Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:41 AM ET, 01/26/2011

Wonkbook: So much State of the Union

By Ezra Klein

sotu112.jpg

The question that gets asked of every investor is the same: "How much?" Investments, after all, primarily matter for how much capital they give their beneficiary access to. But "how much" was a question that President Obama studiously avoided answering in last night's State of the Union. And without knowing what Obama is actually asking from Congress, it's hard to know what his vision amounts to. Yes, it would be good "to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world," and yes, public policy has a role in helping us do that. But a small commitment to public investment is very different than a big commitment to public investment. Obama, after all, is not the first president to make competitiveness a theme of his State of the Union. The question is whether he'll be the first to actually do something serious about it.

The specificity gap was clearest when compared to the president's proposals for deficit reduction. In that arena, he called for to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years," which "would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade." He also called for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000, an effort at corporate tax reform, and a look at individual tax reform, but he was careful not to mention the need for new revenues from those who aren't rich. The president could've been similarly detailed on the investment side of the ledger. He could've said, for instance, that for every three dollars we cut, one will be invested in our future. Or that following the recommendations of the CEO-led Council on Energy Innovation, we should invest $16 billion annually in clean energy research. But he didn't.

To some degree, this reflects his position as head of a divided government. Much of the specificity in the 2010 State of the Union came from asking the Senate to pass legislation that the House had already voted on, like the cap-and-trade, jobs, and financial regulation bills. This year, of course, Obama does not have a Democratic House passing congenial legislation. That means there's no one to say what the administration's preferred investments would look like but, well, them. And the administration promises that they will do exactly that, and soon: More specifics will be forthcoming in the 2012 budget. But until those specifics emerge, it's hard to say anything concrete about the president's agenda for the next year.

Top Stories

Read the text of Obama's speech from last night: http://wapo.st/hxibam

Watch the speech on YouTube: http://bit.ly/fWf8bi

Obama called for a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending, though he also promised to make room for new "investments", report Anne Kornblut and Scott Wilson: "President Obama sought to rouse the nation from complacency in his State of the Union address Tuesday, urging innovation and budget reforms that he said are vital to keep the United States a leader in an increasingly competitive world. 'Sustaining the American dream has never been about standing pat,' Obama said...Obama repeatedly declared the imperative to 'win the future,' comparing the current need for innovation to the space race against the Soviet Union in the 1950s and '60s... Facing steep budget deficits, Obama did not call for massive new programs, instead proposing a five-year freeze in most discretionary spending and tens of billions of dollars in defense cuts."

Rep. Paul Ryan's response said increased spending will contribute to American decline: http://wapo.st/fyIFC6

The austerity measures Obama embraced in the speech could backfire economically, reports Lori Montgomery: "For the first time in his annual address to the American people, President Obama did not hail a newly passed "recovery act" or call for a 'new jobs bill.' Instead, he called for a five-year freeze in domestic spending, except for 'investments' in education, infrastructure and research...Hours before Obama spoke Tuesday, the House approved a resolution calling for domestic spending to be cut to 2008 levels for the rest of the fiscal year, and Republicans are discussing reductions of at least $60 billion. Cuts of that size would trim domestic programs to their lowest level as a share of the economy in more than 30 years, according to an analysis by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, endangering as many as 600,000 jobs...with the unemployment rate still hovering at 9.4 percent, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are offering a clear strategy to create jobs in the short run, economists said"

Obama called for an overhaul of government agencies in the speech: http://wapo.st/hENj2J

The text of the president's speech, edited down to the specific positions, proposals and requests, and sorted by issue area: http://wapo.st/i4nDWC

Obama's economic proposals are good, but may not lead to domestic investment, writes Harold Meyerson: "All of these proposals are well and good, and a distinct improvement over the Republicans' alternative program of disinvesting public funds in the nation's future in hopes that the private sector will take up the slack. But making America more open for business addresses just one part of our national economic decline. The other challenge is how to make our corporations more open to doing business in America."

