Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[WhoWee]

I think the tea party is a fringe group, and I doubt it will be popular on the main stage.

If you are correct - then why are all of the major Democrat leaders and the media in continuous attack mode on the TEA Party members?

What are they afraid of if they're just some kind of a fringe group?



Btw - how did this fringe group manage to kick their butts in the last election?

 

[SixNein]

If you are correct - then why are all of the major Democrat leaders and the media in continuous attack mode on the TEA Party members?

What are they afraid of if they're just some kind of a fringe group?
Btw - how did this fringe group manage to kick their butts in the last election?

The media covers the tea party because its not boring. The members of the tea party frequently do or say crazy things. Just look at all of the comments made by Bachmann.

They picked up a little more than 50 seats in the house, and the senate remains in control of democrats. I don't know that I would call it a 'butt kicking'. But they did manage to change the control of the house.

In a basic nutshell, I don't believe the average American will subscribe to the tea party ideology. The tea party presidential favourite is weaker than weak.

 

[russ_watters]

The right is willing to put our current woes on Obama and to complain that he has not offered detailed plans for debt-reduction on the table. That is NOT his job.

As has been pointed out in this thread before, one of Obama's jobs is to put together a budget request and submit it to Congress. Obama''s last budget request didn't contain debt increase reduction elements, only debt increase increasing elements.

More to the point, much of the American public does look for leadership from their presidents - even if you don't. If you remember, Obama was heavily criticized for his role in what is now ironically called "Obamacare" for putting out some ideas, but then leaving it to Congress to hash out the plan.

Typically, the power of the presidency makes the President the de facto leader of his party. Obama came away from this debate looking like the third most powerful Democrat, behind Harry Reid and his VP.

Also:

The point is that Presidents can't legislate. They can rally their troops and ask for legislation that they are willing to sign, but all the dirty work is done in committees, by Congressional staffers and aides. There is no way that Obama should have been expected to come up with a comprehensive debt-reduction bill, like some on the right are claiming. Such claims show a shocking lack of comprehension about how the US government works.

You're not suggesting that the President can't write a bill if he wants, are you? A President's plan can be as specific as he wants it, all the way to actually writing the bill...heck, you can write a bill if you want, you just don't have quite the clout of the President to get it passed!

 

[WhoWee]

The media covers the tea party because its not boring. The members of the tea party frequently do or say crazy things. Just look at all of the comments made by Bachmann.

This doesn't explain John Kerry, Howard Dean, and David Axelrod all using the exact same slogan "TEA Party Downgrade" on the Sunday shows. When you consider Axelrod is based in Chicago as part of the Obama 2012 election campaign - it's clearly a coordinated campaign message.

 

[lisab]

This doesn't explain John Kerry, Howard Dean, and David Axelrod all using the exact same slogan "TEA Party Downgrade" on the Sunday shows. When you consider Axelrod is based in Chicago as part of the Obama 2012 election campaign - it's clearly a coordinated campaign message.

C'mon, that goes on with both sides, you shouldn't be one bit surprised...or even upset, unless you start railing against the right for doing the exact same thing.

Kerry, Dean, et al are totally within their rights to pin the downgrade on the TP, imo. If the clown shoes fit...

 

[WhoWee]

C'mon, that goes on with both sides, you shouldn't be one bit surprised...or even upset, unless you start railing against the right for doing the exact same thing.

Kerry, Dean, et al are totally within their rights to pin the downgrade on the TP, imo. If the clown shoes fit...

C'mon WhoWee or c'mon lisab? I responded to his post that :
"The media covers the tea party because its not boring. The members of the tea party frequently do or say crazy things. Just look at all of the comments made by Bachmann."

I said his post doesn't explain the Dem Party attacks. He claims the TEA Party is just a fringe group to be dismissed - again, Kerry, Axelrod, and Dean are big guns - why do they waste their time with attacks if the TEA Party is an insignificant fringe group?

IMO - the Dems are throwing gas on the fire with their continued attacks on average voters who agree with the basic TEA Party ideas - less Government, more accountability, and reduce waste.

 

[BobG]

IMO - the Dems are throwing gas on the fire with their continued attacks on average voters who agree with the basic TEA Party ideas - less Government, more accountability, and reduce waste.

It depends on how "less government" is defined. If the Tea Party's "less government" ideology can be defined as meaning, "Let's burn down the Capitol!", then voters will blame the Tea Party for the gas being thrown on the fire.

