Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, April 16, 2018

By now, nobody should be surprised when the Republican Party violates its claims of fiscal rectitude. Increasing the deficit -- through big tax cuts, mostly for the rich -- has been the defining feature of the party's economic policy for decades. When Paul Ryan and other Republicans call themselves fiscal conservatives, they're basically doing a version of the old Marx Brothers bit: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Ever so slowly, conventional wisdom has started to recognize this reality. After Ryan's retirement announcement last week, only a few headlines called him a deficit hawk. People are catching on to the con. But there is still a major way that the conventional wisdom is wrong: It doesn't give the Democratic Party enough credit for its actual fiscal conservatism.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Over the last few decades, Democrats have repeatedly reduced the deficit. They have raised taxes. They have cut military spending and corporate welfare. Some of them have even tried to hold down the cost of cherished social programs. Obamacare, for example, included enough cost controls and tax increases that it's cut the deficit on net.

The charts here tell the story, and I'll get into the details in a moment. But the author spends a few moments on the perception gap, because it highlights a problem that's bigger than budget policy.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This country doesn't have a party of fiscal responsibility.

The Democratic Party sucks less than the GOP when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

That's really not much to hang their hat on though.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-16 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility

Now that's funny.

#2 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-04-16 02:21 PM | Reply

This country doesn't have a party of fiscal responsibility.
The Democratic Party sucks less than the GOP when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
That's really not much to hang their hat on though.

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Clinton reduced the deficit and later balanced the budget.
Obama reduced the deficit and set the feds on track to do the same a few years out.

And the Republicans blow it up each time with tax cuts.

Don't give me this "the parties are the same" garbage.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-16 02:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Democrats Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility
Now that's funny.

#2 | POSTED BY SNIPER

How about you tell us all again how Obama added $20 trillion to the debt. We could use a good laugh.

Only 2 presidents in 30 years reduced the Deficit and they weren't Republicans. Deal with it, Snowflake.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-16 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Now that's funny.

#2 | Posted by Sniper

No... you funny.

But, not funny Ha Ha.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-04-16 02:54 PM | Reply

"The Democratic Party sucks less than the GOP when it comes to fiscal responsibility"

And yet you, with your laser beam focus on unfunded liabities, persist in voting Republican.

What's up with that??

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-16 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clinton reduced the deficit and later balanced the budget.
Obama reduced the deficit and set the feds on track to do the same a few years out.

Which party controlled the House when those things happened?

Don't give me this "the parties are the same" garbage.

#3 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

From my first post:

This country doesn't have a party of fiscal responsibility.

The Democratic Party sucks less than the GOP when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

That's really not much to hang their hat on though.

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-16 03:51 PM | Reply

And yet you, with your laser beam focus on unfunded liabities, persist in voting Republican.
What's up with that??

#6 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm not a single issue voter.

Most importantly, unless entitlements are addressed, the unfunded liabilities are a far bigger threat than the current levels of debt and our current deficit spending.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-16 03:52 PM | Reply

You vote for the party that wants to "address" entitlements by de-funding them.

Your problem is with the entitlements themselves.

The fact that they're projected to become insolvent in decades is merely the best argument you can find to justify cutting them.

Did you ever say we should simply raise taxes to pay for entitlements? Maybe I missed where you ever said that. Did you ever say single payer would reduce the cost of health care entitlements? Maybe I missed that. Did you ever say letting the government negotiate drug prices would lower cost of entitlements? Maybe I missed that.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-16 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#9 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-04-16 04:03 PM

Late last week I proposed how I would address entitlements. I was going to re-print it but can't find it in my archives. This is what I think should be done, for openers:

1. Slightly raise the age of eligibility. 1 year older in 5 years and then raise it by another year after 10 more years have elapsed.

2. Increase FICA tax on both sides by a half point.

3. Increase the FICA cap by $5k.

I'll add one:

4. Even with the increase in the FICA cap, those whose income subjected to the increase do NOT get an indexed increase in benefits (a simple and mild form of means testing).

These measures by themselves won't fix the problem, but they are a good start. They are also a nice compromise of taxes and program spending cuts. Further, they don't controversially change how the programs themselves are structured.