The speech and Ryan's response signal both parties want to delay action on the deficit, writes Ross Douthat: "From Barack Obama, we heard a reasonably eloquent case for center-left technocracy and industrial policy, punctuated by a few bipartisan flourishes, in which the entitlement issue felt like an afterthought... Ryan owes his prominence, in part, to his willingness to propose a very specific blueprint for addressing the entitlement system’s fiscal woes. But in his first big moment on the national stage, the words 'Medicare' and 'Social Security' did not pass the Wisconsin congressman’s lips... It’s clear that both parties have decided that a period of divided government twelve months before a presidential election is the wrong time to make big moves on entitlements and the deficit."

"Meh," writes Paul Krugman: "We’re going to invest in the future — but we’re also going to freeze domestic spending. So mixed signals — and although there were no numbers, given the further assurance that the freeze won’t affect anything important, this has to mean that the investment plans are small change...I have no idea what the vision here was. We care about the future! But we don’t want to spend! Meh."

This is the time for vague speeches that sound good, writes Matthew Yglesias: "It was a good speech; an example of trying to govern from the White House. I would say that zero percent of the speech was dedicated to building support in congress for concrete pieces of legislation that the President hopes to sign into law. And it’s too bad that the president’s not in a position to promise to shepherd big bills through congress. But the reality is that he’s not. So he’s wisely floating above the fray, issuing “sounds good but hard to do in practice” calls for smart infrastructure investments, tax reform, less oil subsidies, etc. Most likely none of it will happen. But it will definitely sound good, and if the president’s lucky some of it will happen!"

Obama sounded like the CEO of a failing company, writes Megan McArdle. "So what do those CEOs do? They spend a lot of time talking about their company's proud history, even if that history only stretches back a few years. They lavish extravagent praise on their awesome, dedicated workforce. And they deftly avoid talking about the big problems, for which they have no solutions, by talking about strategic areas for potential growth ("green jobs"), and going over a laundry list of new initiatives that do nothing to solve any of the core problems. When they are forced to talk about the core problems--and if the company is big enough to attract analyst coverage, they will rudely draw his attention to the problematic areas on the financial statements during the Q&A--he responds in vague generalities that restate the problem as if doing so constituted a solution"

Live in studio interlude: Chairlift plays "Bruises" on at Abbey Road studios..

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device? Subscribe!

Still to come: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the crisis was avoidable; Obama expressed a willingness to change health care reform in the State of the Union; White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes expects bipartisan action on education; Obama used the speech to push for a clean energy standard; and Japanese schoolchildren engage in a 31-person race.

Economy

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission finds that the crisis was avoidable, reports Sewell Chan: "The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry. The commission that investigated the crisis casts a wide net of blame, faulting two administrations, the Federal Reserve and other regulators for permitting a calamitous concoction: shoddy mortgage lending, the excessive packaging and sale of loans to investors and risky bets on securities backed by the loans...While the panel, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, accuses several financial institutions of greed, ineptitude or both, some of its gravest conclusions concern government failings, with embarrassing implications for both parties."

The House will vote on a stop-gap spending measure next month: http://bit.ly/efreKl

Rep. Barney Frank warns that budget cuts could undo new derivatives rules, reports Phil Mattingly: "Parts of the Dodd-Frank financial services overhaul face a 'potential undoing' by Republican proposals to cut spending, senior House Democrats said. Representative Barney Frank, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said today that the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission are underfunded already as they work on implementing the derivatives rules required in the financial services law....'A dramatic spending increase to fund the SEC and CFTC, as envisioned by the authors of the Dodd-Frank legislation, would further the mindset that our nation’s problems can be solved with more spending, not more efficiency,' Representative Scott Garrett, chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee that oversees the SEC, said today in a statement."