And things such as a Balanced Budget Amendment promote that definition. A Balanced Budget Amendment reduces Congress's abilty to govern - a good thing if you think all government is bad; a bad thing if you think good government is essential.

Personally, I see the Tea Party movement as giving up on any possibility of ever electing competent people to government. The problem with that idea is that if it's true, then we're pretty much sunk regardless of cute things like a Balanced Budget Amendment or forcing the government to partially shut down to avoid defaulting on its debt.

The Tea Party appeals to the pessimists. They make an attractive target for those trying to appeal to the more optimistic voters in the country.

If the Tea Party becomes the issue in the 2012 election, it will be like the difference between Ronald Reagan's optimism about the country vs Jimmy Carter's malaise.

 

[WhoWee]

It depends on how "less government" is defined. If the Tea Party's "less government" ideology can be defined as meaning, "Let's burn down the Capitol!", then voters will blame the Tea Party for the gas being thrown on the fire.

Have any TEA Party leaders ever been quoted directly as saying "Let's burn down the Capitol!"? That's a good example of the type of characterization that will backfire on the Democrats.

 

[russ_watters]

It depends on how "less government" is defined. If the Tea Party's "less government" ideology can be defined as meaning, "Let's burn down the Capitol!", then voters will blame the Tea Party for the gas being thrown on the fire.

I'm not following the analogy, but in any case...

And things such as a Balanced Budget Amendment promote that definition. A Balanced Budget Amendment reduces Congress's abilty to govern - a good thing if you think all government is bad; a bad thing if you think good government is essential.

It doesn't need to be that broad. A balanced budget amendment says nothing more or less than that our government is typically incapable of balancing the budget on its own. So a balanced budget amendment forces a component of good government instead of allowing the bad government we have now.

Personally, I see the Tea Party movement as giving up on any possibility of ever electing competent people to government.

On certain issues, yes. Minus some blips due to wars, doesn't the past 80 years of history show a government that accumulates social programs and debt, with little or no ability to halt or reverse that trend, even in the face of certain (if not immediate) failure of our economic system? I believe that that trend points to a structural flaw in our system of government.

The problem with that idea is that if it's true, then we're pretty much sunk regardless of cute things like a Balanced Budget Amendment or forcing the government to partially shut down to avoid defaulting on its debt.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's a big problem we're facing, but it really isn't that big a flaw in terms of the depth and complexity of the problem.

The Tea Party appeals to the pessimists. They make an attractive target for those trying to appeal to the more optimistic voters in the country.

Agreed, but we live in pessimistic times. Obama got elected by saying we were moving in the wrong direction and vowing to change it. The Republican House got elected by saying we were moving in the wrong direction and vowing to change it. If people perceive we're still moving in the wrong direction (or not moving fast enough in the right direction) next year, they may elect to make another change.

If the Tea Party becomes the issue in the 2012 election, it will be like the difference between Ronald Reagan's optimism about the country vs Jimmy Carter's malaise.

Um...the above implies you think Obama is Reagan and the Tea Party is Carter. I think you have it backwards, despite Obama's concerted effort to label himself a Reagan.

 

[WhoWee]

A Balanced Budget Amendment reduces Congress's abilty to govern - a good thing if you think all government is bad; a bad thing if you think good government is essential.

A balanced budget amendment is certainly not a TEA Party idea - it just makes sense to anyone that manages a household budget. The support is bipartisan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nounces-support-for-balanced-budget-amendment

 

[ParticleGrl]

A balanced budget amendment says nothing more or less than that our government is typically incapable of balancing the budget on its own. So a balanced budget amendment forces a component of good government instead of allowing the bad government we have now.

Here is the glaring problem- lots of programs (unemployment, medicaid, etc) should cost little in good times, but might cost quite a lot during recessions, which is just the time that revenues fall. A good budget should probably run surplus in good times, and deficit in bad times.

doesn't the past 80 years of history show a government that accumulates social programs and debt, with little or no ability to halt or reverse that trend, even in the face of certain (if not immediate) failure of our economic system?

No, it doesn't. The US has among the weakest safety nets of the first world countries- we haven't been piling on social programs and debt. Keep in mind only two presidents in the history of the country have accumulated debt in a time of economic expansion, Reagan and W. Bush. Clinton ran surpluses, and Obama came in during the worst economic contraction must of us will ever live through (hopefully).

 

[BobG]

Um...the above implies you think Obama is Reagan and the Tea Party is Carter. I think you have it backwards, despite Obama's concerted effort to label himself a Reagan.

Only in terms of optimism vs pessimism.

