If it hasn’t been clear from my posts here, I am a budget hawk and I agree with the position on the federal budget outlined by the Chicago Tribune’s editors:
In the long run, the only solution is to apply a simple principle to every program, existing or new. “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth paying for,” says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. And if it’s not worth paying for, it should be scrapped.
That would be a radical notion for a citizenry that has grown accustomed to getting everything it wants now and worrying about how to pay for it later. But that can’t go on forever. Accepting the need to live within our means is hard enough now. It will be much harder 10 years and $9 trillion later.
I honestly do not give a fig whose fault the deficit is. We have a president now and a Congress now whose joint responsibility it is to correct the problem. While I don’t rule out tax increases as part of the solution, I think that simple arithmetic tells you that not merely reducing the growth in spending but actually reducing spending must be part of the solution, too. Spending by government at all levels, particularly on healthcare, is simply too great. Being “budget neutral” is too modest a goal for any new program. The minimum acceptable goal for healthcare reform is that it should slow the growth in spending on healthcare. That’s an urgent necessity, not something that can be left for later.
It’s later now.
As a long time fellow budget hawk I am largely in agreement, except that it is important to remember how we got here. The debt has been growing since 1980 (as a percentage of GDP), except for some of the Clinton years. We need to remember what was done so we dont do it again. We also need to acknowledge that that it took years to build up to this crisis and will take years to work out. Consumers still have way too much debt also.
Steve
I think the likelihood of being able to do it again is quite low. American businesses invested, without much return, in technology over a period of decades. It finally paid off.
Winning the lottery is great but it isn’t a prudent fiscal strategy.
I’ve seen two economists recently who have argued that our current $9 trillion debt level isn’t particularly troublesome, as it represents a relatively modest percentage of US GDP. The argument continues- as long as we show a willingness to repay debt, its impact will be marginal vis-a-vis our creditors. It strikes me that this condition is laughable- we’ve never shown any discipline to tackle accumulated debt. Apparently this has gone unnoticed by these experts.
I guess I need to be somewhat careful, as I didn’t read the whole thing in full context,……..but………..
“In the long run, the only solution is to apply a simple principle to every program, existing or new. “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth paying for,†says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. And if it’s not worth paying for, it should be scrapped.”
That’s mindless drivel. And it shows the mindset that got us into this predicament.
It may “be worth doing” to provide assistance to various groups for food, clothing, shelter or health care. It does not blindly follow that “its worth paying for.” This is the argument used by politicians trolling for votes to expand every entitlement program ever set up. Its how we got here, people.
It might “be worth paying for” food for the poor. Reasonably that might mean some basic level of canned goods and off brand foodstuffs. But it doesn’t mean (“its worth paying for”) nightly dinners at Morton’s, NoMi, La Colonial, and Charlie Trotters. I know I just took it to the absurd for argumentation’s sake, but……with every election, once an entitlement is cast as law, expect expansion, expansion, expansion. Its an empirical fact. If you think I’m nuts, consider current calls for cell phones for the poor, at the general taxpayer expense. Its now a “safety issue.” Gotta have a cell phone in case you have a heart attack. Right.
Maya is our worst nightmare. If the concept is good……expense is no problem……..’cause someone else is paying, of course.
The loss of the concept of economic limits is dangerous……..and the mindset of the liberal.
““If it’s worth doing, it’s worth paying for”
If you’re tasking us with infusing the current administration with this challenge then what you’re really saying is “If it’s worth doing, it’s worth someone else paying for itâ€.
What Drew said.
I’m fine with public funding for public goods. I’m fine with subsidies on goods that have external benefits. I’m fine with taxes on goods that have external costs.
Why I object too is the notion that once it is viewed as worth doing, then costs be damned. That is the implication of the view. You can’t decide if something is worth doing without also looking at the costs.
Think of it this way. Dave would a porsche, vacation home in Aspen, and regular trips to Hawaii make you better off? Of course. Problem is you are probably going to have issues with your budget. In economic terms your budget constraint is going to be binding meaning you can’t do all and maybe none of those things. The question, “Is it worth doing” is not divorced from cost.
Health care is a good example. Is it worth providing universal coverage? If you say yes, what if I tell you it will cost 75% of GDP to do it? Still worth it? Everyone can have everything they want, it will just cost 323% of GDP, so lets do! Full steam ahead.
In economics optimization is usually of constrained variety. Us idiot economists have long ago figured out that you can’t grow the world’s food supply in a flower pot. Its about time the feckless jackasses in Washington D.C. and their dimbulb supporters realized it too.