Housing prices are falling in all major cities: http://wapo.st/fuaSdz

Sen. Rand Paul has announced a plan to cut $500 billion from the federal budget in one year, reports David Rogers: "Not to be outdone, Republican freshman Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation Tuesday that seeks to cut $500 billion from government spending in one year alone, wiping out three cabinet departments and the entire foreign aid budget while sparing neither the Pentagon nor 2011 war-related funding for overseas military operations...At one level Paul follows the House Republican standard of rolling back appropriations for many agencies to the levels set three years ago under the Bush administration. But elsewhere, he clearly goes much further, folding the Energy Department into the Department of Defense and wiping out most of the Education Department but for Pell Grants to low income college students."

Business groups want an administration push behind the South Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade deals: http://on.wsj.com/dXZJO6

The Republican position on investment isn't serious, writes Steven Pearlstein: "Republicans, it turns out, have no public investment strategy, just as they have no health-care strategy and no agreed-upon blueprint for reducing federal spending. What they have are poll-tested talking points, economic delusions and an overwhelming partisan instinct to say 'no' to anything Barack Obama proposes. In their response to the president's State of the Union message, they remind us once again that they are not serious about economic policy and not ready to govern."

Focusing on corporate tax reform has political, not policy, merit, writes Howard Gleckman: "His real reason for focusing on the corporate side is that White House strategists feel it is better politics. It puts pressure on both congressional Republicans and the (largely-Republican) business community to try to build consensus for a plan among their own widely divergent interests. If they can’t, Democrats will happily blame them for the collapse of the initiative. Even better, focusing on corporate taxes allows the President to dodge the nastier political minefields of individual reform. After all, it is so much easier to talk about closing corporate loopholes than curbing the mortgage interest deduction. Regardless of the politics, does it make sense to split corporate and individual reform? I don’t think so."

Adorable children getting extreme interlude: Japanese schoolchildren conduct a 31-legged race.

Health Care

The State of the Union signaled a willingness to change health care reform, reports David Nather: "President Barack Obama made two things clear about health care in his State of the Union speech: he is willing to change it around the edges and he is ready to put it in the rearview mirror. 'Instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward,' Obama said...Obama challenged Republicans Tuesday night to help him 'improve' the health care law, and offered to work with them on two changes he’s suggested before: adding medical malpractice reform and getting rid of an unpopular paperwork requirement for small businesses. But Obama insisted he’ll fight any efforts to repeal or otherwise block his signature legislative achievement."

Read all of Obama's comments on health care in the State of the Union: http://bit.ly/i8dKSi

Republicans are not being honest about health care reform, writes Michael Kinsley: "According to the official stats of the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare will actually reduce costs and save the government money over 10 years. Not so, say Republicans (who voted last week in the House to repeal the whole thing). The accounting is phony. The Democrats are giving themselves a four-year head start...If you go to the Congressional Budget Office documents, you see that the CBO estimates that the revenue from penalties on corporations and individuals for not carrying insurance are exactly $0 for the first four years...On the 10-years-in-six business, there are only two possibilities: Either supporters or opponents of Obamacare are attempting a laughably obvious deception.

Vermont's representatives in the House and Senate introduced a bill to let it implement single-payer: http://bit.ly/hbzFyo

Domestic Policy

White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes predicts bipartisan action on education, report Mike Allen and James Hohmann: "Melody Barnes, the president’s Domestic Policy Adviser, is 'very, very hopeful' about the chances for bipartisan cooperation on education this year...The director of the White House Domestic Policy Council said she believes Republicans will go along with some proposed fixes to the controversial 'No Child Left Behind' law when it comes time for re-authorization. 'We’ve learned a lot in the years since No Child Left Behind was signed into law [in 2001],' Barnes said. 'And, one, people think the idea of accountability that was established there was a smart one, and we want to maintain that. But people also recognize that there are things that have to be fixed, that we need greater flexibility for those schools that are doing well.'"