And my comments about our ability to elect competent leaders applies to government in general; not just our economic problems. You can't solve problems about the quality of our leaders by making them powerless to make decisions. It defeats the purpose of having any leaders at all.

A Balanced Budget Amendment makes it practically impossible for government to react to a crisis, a war, a huge natural disaster in any sort of timely manner. It takes away the responsible things a Congress might possibly do as well as takes away the damage they might do. I think in our current times, it might be reasonable to say people in Congress are more likely to do damaging things than responsible things, but that's a problem with our ability to choose leaders - not a problem with our current system.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is the glaring problem- lots of programs (unemployment, medicaid, etc) should cost little in good times, but might cost quite a lot during recessions, which is just the time that revenues fall. A good budget should probably run surplus in good times, and deficit in bad times.

I would expect variables of this type to be anticipated in the design of serious proposals.

 

[WhoWee]

A Balanced Budget Amendment makes it practically impossible for government to react to a crisis, a war, a huge natural disaster in any sort of timely manner. It takes away the responsible things a Congress might possibly do as well as takes away the damage they might do. I think in our current times, it might be reasonable to say people in Congress are more likely to do damaging things than responsible things, but that's a problem with our ability to choose leaders - not a problem with our current system.

The President typically goes to Congress after a crisis or due to a conflict - for example (ONLY) Bush went to Congress after 9/11.

 

[BobG]

A balanced budget amendment is certainly not a TEA Party idea - it just makes sense to anyone that manages a household budget. The support is bipartisan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...nounces-support-for-balanced-budget-amendment

It makes sense to every household that refuses to spend more than they earned that year - which is every household that only pays cash for their cars and only pays cash for their house. There's good reasons to run up debt.

The important thing is that your average spending is less than your average income. That what you spent in year one for your house (and the interest to finance it) averages out to less than you make over the course of your mortgage - and that you're not one of those people that once you've spent that money on the house, decide that's the average amount of debt you're going to carry for the rest of your life and keep taking out second mortgages as soon as your equity increases.

 

[WhoWee]

It makes sense to every household that refuses to spend more than they earned that year - which is every household that only pays cash for their cars and only pays cash for their house. There's good reasons to run up debt.

When does it EVER make sense for a household to plan to incur so much debt that they must perpetually borrow at minimum $.43 of every $1.00 spent to meet monthly obligations?

 

[BobG]

The important thing is that your average spending is less than your average income. That what you spent in year one for your house (and the interest to finance it) averages out to less than you make over the course of your mortgage - and that you're not one of those people that once you've spent that money on the house, decide that's the average amount of debt you're going to carry for the rest of your life and keep taking out second mortgages as soon as your equity increases.

When does it EVER make sense for a household to plan to incur so much debt that they must perpetually borrow at minimum $.43 of every $1.00 spent to meet monthly obligations?

Never. I don't disagree that Congress has done a lousy job handling finances. I disagree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a viable solution. It's acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of electing good leaders and that we'll always be incapable of electing good leaders.

 

[mheslep]

Presidents of both parties have duly submitted a budget proposal as they are required by law for years, in which they not infrequently drive the political discussion with dramatic changes to the status quo. Obama's latest budget cut pretty much nothing while raising income taxes and resulting in large an increasing deficits out to 2020.

By contrast, examples of serious cut and reform proposals would include: Clinton and his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aspin#Defense_budget_and_.22bottom-up_review.22" which he pushed in State of the Union address and spent dedicated time on all over the country explaining in detail, allowing it to be attacked in public in detail.

 

[WhoWee]

Never. I don't disagree that Congress has done a lousy job handling finances. I disagree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a viable solution. It's acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of electing good leaders and that we'll always be incapable of electing good leaders.

To both respond directly and go back to PG's concern - IMO - a good piece of legislation will build in the ability to react to special situations and adjust for changes in GDP.

If the economy slows fixed spending as a percentage will automatically increase and discretionary spending would be adjusted. During boom periods - any fixed spending increases should be delayed and weighed against the normal standard - once again, discretionary spending (or Heaven forbid) debt reduction might be considered.

Legislation of this type (done properly) would mandate responsible management - rather than whatever it is that Congress typically does.

IMO - during the Bush years, there was far too much "compromise" on spending. As a parent of 4 kids I recognize the 'if everybodies doing it - then nobody's to blame game'.

 

[mheslep]

...

