There's no direct calorie tax in SG, but they make up for it through various other regulations)
.
Also you shouldn't just have a calorie tax but rather a calorie-cholesterol-and other stuff scale because excessive calories are not the only thing negatively affecting people's lives, and recycle the revenue by taxing foods that score poorly into subsidizing foods that score well on the scale.
.
So conceivably you can tax soda and subsidize broccoli in such a program.

Absolutely. One major inefficiency in Medicare is the Congressionally mandated no-negotiation clause with regard to prescription medications. Walmart can squeeze BigPharma's goolies, but we can't let big bad government squeeze their goolies, that would mean government tyrannizing the all mighty JOBCREATORZ, or something.

All that said, the trickiest problem with health care is the incentive structure. Change it to something were the desired outcome is (and I hate this word mind you) incentivized, and you'll see the market subject to those incentives adapt.

The most boring component of the health care debate here in the States is the gornless idiocy which ignores the basic principal, especially by those who mindless pray at the feet of free markets.

Well Obama himself has lost track of the fact that the goal of government is to find the most efficient solution...

With health care, I think he wanted to fulfill a CAMPAIGN PROMISE of affordable health care for all. Just like any business, you set up a system and then work out the inefficiencies.

As for "socialism", those acts he has backed are at the margins. Reagan busted up PATCO... (at the margins).
As for that pipeline, again, at the margins as oil is fungable. I saw the news interviews with people of the state who are worried of polluting the aquefier. Why should Washington force something down the locals throats?

Obama's mistake was to go with with AHCA first then he let Congress put most of it together. After AHCA we got a weak Dodd-Frank law that Wall Street is trying to undermine.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but between him, and the other contenders for the fall (sharia Santorum, or 15% Mitt), I'll give a hard look at who AmericansElect.org puts on the ballot.

As an independent, I'm not afraid of sending a message to Washington by voting for a 3rd party. In '92, Perot and his charts got 19% of the vote and forced the parties to work to cut the deficit in order to get that vote back.

Regards

"I saw the news interviews with people of the state who are worried of polluting the aquefier. Why should Washington force something down the locals throats?"

Locals will always complain about stuff. If you heed to every usually irrational complaints by locals on government land that is near where they live, then literally nothing would ever get done.

Also Mitt Romney paid a 15% tax rate because the current tax code forced him to pay a 15% tax rate. I honestly do not understand why people are attacking Romney for how the tax system is set up, which is of course something that is completely out of his hands.

Seems like people are just hating on his wealth for no apparent reason other than just to hate on rich people...

The second reason is that Medicare was very poorly negotiated by the government...

How many members of Congress retired to go to work for the Pharma industry after the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act was passed?

The same happens for various other acts.

Regards

Medicare sucks because of corruption, just like everything else, and so we don't need to reform Medicare?

Who is this "we" you talk of?
"We" have 535 members of Congress who need money every 2 or 6 years.
They are the ones that vote to make or change laws.

Regards

Also Mitt Romney paid a 15% tax rate because the current tax code forced him to pay a 15% tax rate. I honestly do not understand why people are attacking Romney for how the tax system is set up, which is of course something that is completely out of his hands.

I hate to break the bad news to you.

CONGRESS writes the tax laws.
Bain Capital has never contributed to a campaign fund, correct?

BTW... did you see Allan Sloan (senior editor at large at Fortune magazine) on the Nightly Business Report a few nights ago?

Romney pays a 15% tax, Sloan and his wife - who get SS - pay a 30% tax on that.

Compare that with my Social Security benefits. My wife and I pay 30 percent on those. That`s because 85 percent of our benefit is taxable and we pay 35 percent on that, thanks to the AMT. This all happens because, under our current tax system, income from capital, which is how Romney`s Bain payments are treated, is much more valuable than income from work, which is how Social Security is treated.

http://www.nbr.com/commentaries/commentary-mitt-romney-makes-a-good-tax-...

Regards

So you hate Congress because they're corrupt and you hate rich people because they indirectly bribe the Congress through campaign contributions.

So? Almost every politician in America takes campaign contributions from large corporations. Move to a better country?

"Who is this "we" you talk of?"

We refers to you, the American people. If you don't like your Congressmen then vote them out.

So you hate Congress because they're corrupt and you hate rich people because they indirectly bribe the Congress through campaign contributions.

Why are you trying to brand me as full of "hate"?
That's 2 replies in which you use that verb.