Senate Democrats opposed Obama's call to veto bills with earmarks: http://politi.co/fFWXtn

Sen. Tom Udall is throwing in the towel on filibuster reform, report Scott Wong and Manu Raju: "Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) conceded Tuesday night that the fight to overhaul the filibuster was essentially doomed this Congress, saying he was settling for more modest reforms worked out by the leaders from both parties...The proposed changes - negotiated by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) -- would limit the number of executive branch nominations subject to Senate confirmation; make it more difficult for senators to anonymously block legislation or nominees; and end a stall tactic that lets senators force clerks to read aloud the complete text of a bill if the measure has been made public."

Regulators could mandate that cars "talk" to each other to avoid crashes: http://wapo.st/fc4Frh

Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree about investing in education, writes David Leonhardt: "Education is the single best investment a society can make. High school became universal in the United States in the early 20th century, when other countries viewed universal schooling as wasteful, which goes a long way toward explaining our economy’s 20th-century success. Likewise, the slowing increase in the number of new college graduates in the 1980s and ’90s helped contribute to the slow economic growth of the last decade. So protecting higher education from across-the-board budget cuts, as Mr. Obama is urging, makes sense. But the status quo is not worth protecting. Both the federal government and the states spend money on higher education in terribly wasteful ways."

Mystery Science Theater 3000 interlude: The '50s short film A Case of Spring Fever gets dissected.

Energy

Obama pushed Congress to pass a "clean energy standard" in the State of the Union, reports Darren Samuelsohn: "President Barack Obama nudged lawmakers on Tuesday night to take another swing at several high-profile energy ideas, including phasing out of billions of dollars in oil subsidies, ramping up use of biofuels and electric vehicles and setting a nationwide goal for 'clean energy sources' that includes nuclear and 'clean coal.'...The president sought to make a direct link between economic growth and clean energy policies, while studiously avoiding picking favorites among several different power sources that can quickly prompt bitter regional fights, as well as partisan ones... House Republicans have not been so keen to embrace new national energy mandates, even if it covers some of their favorites like coal and nuclear power."

Newt Gingrich wants to abolish the EPA: http://politi.co/hQPEG9

The State of the Union upset both energy and environmental lobbyists, reports Peter Wallsten: "If President Obama was looking for the political (or policy) center in his State of the Union address, there was an early sign that he may have succeeded - with rumblings of dissatisfaction coming quickly Tuesday night from environmentalists and oil lobbyists alike. On one side, oil allies were miffed that Obama called for an end to federal oil subsidies and even took a dig at the industry by noting companies are 'doing just fine on their own' and waving them off as 'yesterday's energy.'..Environmental advocates were pleased that Obama, despite calling last week for a government-wide review of regulations, appeared to defend restrictions on greenhouse gases and other pollutants...But those same activists were disheartened when Obama embraced nuclear energy and coal as examples of 'clean energy sources.'"

Republicans in Congress will push to permanently strip the EPA of regulatory authority over climate change, reports Andrew Restuccia: "A coalition of Republicans will outline a proposal in the coming weeks to permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (Mich.), the panel's energy subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (Ky.) and Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.) said Tuesday that they are working together on the proposal...Upton had previously signaled his support for a proposal to block EPA's authority until relevant lawsuits snaked their way through the courts. But it now appears that he and his colleagues will push to permanently block the agency's climate authority."

Closing credits: Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Dylan Matthews, Mike Shepard, and Michelle Williams. Photo credit: Toni L. Sandys / The Washington Post

By Ezra Klein  | January 26, 2011; 6:41 AM ET
Categories:  Wonkbook  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Lots of vision, but few policy specifics
Next: Americans do not want repeal

Comments

Despite what President Obama said in his speech last night, here is the real state of the Union:

1.) The debt held by the public stands at $14,062,239,904,820.69 effective January 24th, 2011.

2.) In the month of December 2010, the United States paid $104,700,174,845.03 in interest on its public debt. That puts the deficit reduction of $400 billion over 10 years into perspective, doesn’t it?

3.) The U6 unemployment rate stands at 16.7 percent.

