President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on Fiscal Responsibility

[Gaspar]

The report is out and I urge everyone to read it.  http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

I don't agree with everything, but I do agree with about 100% percent of President Obama's counsel recommendations.  The new estimates scored by the CBO blow me away. 


How did we allow the administration to put us here?

As you can see the red line shows what will happen if we continue with our current tax and expenditure structure.  Yes, the Bush Era tax system.

If we progress with the Obama/Pelosi spending and tax initiatives we get the green line.

This is quite damning to the president et. al. But the time for pointing fingers ended with the election.

Please take the time to read this, and respond to your appropriate elected official.

[nathanm]

If we progress with the Obama/Pelosi spending and tax initiatives we get the green line.

"Current Policy" includes the Bush tax cuts and does not include the full effect of HCR. "Current Law" is what you get without the Bush tax cuts and includes the HCR and other changes in the law that have not yet taken effect.

Also, I wouldn't place much faith in the CBO's numbers past 10 years or so, they have a long history of overestimating entitlement costs past that point.

If you're going to criticize, at least be factual.

[GG]

"Current Policy" includes the Bush tax cuts and does not include the full effect of HCR. "Current Law" is what you get without the Bush tax cuts and includes the HCR and other changes in the law that have not yet taken effect.

Also, I wouldn't place much faith in the CBO's numbers past 10 years or so, they have a long history of overestimating entitlement costs past that point.

If you're going to criticize, at least be factual.

Our Senator Tom Coburn voted to accept the Commission's Report tax increases and all.   

I think it showed courage on his part. 

You can say all you want about Senator Coburn, but when it comes to fiscal policy issues he is pragmatic.

[Hoss]

Our Senator Tom Coburn voted to accept the Commission's Report tax increases and all.   

I think it showed courage on his part. 

You can say all you want about Senator Coburn, but when it comes to fiscal policy issues he is pragmatic.

And what's the deal with Sen Coburn now sporting a goatee?  Trying to make him look 'hip'?

[YoungTulsan]

It is actually much easier to estimate costs/expenses than it is to estimate revenue/profit.

Who could predict the internet bubble of the late 90s, the tech crash of the early 2000s, 9/11, the financial collapse of 2008, etc.

We foolishly during good times project revenues into perpetuity based on what is happening now.   Then we make budgets based on those rosy views.   I actually love this new Tulsan law which mandates all revenue increases over a certain point be split between joyous frivolous spending and a rainy day fund instead of being committed to the frivolous spending on an exponential curve.

As a fiscal conservative, I recognize that Obama is getting a bad wrap because of the violent downturn in federal revenue because of the financial collapse in 2008.   He didn't really increase spending AS MUCH as this calculated lack of funds.

And can you really classify profits made off of moving artificial numbers around in an arbitrary system of absurd perfunctory transactions as actual WORK?  I have a hard time disagreeing with those profits (and subsequent tax revenue) being eliminated from the economy.

Push that the funk out.

So this is my problem with the forward looking budget calculations.   We found out they were wrong when they told us we had endless years, nay, decades, of surpluses during the tech revolution slash bubble of the late 90s.

When someone says "Lebron James will sign with the Miami Heat next year" a common response would be "How could you say that!  That is pure speculation!!"

Yet the revenue projections for a commission such as this are supposed to be taken seriously enough as to form new policy over $20-50 trillion dollars of federal spending derived from  $75-300 trillion of potential economic activity over the next 10 years?

What I am basically trying to say is that revenues are a huge unknown NO MATTER what tax policy or economic policy any political group in power institutes over the economy.  The plans of what we are going to spend money on, and how much -  Those are much more fixed.   These projections of the future are no different from the projections 11 years ago singing about endless surpluses and paying down the debt.  This "fiscal" commission is only talking about reducing the rate of increase of the debt as I have grown to understand it.  I support the idea, but I can't get behind the hooplah when the REVENUE is such a violently unknown variable.

[we vs us]

It is actually much easier to estimate costs/expenses than it is to estimate revenue/profit.

Who could predict the internet bubble of the late 90s, the tech crash of the early 2000s, 9/11, the financial collapse of 2008, etc.

We foolishly during good times project revenues into perpetuity based on what is happening now.   Then we make budgets based on those rosy views.   I actually love this new Tulsan law which mandates all revenue increases over a certain point be split between joyous frivolous spending and a rainy day fund instead of being committed to the frivolous spending on an exponential curve.

As a fiscal conservative, I recognize that Obama is getting a bad wrap because of the violent downturn in federal revenue because of the financial collapse in 2008.   He didn't really increase spending AS MUCH as this calculated lack of funds.

And can you really classify profits made off of moving artificial numbers around in an arbitrary system of absurd perfunctory transactions as actual WORK?  I have a hard time disagreeing with those profits (and subsequent tax revenue) being eliminated from the economy.

Push that the funk out.

So this is my problem with the forward looking budget calculations.   We found out they were wrong when they told us we had endless years, nay, decades, of surpluses during the tech revolution slash bubble of the late 90s.

When someone says "Lebron James will sign with the Miami Heat next year" a common response would be "How could you say that!  That is pure speculation!!"

Yet the revenue projections for a commission such as this are supposed to be taken seriously enough as to form new policy over $20-50 trillion dollars of federal spending derived from  $75-300 trillion of potential economic activity over the next 10 years?

What I am basically trying to say is that revenues are a huge unknown NO MATTER what tax policy or economic policy any political group in power institutes over the economy.  The plans of what we are going to spend money on, and how much -  Those are much more fixed.   These projections of the future are no different from the projections 11 years ago singing about endless surpluses and paying down the debt.  This "fiscal" commission is only talking about reducing the rate of increase of the debt as I have grown to understand it.  I support the idea, but I can't get behind the hooplah when the REVENUE is such a violently unknown variable.

Just like business manages these projections regularly, it shouldn't be that difficult for government revenues.  Obviously the business cycle and, ahem, greater externalities (like market panics or credit bubbles) will affect calculations, but again, that's just part of the environment of prediction. 

When you get into decades-long projections, obviously things get more vague, which is why you hear caveats like "if all things stay the same."  But if you look at our economy over, say the last 30 years, there has been a fairly regular sine wave of booms and busts, all averaging out into a slow uptick of activity.  There are occasional Major Recessions (like 80-82) and then there are once-a-century events like our current Great Recession.  All of these things still even out into a long term slow uptick of activity, though they will each  -- while within the even itself -- affect the long term calculations.