I don't imply words or stereotypes on you.

I'm just pointing out the facts (15% tax for Mitt) and the system.

The sad fact is, GOP members are just as weary of the system as I.

Reagan Budget Director David Stockman:
http://billmoyers.com/content/david-stockman-on-the-folly-of-anti-tax-cr...

Reagan and Bush41 official Bruce Bartlett:
http://billmoyers.com/segment/bruce-bartlett-on-where-the-right-went-wrong

There's a video, and a transcript on each page.
From the interviews, they have a better understanding of Reagan than the candidates. Maybe because they worked with the man in person.

Regards

We refers to you, the American people. If you don't like your Congressmen then vote them out.

I'm and independant, so my choices in Novembers are between
2 bad candidates.

But that's only because we have a duopoly and both parties cater to their extremes.

Regards

Ah yes, Singapore.

Not so much a nation as it is a city-state.

The metroplex I live in has a higher population than Singapore does, is more diverse than Singapore's popualtion (that includes the two million non-citizens in Singapore), and yet it's only a single part of a single state in the USA. Both of them also have very different economies and cultures, as well as different types and levels of culture clashes between subculures.

It's far easier to provide consistent education to a single citystate of a relatively homogeneous and small population than it is to educate a larger, more widely spread, more diverse population of people.

The reason your argument is silly is the same reason communist countries don't last-- while on the communal level communism can in fact work, getting it to work on a national level is something no one has yet to manage and ever really will without some sort of bizarre technological singularity.

You're not gonna save millions from diabetes with a soda tax. If you want to save money, you should want everyone to be obese and die before they get cancer. It does not save money.

I just saw a debate on this very issue and besides the point that you grossly overestimate the positive impact of a soda tax, the biggest argument against it was that demand for food is highly inelastic. We eat stuff primarily because it tastes good, not because it's cheaper. Even a 100% tax on double cheeseburgers won't have a dramatic impact on behavior. A soda tax could since diet soda is a close substitute but switching from regular to diet soda alone won't make an obese person not obese. In short, the changes you'd have to make to actually be healthier are so dramatic that these small nudges won't work.

"The reason your argument is silly is the same reason communist countries don't last-- while on the communal level communism can in fact work, getting it to work on a national level is something no one has yet to manage and ever really will without some sort of bizarre technological singularity."

Well I never advocated for communism at a national level, but rather suggested that in the special case of healthcare, government should step in.

I fully acknowledge that good communism is very very difficult to achieve, and so obviously you cannot and should not try to achieve good communism everywhere. But healthcare is worth the exception and the pain and effort in trying to achieve good communism in this one special case.

"Even a 100% tax on double cheeseburgers"

I was thinking more of a 200% tax. The other day I went to get McDonalds at an American airport the guy standing in front of me ordered 5 McDoubles for himself. Now would he still order 5 if he had to pay $15 rather than $5?

"A soda tax could since diet soda is a close substitute but switching from regular to diet soda alone won't make an obese person not obese. In short, the changes you'd have to make to actually be healthier are so dramatic that these small nudges won't work."

Well I gave soda and double cheeseburgers are two examples, but I would prefer a wide ranging variety of taxes on unhealthy food and to use this revenue to subsidize healthy food.

No all the link that you provide does is complain about how Romney's effective tax rate is lower than yours, like what you did here. You still haven't made any point or argument.

Also capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes because there are a lot more risk in capital gains. ANY economist can tell you that cap gains taxes MUST be low if not to deter investment, and the US 15% is already too high.

Remember money is fluid globally, so hypothetically if the US raised its capgains taxes to 30%, why would anyone want to invest in the US when it could invest in Europe (15%) or most of Asia (0%) instead? All of your jobs would be going to Europe or Asia if such an event like that happened.

Seriously please learn some economics before blindly hating on Romney.

OJFL

The article simply denies there are other approaches to the problem. Even in Europe, the ECB and the OECD know it, the main idea is to grow the economy faster to get out of the slump. What is means is that debt-to-GDP ratios need to be tackled now, not later, and that the policy recipes do not call for massive tax increases, but reduction in government spending. That can take several forms, either through explicit reductions or slower rates of increase versus GDP growth, none of which is accomplished through the policies prescribed in the budget. So the defense of the Obama administration fails in the face of evidence.

forsize

"The first track involves whittling down America's short-term deficit to reasonable levels. So the budget released on Monday reduces the deficit to 2.8% of GDP by 2019"

obama's two track approach. project that debt 7 years from now will be lower. how are those 2008 and 2009 debt track predictions going? this is stupid to the point of being inane arguing what a completely dishonest 7 years out projection said. but no, DIA makes it even more hilarious.

