Debt Debate in Congress

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hey look. . .as of today the national debt is now over 100% of the GDP and climbing fast!

Yey for us!  Yes we can!

Hey look...since what's-his-face took office, each years deficit has been lower than the previous - climbing at a slowing rate compared to the previous climbing at an ever faster rate.

[Conan71]

Hey look...since what's-his-face took office, each years deficit has been lower than the previous - climbing at a slowing rate compared to the previous climbing at an ever faster rate.

You're just a regular Obama fanboy, aren't you?

[Townsend]

You're just a regular Obama fanboy, aren't you?

Someone's gotta respond to the gas bubble..."blorp"...uh oh

[heironymouspasparagus]

You're just a regular Obama fanboy, aren't you?

Nope.  Not even a little bit.  But I am very MUCH against the lies and distortions spread by the adherents to "The Script".
(Have you not read my comments about Blowbama - especially as relate to "Fast and Furious"?)

[Teatownclown]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138672183228712.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

JANUARY 6, 2012
Washington Isn't Spending Too Much
It's normal for deficits to rise during a downturn.The real fiscal challenge is decades down the road.

By AUSTAN GOOLSBEE

The Iowa caucuses presented the full range of views of the Republican hopefuls. When it came to fiscal strategy, however, there was almost no daylight among them. Each candidate decried the rise of government spending and wants to cut taxes.

Again and again they noted that spending under President Obama rose to 25% of the economy in 2009, the highest in decades and well over the 20%-21% norm of the last 30 years.

To hear the GOP candidates tell it, this fact explains the deficit, explains America's long-run fiscal problem, and explains why new taxes cannot be tolerated. Congressional Republicans have the same outlook. The deficit is up thanks to government spending, so we must cut spending right now in every form.

Yet the long-run fiscal problem facing the country—which is real—has almost nothing to do with the reasons that the deficit is currently large or that spending is abnormally high. They are high for the same reason taxes are abnormally low: because of the economic downturn. We should debate the real issues, not try to pretend the recession never happened.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast a $1.2 trillion deficit before the Obama administration even came into office. The stimulus added only around $250 billion a year, and more than one-third of that came from tax cuts, especially the tax credit in the stimulus bill's "Making Work Pay" provision.

Most of the increase in the deficit during a downturn doesn't come from new policies in Washington. The deficit rises because both spending and taxes automatically adjust when the economy struggles. Unemployment insurance payments rise and more people qualify for Medicaid and food stamps. Incomes fall so people pay less taxes.

It's completely normal that spending rises during big downturns. The government's share of the economy jumped significantly during the big recessions in the 1970s and '80s. As the economy grows back to health, the government share of the economy will fall (and many analysts forecast just that for the coming year).

The same dynamic applies to tax revenues. You would think that—using the same logic they apply to the rise of government spending—the GOP candidates would be trumpeting the last three years as one of the greatest tax cutting periods of the century.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center's data predict that in 2011 taxes will have fallen more as a share of national income than during almost any other comparable period in U.S. history (including under Ronald Reagan) and may hit their lowest level since World War II: 14.4% of GDP, compared with the more than 18% average of the last 30 years. Individual income taxes may hit their lowest level as a share of income since 1950 and corporate income taxes the lowest since 1936.

The deficit shot up in basically equal measure from taxes falling and spending rising. Spending rose to 25% of GDP from 20.5% in the recession and soon it will fall back down. Taxes fell to 14.5% of GDP from 18.5% and will also return to more normal levels.

The true fiscal challenge is 10, 20 and 30 years down the road. An aging population and rising health-care costs mean that spending will rise again and imply a larger size of government than we have ever had but with all the growth coming from entitlements—while projected federal revenues as a percentage of GDP after the rate cuts of the 2000s will likely remain below even historic levels of 18%.

To hear the Republican candidates, you would think our problems were about discretionary spending running wild. Yet, if you take out the aging of the population and health-care cost increases, government spending is going to shrink over the next decade. A cap on government spending at past levels and a balanced-budget constitutional amendment would force huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

So let's talk about the trade-off between new revenues versus cuts to entitlements. We have known about that issue for decades. We also know it would be much easier to address if the economy were growing again.