4.) Housing prices continue to drop as shown in today’s Case-Schiller home price index with nine major markets hitting new lows.

The greatest issue facing the United States is mounting interest payments on the debt. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that, under their best case scenario, interest payments could rise to 4 percent of GDP (or one-sixth of federal revenues) by 2035. Interest payments, which absorb federal resources that could otherwise be used to pay for government services, currently amount to more than 1 percent of GDP.

Here’s an article outlining the interest rate spiral that is facing the Obama administration:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/01/interesting-look-at-interest-on-us-debt.html

Heaven help us all when interest rates rise to historical norms.

Posted by: Baywoodfarm | January 26, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

I foresee a year or two of massive gridlock for all progressive ideas.

The corporate tax rate reforms and global cooling idea (gvmt freeze) just might get through though.

Posted by: lauren2010 | January 26, 2011 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I was going to go on and on this morning but i think the AP and its reporters said it best

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/26/ap/national/main7284436.shtml


oh and the President's claimed to not want earmarks in the past and signed them anyway.

As for the spending freeze its as if someone went on a binge and went from 200 pounds to 350 and then said well i'll keep eating what I'm eating right now and not that way i'll stay at 350 pounds and not get to 500. The problem is that 350 is NOT HEALTHY!

As far as promises made to take up initiatives I'll wait till i see them to believe them.

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 26, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

It is proven after two years that President Obama is a speechmaker. Absolutely a terrific talker!

All fluff and no stuff.

Posted by: JBfromFL | January 26, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Hey Ezra, you need to close a bolding tag somewhere!

Posted by: rt42 | January 26, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

When shown that increasing the capital gains tax actually diminishes revenues, BHO's response was: "But it is what's fair." He cannot conceive of otherwise. In his true believer mind, argument against spending are "talking points." Is it any wonder the president's speech ignored the will of the people by calling for more spending?

Leftists are superb fighters, albeit dirty fighters. On one hand they are clever rhetoricians, professorial theorists and strategic thinkers; on the other, they are down in the dirt hard rockers; boorish street fighters armed with intelligentsia's sublime rationalizations for Big Mother.

No matter how high or low the IQ, the "true believer" has unswerving faith that he knows the way; for it is visceral and will not take no for an answer. Even after centuries of failure and massive human suffering manifested by the "fairness" of egalitarianism, there is always a return to its slogan: "It is what's fair."

Equality now seems so just in their mind, so right, so indisputable to its adherents, the ends must be "progress." That true believers have not the wisdom to consider their error, is not exactly correct; rather, there is pathological denial and mechanism that propels the mental gymnastics.

Posted by: corneliusvansant | January 26, 2011 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree about investing in education, writes David Leonhardt: "Education is the single best investment a society can make."

Leonhardt seems to pretend that U.S. hasn't been spending gobs of money on education for decades.

We are already investing plenty in education, and despite nearly $1 trillion of this investment, thousands of school districts around to country routinely fail to endow even a majority of their students with basic writing, math and critical thinking skills.

"Likewise, the slowing increase in the number of new college graduates in the 1980s and ’90s helped contribute to the slow economic growth of the last decade."

Is there any evidence of this, or is it pure assertion? Economic growth was faster in the 1960s than the 1980s - was it because increases in the number of college graduates slowed economic growth from the 1960s to the 1980s?

"Both the federal government and the states spend money on higher education in terribly wasteful ways."

Don't worry! Under Leonhardt's master plan, these same bureaucrats who have been wasting money for decades will finally get it right!

Leave the money with the parents and let them 'invest' in their child's education as they see fit.