Personally, I see the Tea Party movement as giving up on any possibility of ever electing competent people to government. The problem with that idea is that if it's true, then we're pretty much sunk regardless of cute things like a Balanced Budget Amendment or forcing the government to partially shut down to avoid defaulting on its debt.

The Tea Party appeals to the pessimists.

I disagree and think the reverse is true, the difference being I think in the curious notion that optimism and pessimism need be about the federal government of all things, as opposed to the people and private institutions of the US and what they might create and build absent a parasitic government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY" commercial, probably the most successful ever made, followed this theme with not a mention of how the government was needed to come and fix this or that.

 

[mheslep]

...I disagree that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a viable solution. ...

Why, when 49 states have BB laws?

 

[WhoWee]

Why, when 49 states have BB laws?

Good point!

If anything, the balanced budget requirement will provide Congress with a framework of how to manage their time and priorities. IMO - when they have too much free time they get us into trouble.

 

[BobG]

Why, when 49 states have BB laws?

This is very old (BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENTS - State Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government) and the details are probably wrong by now, but it at least compares all 50 states in one document and illustrates some of the differences between state budgets and federal budgets.

For one thing, most states have requirements to balance their general fund, not the entire budget. Capital projects, such as building projects to improve infrastructure, are still financed via debt and only the debt payments have to be included in the balanced budget requirement (this is a sensible provision - if comparing to households, it's similar to how households buy a car). While each state varied in this report, general funds accounted for about 54% of the overall state budgets.

For another, almost all states have requirements for the proposed budget and/or the enacted budget to be balanced. That's not the same as requiring the budget to balance at the end of the year. In fact, in many states, any end of year deficits are just rolled into the next year's budget - i.e. an end of year deficit hurts what the state can do the next year and ensures budgets balance in the long term, but it doesn't cripple a state when things don't go as planned.

It's a system that can be abused. Proposing an overly optimistic economy and underestimating costs is a perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end. Balancing the budget, but then passing emergency supplemental bills during the year is another perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end (given that the government has to have the flexibility to respond to emergencies, crises, etc, any rational balanced budget amendment would still have to allow emergency supplemental spending bills even if there were a likelihood of abuse).

While many states have no legal requirement to balance the budget at the end of the year, most still do. One method used to do this is to give the state governor authority to impose unilateral spending cuts of some kind. The federal government could also do this - allow the President to make unilateral spending cuts or tax increases - and it couldn't be considered unconstitutional if were authorized by a constitutional amendment. It would be a rather substantial transfer of power over the budget from the legislative branch to the executive branch, however.

Most federal balanced budget amendment proposals have balked at transferring power from the legislative to the executive and have proposed some formula for automatic spending cuts. In my opinion, putting the budget on autopilot and allowing those set formulas to take control are the worst option, but that's purely a subjective opinion.

A better option is to require Congress to make adjustments during the year, as some state legislatures do. Everything is still under human control without transferring legislative authority to the executive branch. They still have to have the flexibility to handle situations where the end of year is not going to be balanced no matter how much we might wish it would.

There's two other reasons state budgets usually balance at the end of year even though they're only legally required to balance when enacted: tradition and credit ratings.

State budget officials told us that in addition to the requirements themselves, the expectation or tradition of balanced budgets as well as concern over bond ratings were important motivating factors in their states' efforts to balance budgets. Without these other factors, balanced budget requirements may not be sufficient to ensure balanced state budgets. While present at the federal level, concerns over long-term budget balance and credit worthiness have not been historically strong enough to maintain a balanced federal budget.

The federal government still has almost no recent history of balanced budgets, but concerns about its credit worthiness may just have gotten a lot stronger. While state budgets usually do balance, it's debatable whether the legal requirements are the reason or if state budgets balance because voters expect state governments to balance their budgets.

 

[WhoWee]

A better option is to require Congress to make adjustments during the year, as some state legislatures do. Everything is still under human control without transferring legislative authority to the executive branch. They still have to have the flexibility to handle situations where the end of year is not going to be balanced no matter how much we might wish it would.

What if they choose not to take action - how do you propose to "require Congress to make adjustments during the year"?

 

[mheslep]

This is very old (BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENTS - State Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government) and the details are probably wrong by now, but it at least compares all 50 states in one document and illustrates some of the differences between state budgets and federal budgets.

For one thing, most states have requirements to balance their general fund, not the entire budget. Capital projects, ...

Yes there innumerable variations. Fine. Still much better than the current federal situation.