"Obama's team realises that if another Democratic president embraces the mantle of fiscal responsibility, the party will have earned ownership of the issue for some time to come."

I think what obama's team realizes is there's some people stupid enough to believe in decade long projections that it has no intentions of keeping and barely cares about anyway since obama will be out of office. and of course the obama adulation doesn't stop there, because what is super secretly stopping obama from not being a lying scumbag? the republicans.

"But I imagine if Mr Obama does win re-election, making the electoral ramifications of his actions a second thought, and the economy stays healthy, he'll push to curb entitlement spending"

I imagine all sorts of unicorns will prance around as well. maybe obama will take up a plan that "addresses long term entitlement spending while maintaining the needed funding for our current seniors;" translated as, do nothing and hope idiots think its awesome.

Bfordc in reply to forsize

"I think what obama's team realizes is there's some people stupid enough to believe in decade long projections that it has no intentions of keeping and barely cares about anyway since obama will be out of office. and of course the obama adulation doesn't stop there, because what is super secretly stopping obama from not being a lying scumbag? the republicans."

Yeah, it was those "decade long projections" that Bush argued gave him good reason to cut taxes. Cause there was a huge projected surplus that the government felt morally compelled to "return" to taxpayers. Good call.

forsize in reply to Bfordc

do either of you socialists, bfordc or faedrus know what tu quoque is? cause you're stepping all over in it.

but if your point is that in your mind obama is as bad as bush, then sure I'll take that.

Faedrus in reply to forsize

@ forsize -

I've got a long-running bet with a buddy of mine, that every time you are challenged on policy, that you'll respond with a personal attack.

You haven't failed me yet, and are making me a lot of money.

Thanks for that. :)

forsize in reply to Faedrus

what was the insult? socialist? that's not an insult, that's a descriptor.

but I'd hate to not help you make more money. afterall, someone has to not be on welfare.

faedrus: your reading comprehension is that of a 10 year old, you have the intellectual creativity of someone who was dropped on their head as a child. I feel like someone should hand you a foam finger so u can wave it around and scream real loud.

pun.gent

"in the early days of Obamacare there was a real effort to include significant cost-cutting measures in the final bill. The Republicans, in turn, demagogued the issue, alluding to death panels and forsaken seniors."

Quite a fair point. Demagoguery -- especially if successful -- has consequences for us all. It's critical that such persons be held very publicly to account.

Faedrus

"Our government is making empty promises to Americans that it has no way of accounting for them ... That means we are going to keep lying to people ... That means we're going to keep all these empty promises going."

If the Republicans hadn't put the country on a road to budget Armageddon from 2000 to 2008 through an unnecessary war in Iraq, and tax give-aways to their wealthy supporters, Mr. Ryan may have more credibility.

Faedrus in reply to Faedrus

The real question is who is going to pay for the adjustments needed to put the federal government back in the black.

In rough terms, the top 20% of asset-holders own 80% of assets, and the both 50% own - as I recall - less than 10%.

So, Ryan wants to put the onus on the bottom 80%, and Geithner on the top 20%.

Given the impasse in US politics at the moment, it's tough to move in either direction at the moment.

However, eventually something will have to give. And, given that you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, my bet is that Geithner's argument will end up holding more sway than Ryan's.

Faedrus in reply to teacup775

I saw a surreal conversation between Sen. Sessions and Transportation Secretary La Hood on CSPAN this week -

Where Sessions was showing his righteous indignation that the Obama administration wants to use use half the savings from the wind-down of the Iraq/Afghan wars on transportation infrastructure projects.

Sessions was angry because the money used for the wars had been borrowed, so he said, to paraphrase -

"You can't take a budgeted line item previously used for wars, cut it in half, and use the second half for something else, because it was borrowed to begin with!"

Makes sense, I guess, except that Sessions was more than happy to borrow it initially when it was used for wars.

Steve Thompson

It is interesting to take a look back at the Presidencies since the Kennedy era and see how the various gentlemen that inhabited the White House handled their fiscal responsibilities when it came to the national debt. As shown in this article, the President that is responsible for accruing the largest cumulative annual percent growth in the debt may surprise you:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/08/americas-presidents-who-was...

About Democracy in America

In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events