Posted by: justin84 | January 26, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The debt issue, which Obama thinks we can put off, is a killer for America. And, now he "says" he is focused on jobs after ignoring the economy for 2 years to pursue his social agenda. In Texas, Obama would wear a big hat, but would have no cows!

www.eclecticramblings.wordpress.com

Posted by: my4653 | January 26, 2011 10:23 AM | Report abuse

@justin,

Leave the money with the parents and let them 'invest' in their child's education as they see fit.

imagine as a NJ resident if i could actually do that? I pay about $10k per year in property taxes (the lion's share goes towards public education). If i could take say 80% of those funds (approx $320k) I could easily get my kids the best education possible. And liberals try to claim that race to the bottom only happens in corporations (ie health insurance across state lines, credit cards etc). I wonder why they don't see this in their ramblings? 15% of the healthcare sector was failing so we were told we must reinvent that sector to try to fix it. The same amounts are failing in public edudcation but that is just fine???

Posted by: visionbrkr | January 26, 2011 10:30 AM | Report abuse

justin:

Agreed that college graduation rates and econominc growth have absolutely nothing to do with one another.


corneliusvansant:

Could you please give the cite for your "quotation"?

Also your simple formula about capital gains and revenue indicates you picked it up from a blog or Fox News, not an indication of any personal knowledge of economics or finance on your part

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | January 26, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

$1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 thanks to Obama's ridiculous healthcare and education spending.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 26, 2011 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"Agreed that college graduation rates and econominc growth have absolutely nothing to do with one another."

If you click on the link to Leonhardt's article, there's a nice graphic of college graduation rates in various countries. They are quite low for Germany and Switzerland, and quite high for Poland and Portugal.

For that matter, it is well known that the Soviet Union invested heavily in education, particularly in science and math, and yet it never came close to America's GDP per capita. Over half of adult Russians in 2003 had completed tertiary education (see figure 1.1 pg 14).

http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/wei/WEI2005.pdf

Posted by: justin84 | January 26, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

krazen:

You're much smarter than that. The smallest part of the deficit has to do with education and any new implementation of Obamacare, an extremely insignificant sum comparatively speaking.

You know better, from your previous posts. You're just being lazy this morning! LOL

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | January 26, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"This is the time for vague speeches that sound good, writes Matthew Yglesias..."

The Fifth Rule of Bureaucracy: If you have to say something, say it in a way that says nothing, but sounds as if you said something.

Posted by: tomcammarata | January 26, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"You're much smarter than that. The smallest part of the deficit has to do with education and any new implementation of Obamacare, an extremely insignificant sum comparatively speaking."


Hmm? The Department of Education went up by about $60 billion over the last couple years. Medicaid went up by another $60 billion.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 26, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Justin

How much money do we spend on education unrelated to salary and benefits for teachers?

You once told me most of the $900b was for paying teachers

If that's indeed correct, then we need to spend more in order to get more kids into college. We are a large country and have lots if teachers, so clearly we will have large bills for salaries, etc, but that doesn't mean we are spending too much, or even enough.

Posted by: lauren2010 | January 26, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Krazen

Around 4/5 of current deficits are due to policies in place as of Jan 2009.

The other 1/5 is due to fighting the recession inherited by Obama.

Posted by: lauren2010 | January 26, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

krazen:

Department of Education spending is listed as 1.32% of the total Federal Budget for 2010.

If you have different information, please share.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | January 26, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

@cornerliussavant:
"When shown that increasing the capital gains tax actually diminishes revenues, BHO's response was: "But it is what's fair." He cannot conceive of otherwise. In his true believer mind, argument against spending are "talking points." Is it any wonder the president's speech ignored the will of the people by calling for more spending?"

He can't very well say "dude, you are a moron." on the campaign trail. Given a question that makes no sense, making your point on the closest related topic you can is perhaps the best option.

Posted by: eggnogfool | January 26, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"If that's indeed correct, then we need to spend more in order to get more kids into college."

Far too many kids are going to college as it is. In 2008, 35% of college graduates were in jobs which didn't require a college degree (and overall unemployment was still 5.8% - that proportion is surely higher now). On top of that, roughly half of the kids which go to college fail to obtain a degree.

Our subsidies basically inflate prices for kids who would go to college anyway, and make debt slaves out of those who fail to obtain a degree or a decent job after graduation.