The election should lay out each candidate's fiscal grand bargain and growth strategy. Let us compare them. They matter. This could make up the heart of a historically important presidential contest. Instead, Iowa showed us a series of candidates trying to outdo one another with condemnation for the short-term rise in spending while simultaneously proposing tax policies that would add trillions to the long-term deficit.

Mr. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, was chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers from 2010 to 2011.

Some things you just know....even WSJ has centered and balanced.....but just occasionally. 

[Red Arrow]

All the discussion in the link RA provided is geared to some pretty specific "special cases" - like the undersea transmission.  For the big cross country grid we have here - the big towers with bare lines, sometimes doubled and tripled - that does not apply.  There is no insulation on those - all capacitive effects are just to the air with nowhere near the charging/discharging effects they are talking about for insulated conductors.

As I remember, the orientation of the high voltage 3 phase lines are changed every once in a while to counteract the effects of capacitance.  It may not be a major player but it's enough to change the wires.

The best, most cost effective method to reduce losses for the conventional grid powered by nukes, coal, hydro, and gas plants is to add conductors - cut the heating losses in the wire itself. 

Agreed

You could achieve a significant improvement in efficiency and reduction in power usage right now by putting VFD's on your air conditioning equipment - on the compressor.  Commercial buildings typically use larger air conditioning equipment and can benefit even more.  Just a VFD on the blower motor in a 5, 10 or 20 ton (or bigger) unit would pay for itself in months and save money for years.  And it would be even more dramatic with a VFD on the compressor(s), especially in a multi-stage system (2 or more compressors).  And given the choice, 4 smaller compressors in a system will ALWAYS be more efficient and save much money in operating costs over the same size system with only 1 or 2 larger compressors.  Yeah, a little bit higher in initial equipment cost, but saves it quickly - you only have to run just enough compression for the load at that time.  Wish I could get one for the house!!

We had new heating and A/C equipment installed a few years ago in our house.  The heating is 2 stage and the A/C is 2 stage.  Two stage heat is by having 5 burners.  I think 3 burners normally fire and if more is needed the other 2 fire.  The A/C compressor has 2 stages but I don't know how it is done. It's pretty good.  Air handling is by brushless DC motors on the house fan.  The A/C runs nearly full time at low level in normal summer temperatures which keeps the humidity down.  High stage kicks in when needed.  Last summer was a good test.  The system couldn't quite keep up with the 115F temps as the house got up to 80F inside but that's not too bad for as extreme a summer as we had.  We haven't had any problem with the heater keeping up, even last winter when it got so cold.  The house never got colder than 65F at the thermostat.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We had new heating and A/C equipment installed a few years ago in our house.  The heating is 2 stage and the A/C is 2 stage.  Two stage heat is by having 5 burners.  I think 3 burners normally fire and if more is needed the other 2 fire.  The A/C compressor has 2 stages but I don't know how it is done. It's pretty good.  Air handling is by brushless DC motors on the house fan.  The A/C runs nearly full time at low level in normal summer temperatures which keeps the humidity down.  High stage kicks in when needed.  Last summer was a good test.  The system couldn't quite keep up with the 115F temps as the house got up to 80F inside but that's not too bad for as extreme a summer as we had.  We haven't had any problem with the heater keeping up, even last winter when it got so cold.  The house never got colder than 65F at the thermostat.

There are a few ways that companies do the 2 stage compressor thing.  And new ones every year or two.  Most are pretty good - will help efficiency even if they aren't the "best" way to do it.

Unless the system is grossly oversized, it is tough to get much better than about a 25 degree difference outside to inside.  If you got a bigger system that could keep up well at 115 outside, you would really pay for it at more normal temperatures with humidity to efficiency to power consumption.  Around here the dealer should size it to our normal average temperatures and humidity.  That means the severe extreme will suffer a little.  Turn on some fans....

I have even thought about building my own system just so I could get the 4 compressors.  Would put a VFD on the first, so would have variable control on first, then 25% increments of capacity to add in as needed.  Would use one particular commercial control board set that I know of to run the thing.  Very slick, VERY efficient.  VERY unavailable unless do a home brew.

Unless you have a huge house that leaks a lot, the standard 60,000 to 100,000 btu heater will keep you toasty always.  I have 60,000 with 2 1/2 ton unit and never get cold, even with my small somewhat leaky house.  Typical with cooling system in the 3 to 5 ton residential range.  If it does get too cold, put some incandescent bulbs back in!