John Kerry to halve deficit... in four years

[Art Vandelay]

Did anyone else find Kerry's claim that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of four years to be a cynical exploitation of public ignorance? Seems to me that he wanted people to think he was promising to cut the debt, not the deficit. Reducing the deficit, or even eliinating it entirely, the fourth year would be a quite trivial feat. All it would require is that all appropriations for the fourth year be made during the first three years. If he were really serious about balancing the budget, he would have promised to cut the deficit in half his first year, not given himself three years of limitless spending.

 

[epepke]

Did anyone else find Kerry's claim that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of four years to be a cynical exploitation of public ignorance? Seems to me that he wanted people to think he was promising to cut the debt, not the deficit. Reducing the deficit, or even eliinating it entirely, the fourth year would be a quite trivial feat. All it would require is that all appropriations for the fourth year be made during the first three years. If he were really serious about balancing the budget, he would have promised to cut the deficit in half his first year, not given himself three years of limitless spending.

I didn't. I assume he's being serious about this, and not just an accounting trick.

Ain't no way the debt is going to be halved in four years, and it would be disastrous to do so anyway. There's little that the President can do at all within the first few months anyway.

If you look at the 1992-2000 numbers, whether you attribute them to Clinton or congress or some combination thereof, it took a while to get even the deficit down. Halving the deficit in four years is a somewhat ambitious but reasonable goal.

 

[Crossbow]

Did anyone else find Kerry's claim that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of four years to be a cynical exploitation of public ignorance? Seems to me that he wanted people to think he was promising to cut the debt, not the deficit. Reducing the deficit, or even eliinating it entirely, the fourth year would be a quite trivial feat. All it would require is that all appropriations for the fourth year be made during the first three years. If he were really serious about balancing the budget, he would have promised to cut the deficit in half his first year, not given himself three years of limitless spending.

To answer your question, I would say no.

Clinton made the same promise when he first ran for president, and actually did meet the target.

Reagan on the other hand, promised to balance the budget his first year in, and did not do so.
Then he promised to balance it by the second year, and did not do so.
Then he promised to to balance it by the end of his first term and did not do so.
Then he promised to balance it during his second term and did not do so.

Then the elder Bush promised to balance the budget his first term and did not do so.
Then when running for his second term, he promised to have a five year plan for balancing the budget.

So no, I do not think that Kerry was playing on ignorance by promising to reduce the budget by 50% during his first term.

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: John Kerry to halve deficit... in four years

Clinton made the same promise when he first ran for president, and actually did meet the target.

Reagan on the other hand, promised to balance the budget his first year in, and did not do so.
Then he promised to balance it by the second year, and did not do so.
Then he promised to to balance it by the end of his first term and did not do so.
Then he promised to balance it during his second term and did not do so.

Then the elder Bush promised to balance the budget his first term and did not do so.
Then when running for his second term, he promised to have a five year plan for balancing the budget.

[Ed McMahon]
You are correct, sir!
[/Ed McMahon]

Reagan repeatedly promised a balanced budget while running up the biggest deficits the country had ever seen. Reagan blamed Congress, but David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) knew better. Elder Bush likewise talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

When Clinton talked about "mah plaan" ("my plan") to deal with the budget, I thought it was one of the biggest loads of equine excrement I'd ever heard... and yet, "mah plaan" actually resulted in considerable success.

Now Kerry says he has a plan. Again, it sounds like equine excrement. But it sounds more plausible than what little Bush offers, which is... basically nothing. Bush has all but abandoned the field. His acceptance speech at the Republican convention made no attempt to suggest that the budget would be balanced, or that he would depart from his borrow-and-spend practice. In the second debate, he made reference to "a plan, detailed budget, that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years," but his plan (you can read it here) relies upon potential legislation to restrain spending growth and a line-item veto Constitutional Amendment, neither of which got out of the starting block during his first four years. The President's insistence upon a right to veto is comical, because he has not vetoed a single spending bill as President, ever. (During the second debate, Bush said, "And you're right, I haven't vetoed any spending bills, because we work together.")

 

[CBL4]

Traditionally during Democratic presidencies, the deficits drop. During Republican presidencies the deficit rise. IMO, this is due to three factors:
1) Republicans like to cut taxes.
2) Republicans like to spend more on defence.
3) Democrats like to raise taxes on the rich.

Halving the deficit would take a good economy and spending restraints. The only thing that I think might make the economy roar would be a large decrease in oil prices. I expect this but not quick enough to cut the deficit in half in four years. 6 to 8 years is an achievable goal if the political will existed and there is no recession.

CBL

 

[varwoche]

Did anyone else find Kerry's claim that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of four years to be a cynical exploitation of public ignorance?

Yes and no. He claimed he would reduce the deficit, not the debt. What do you expect to occur, a 5 minute timeout mid-debate while debt and deficit are defined for the ignorant masses? Should the candidates have avoided discussing the deficit out of concern it would be misunderstood?

That said, imo Kerry over-simplified how hard it will be to dig out of the unprecedented hole that Bush oversaw and signed off on.

Significant deficit reduction (much less debt reduction) depends in large part on a positive "business cycle", which by no means is assured.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Who thinks we should bring back Bob Rubin to fix this economic mess?

 

[jj]

Traditionally during Democratic presidencies, the deficits drop. During Republican presidencies the deficit rise. IMO, this is due to three factors:
1) Republicans like to cut taxes.
2) Republicans like to spend more on defence.
3) Democrats like to raise taxes on the rich.

Halving the deficit would take a good economy and spending restraints. The only thing that I think might make the economy roar would be a large decrease in oil prices. I expect this but not quick enough to cut the deficit in half in four years. 6 to 8 years is an achievable goal if the political will existed and there is no recession.

CBL

None the less, we've seen the old 'tax and spend' lie here over and over and over.

I wonder when all the lesser-income dupes will get wise, if ever.

 

[shuize]

Yes, the president controls the spending. Congress has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dorian Gray]

None the less, we've seen the old 'tax and spend' lie here over and over and over.

You mean THIS lie?

During his 1994 campaign, Bush signed a pledge never to propose an increase in the state sales tax. In 1997, he broke that promise by proposing a one-half-cent rise in the sales tax, among 57 other tax hikes.

Yeah, I know. Bush needs to come clean about his plan to raise taxes.

 

[peptoabysmal]

What budget surplus?

6. Budget Deficits and Trust Fund Siphoning Report - How could nearly every politician in the 1990s claim a federal government surplus when debt went up to a new record each year? To date, all $3 trillion of surpluses of various trust funds have been siphoned-off (of which 69% was siphoned from the social security, federal employee pension and medical trusts) - - all spent on non-pension things and not counted in deficit calculations - an illegal act if done by private sector pension funds. (Some political leaders bragged to the general public "we ran more than $100 billion budget surplus in calendar year 1998 and 1999." They also said they wanted to 'save social security'. Listening to such rhetoric citizens might be misled-led to believe the federal government cut general spending to produce general government surpluses so as to save social security and reduce total debt. Fact: they ran an operational deficit (not a surplus) AND, 2000, 01 and 02 and 03 each ended with another increase in debt, to a record high. A MUST READ - including the 6 powerful trust fund articles articles, such as fraud of paying down debt and $44 trillion unfunded liabilities.
NOTE: The accuracy of above finally confirmed on 10 July 2001, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told AP that trust funds hold NO real assets.

Grandfather Economic Report

 

[jj]

More to the point, Pepto, this is another of those "just made it up" accusations, substituting one thing for another.