For another, almost all states have requirements for the proposed budget and/or the enacted budget to be balanced. That's not the same as requiring the budget to balance at the end of the year. In fact, in many states, any end of year deficits are just rolled into the next year's budget - i.e. an end of year deficit hurts what the state can do the next year and ensures budgets balance in the long term, but it doesn't cripple a state when things don't go as planned.

Still much better than the current federal situation.

It's a system that can be abused.

As can our entire system of government, and is.

Proposing an overly optimistic economy and underestimating costs is a perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end. Balancing the budget, but then passing emergency supplemental bills during the year is another perfectly legal way to balance the budget on paper without balancing it at year end (given that the government has to have the flexibility to respond to emergencies, crises, etc, any rational balanced budget amendment would still have to allow emergency supplemental spending bills even if there were a likelihood of abuse)...

Still much better than the current federal situation.

...While many states have no legal requirement to balance the budget at the end of the year, most still do. One method used to do this is to give the state governor authority to impose unilateral spending cuts of some kind. The federal government could also do this - allow the President to make unilateral spending cuts or tax increases - ...

Not 'or tax increases'. I am unaware of any state granting a Governor the authority to unilaterally impose tax increases.

Most federal balanced budget amendment proposals have balked at transferring power from the legislative to the executive and have proposed some formula for automatic spending cuts. In my opinion, putting the budget on autopilot and allowing those set formulas to take control are the worst option, but that's purely a subjective opinion...

You've read some of the literature and thus must know that 'autopilot' is not what happens in most of the states, most of the time, yet fall back to a counter factual as a summary of the nature of BB laws? In the federal case by contrast most spending, especially the entitlements SS and Medicare is already on autopilot.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The obvious reason states have balanced budgets and the federal government does not is that STATES CAN NOT PRINT MONEY. That makes the federal government a very different beast (and its different from a household budget in the same way).

When talking about US federal debt we have to remember that we CHOOSE to operate the government via selling treasuries because its more predictable than printing money to cover government purchases.

 

[WhoWee]

The obvious reason states have balanced budgets and the federal government does not is that STATES CAN PRINT MONEY. That makes the federal government a very different beast (and its different from a household budget in the same way).

When talking about US federal debt we have to remember that we CHOOSE to operate the government via selling treasuries because its more predictable than printing money to cover government purchases.

And yet there's talk of QE-3?

I'm trying to figure out what good it would do (after buying Treasuries off the banks with printed Dollars under QE-2) for the banks to then buy more Treasuries (not sure what they've done with the cash?) - only to sell them to the Fed for more printed Dollars under QE-3?

 

[BobG]

You've read some of the literature and thus must know that 'autopilot' is not what happens in most of the states, most of the time, yet fall back to a counter factual as a summary of the nature of BB laws? In the federal case by contrast most spending, especially the entitlements SS and Medicare is already on autopilot.

I don't believe any states use a formula (but California did for a while - it was actually implemented once and the formula requirements were suspended each subsequent year until the formulas were eliminated). The federal government did use formulas in Gramm-Rudman, a deficit reduction bill passed to head off a previous balanced budget amendment attempt and in some other bill that tried to enact a balanced budget through legislative means. Some balanced budget amendments have proposed formulas - most haven't (there have been several attempts at a balanced budget amendment). Looking closer, the formula idea seems to be a fad that was popular in the 80's and early 90's, not a normal method used to balance budgets.

The amendment that came closest to passage (http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/v5.htm ) did not use formulas and only required the budget be balanced when enacted.

The most recent version (S. J. RES. 23 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget) proposed by Snowe (ME) and DeMint (SC) also does not use formulas and only requires the budget be balanced when enacted (but makes it a lot harder to balance the budget via raising taxes).

No states authorize the governor to unilaterally raise taxes. It's still a valid possibility (even if unlikely). Giving the governor authority to unilaterally raise taxes is on the exact same level as giving the governor the authority to unilaterally cut spending. Both are powers normally held by the legislative instead of the executive. In any event, it's unlikely Congress would give the President authority to do either.

 

[BobG]

What if they choose not to take action - how do you propose to "require Congress to make adjustments during the year"?

Interestingly, one could say that's the shortfall of most state requirements to balance the budget. There's no sanctions or penalties for failing to balance the budget. The few states that do have some sort of sanction or penalty have never implemented them.

None the less, states usually do balance their budget. Tradition and expectations carry a lot of weight, at least at the state level and below, where government is sometimes actually functional.

At a federal level, I imagine that could be a bit more problematic.