We should cut all of the subsidies, not extend them.

http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/From_Wall_Street_to_Wal-Mart.pdf

Posted by: justin84 | January 26, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Department of Education spending is listed as 1.32% of the total Federal Budget for 2010.

If you have different information, please share."

Very well.

US Education spending, 2010:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html#usgs302


A total of $157 billion, out of a total budget of $3720 billion. That's over 4%.

The drilldowns are as provided.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 26, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"Around 4/5 of current deficits are due to policies in place as of Jan 2009."

Grants to States for Medicaid in 2008: $201.4

Grants to States for Medicaid in 2010: $275.4

Who authorized this $74 billion in additional expenses?

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 26, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Krazen

Who?

Policies in place prior to Jan 2009.

Justin

All good reasons for a smart education policy, NOT no policy.

Posted by: lauren2010 | January 26, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

"Who?

Policies in place prior to Jan 2009."

What are you talking about? Those increases were authorized in budgets and legislation signed AFTER january 2009.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 26, 2011 8:52 PM | Report abuse

In fact, the Obama administration even claims it to be their policy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_health/?print=1#TB_inline?height=220&width=370&inlineId=tb_external&linkId=1

Protect Access to Health Care for Low-Income Americans

$25.5 billion for additional Federal Medicaid assistance to help states maintain their Medicaid programs and ensure access to health care for millions of Americans.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 26, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Lots of decisions are made after Jan 2009, but are based on laws and formulas in place before Jan 2009.

Your medicaid billions are a pittance compared to the cost of the Iraq war money kept off books during BushJr reign.

BushJr tax cuts and medicare-D are fiscal floods compared to your solitary medicaid concern.

medicaid increases are due to health care cost increases that Obama has little control of. Perhaps had GOP joined in health care reform efforts more cost controls would have been politically feasible.

Try to get your mind around the fact that BushJr is the one who bankrupted us. Obama inherited these problems.

Also, the recession that started BEFORE OBAMA WAS ELECTED has caused fed tax revenues to plummet, which has caused deficits to increase. Blame the recession on anyone you want BEFORE JAn 2009, but don't pretend Obama caused it.

Obama's stimulus has indeed added to the deficit in near-term, but it does not cause long-term fiscal damage and the economic growth it has caused helps offset--not to mention that much of that money was loans and will be returned.

The following article goes a long way in explaining all of this. There are other articles elsewhere that can be googled showing CBO report excerpts that prove current law (as of Jan 2009) GUARANTEED much of the deficits we are now facing.

Oh, and that news today about larger than expected deficits for this year are due to the deal to extend the BushJr tax cuts.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Posted by: lauren2010 | January 27, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

"Lots of decisions are made after Jan 2009, but are based on laws and formulas in place before Jan 2009."

What formula is this, exactly? Please link it.


"medicaid increases are due to health care cost increases that Obama has little control of. Perhaps had GOP joined in health care reform efforts more cost controls would have been politically feasible."

However, he does have control over his own budgetary process, and of course, the 3 separate individual requests for massive new Medicaid funding he has placed in 3 separate bills.

"Try to get your mind around the fact that BushJr is the one who bankrupted us. Obama inherited these problems.
"

Now you're just making stuff up. Bush Jr. did not create the Medicaid program.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 27, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"Oh, and that news today about larger than expected deficits for this year are due to the deal to extend the BushJr tax cuts."

And this is an interesting lie as well, as Bush Jr had no hand one way or another in signing these tax cuts.

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 27, 2011 8:52 AM | Report abuse

"The following article goes a long way in explaining all of this. There are other articles elsewhere that can be googled showing CBO report excerpts that prove current law (as of Jan 2009) GUARANTEED much of the deficits we are now facing."


Easily disproven.

At the time, deficits for year 2011 are slated at $500 billion based on current law (as of January 2009). It ended up triple that due to subsequent legislation.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/_selected-tables.2009.0406.pdf

Posted by: krazen1211 | January 27, 2011 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company