Actually, a separate thread discussing what a Balanced Budget Amendment should include (if, for some reason, one were silly enough to think it would be a good idea in the first place) would probably be better than derailing this thread.

 

[BobG]

I'm not sure 'But I'm better than Bush was! ' Is going to fly next year.

The logical reply to Obama using that tactic is "So what? So was Carter!"

 

[mheslep]

There's nothing new under the sun. Here are earlier and better considered responses to objections to the '81 Balanced Budget amendment by Milton Friedman (1983)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1983/02/washington-less-red-ink/5450/

 

[russ_watters]

And my comments about our ability to elect competent leaders applies to government in general; not just our economic problems. You can't solve problems about the quality of our leaders by making them powerless to make decisions. It defeats the purpose of having any leaders at all.

You certainly can't solve all of them, but at the same time, if not for lack of quality leaders, we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place, would we? Distill all of our history down and this flaw in humanity is the one and only reason our Constitution - our country - exists. A single leader can't be trusted to act in the best interests of a country, so our country/constitution was created to both limit and diversify the power of governance.

The Constitution did a pretty good job of limiting and diversifying power, but it is 200 years old and isn't perfect. It has been amended in the past, again, for precisely this reason, for example for the Presidential term limit.

In the present case, our founders couldn't possibly have imagined a government so big and so heavily involved in social programs. The flaw that has enabled the current situation simply didn't manifest until the 20th century.

A Balanced Budget Amendment makes it practically impossible for government to react to a crisis, a war, a huge natural disaster in any sort of timely manner.

[and to P_G] There is no need to assume that a balanced budget amendment would be a simplistic and inflexible one-liner. I haven't fully developed what I'd like to see, but for starters it wouldn't, strictly speaking, be a balanced budget amendment, but rather a debt level amendment. It would set a target debt-to-gdp ratio and a ramp to achieving it. It would allow (as the link WW posted included) exceptions by 2/3 majority in the event of a major emergency.

It takes away the responsible things a Congress might possibly do as well as takes away the damage they might do. I think in our current times, it might be reasonable to say people in Congress are more likely to do damaging things than responsible things, but that's a problem with our ability to choose leaders - not a problem with our current system.

I'd be willing to entertain an alternate amendment that fixes our ability to choose quality leaders, if you have one. Personally, I think the flaw is a flaw in human nature, so I doubt it would be possible to correct it.

It's acceptance of the fact that we're incapable of electing good leaders and that we'll always be incapable of electing good leaders.

Well, let's attack it this way: can you think of a time in modern history when a US government existed that successfully dealt with such issues as we're seeing today?

 

[russ_watters]

I would expect variables of this type to be anticipated in the design of serious proposals.

Yes. It annoys me that people assume it wouldn't. This is a problem that makes it difficult to have a serious debate in this forum: don't assume the people you are arguing with aren't more nuanced than the most simplistic interpretation of what they say.

 

[mheslep]

... I haven't fully developed what I'd like to see, but for starters it wouldn't, strictly speaking, be a balanced budget amendment, but rather a debt level amendment. ...

That's prescient; you have some good company in that line:

[Objection] 6. The key problem is not deficits but the size of government spending.

[Response] My sentiments exactly. Which is why I have never supported an amendment directed solely at a balanced budget. I have written repeatedly that while I would prefer that the budget be balanced, I would rather have government spend $500 billion and run a deficit of $100 billion than have it spend $800 billion with a balanced budget.

 

[russ_watters]

Presidents of both parties have duly submitted a budget proposal as they are required by law for years, in which they not infrequently drive the political discussion with dramatic changes to the status quo. Obama's latest budget cut pretty much nothing while raising income taxes and resulting in large an increasing deficits out to 2020.

By contrast, examples of serious cut and reform proposals would include: Clinton and his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aspin#Defense_budget_and_.22bottom-up_review.22" which he pushed in State of the Union address and spent dedicated time on all over the country explaining in detail, allowing it to be attacked in public in detail.

Expansion: the other half (1/5?) of the current issue is tax increases. Spending cuts are complicated, but a specific spending plan is required of a President. Tax plans are not required, but they are typically so simple that there is no good excuse for not being specific about what you want. Tax bracket increases can be detailed with a 3x5 card of bullet points or in 15 seconds in a speech. In the case of the current situation, a one-liner is all that is really needed:

-Repeal the Bush tax cuts.
or
-Repeal the Bush tax cuts for upper income earners, but extend them for everyone else.

Caveat, of course: If you want to actually reform our tax system, ie, with deduction cuts, that takes more detail.