I'm also warm to the concept of block-granting Medicaid funding.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-16 04:14 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

How doea block granting Medicaid reduce costs other than through reduction of services?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-16 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By giving states more control over the program it can be tailored to meet the unique needs that each state has to try to address.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-16 04:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

That's what I just said, in different words.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-16 04:22 PM | Reply

Most importantly, unless entitlements are addressed, the unfunded liabilities are a far bigger threat than the current levels of debt and our current deficit spending.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-16 03:52 PM | FLAG:

Unfunded liabilities squawk Unfunded liabilities squawk Unfunded liabilities squawk Unfunded liabilities squawk

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-16 05:01 PM | Reply

Clinton reduced the deficit and later balanced the budget.
Obama reduced the deficit and set the feds on track to do the same a few years out.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant

Only because the republican congress forced him. HATS OFF TO BJ WILLIE AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-04-16 05:32 PM | Reply

How about you tell us all again how Obama added $20 trillion to the debt. We could use a good laugh.

Only 2 presidents in 30 years reduced the Deficit and they weren't Republicans. Deal with it, Snowflake.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant

I just can't believe how damn stoopid that post is. You stand alone when it comes to lying.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-04-16 05:33 PM | Reply

You vote for the party that wants to "address" entitlements by de-funding them.

#9 | Posted by snoofy

What are entitlements in your tiny brain?

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-04-16 05:36 PM | Reply

#15

How does that square with recent Republican behavior as it pertains to fiscal management?

#18 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-04-16 05:36 PM | Reply

Unfunded liabilities squawk Unfunded liabilities squawk Unfunded liabilities squawk Unfunded liabilities squawk

#14 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Bury your head in the sand squawk bury your head in the sand squawk bury your head in the sand squawk bury your head in the sand squawk

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-16 05:50 PM | Reply

I'm also warm to the concept of block-granting Medicaid funding.

#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-16 04:14 PM | FLAG:

Sure you are.

familiesusa.org

Updated January 23, 2017: President Trump and his advisors have indicated that they will pursue a Medicaid block grant as part of their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Turning Medicaid into a block grant is not a new or innovative idea. As our fact sheet explains, block granting Medicaid would ultimately mean cuts in services to people who need health care most.

A "block grant" is a fixed amount of money that the federal government gives to a state for a specific purpose. If Medicaid was turned into a block grant, the federal government would set each state's Medicaid spending amount in advance. That amount would presumably be based on some estimate of state Medicaid spending, but most block grant proposals start with significant cuts in federal Medicaid support.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-16 06:31 PM | Reply

www.washingtonpost.com

The GOP plan to fund Medicaid through block grants will probably weaken it

Turning Medicaid into a block grant would result in less funding. Here's how we know.

Under the current arrangement, the federal government pays states a certain percentage of program expenditures based on criteria, such as per capita income. The percentages are regularly adjusted at three-year intervals based on changes in the economy. How would changing that into a block grant change the program?

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-16 08:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"By giving states more control over the program it can be tailored to meet the unique needs that each state has to try to address."

The fact that what you're describing is cost savings through reduced services notwithstanding...

States already have significant control over Medicaid. Here in California we have Medi-Cal which participates in the Medicaid Expansion and also provides Denti-Cal dental insurance.

What you're saying just doesn't really add up.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-16 10:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clinton reduced the deficit and later balanced the budget.
Obama reduced the deficit and set the feds on track to do the same a few years out.
#3 | Posted by Sycophant
Only because the republican congress forced him. HATS OFF TO BJ WILLIE AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

#15 | POSTED BY SNIPER

They forced him to? He had Veto power dummy. And so did Obama.

So why didn't they "force" a Republican President to do it?

You should try posting less and shutting up more. You'd come off as far more intelligent.

#23 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-17 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How about you tell us all again how Obama added $20 trillion to the debt. We could use a good laugh.
Only 2 presidents in 30 years reduced the Deficit and they weren't Republicans. Deal with it, Snowflake.

#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2018-04-16 02:23 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I never said $20 Trillion.

It was $28 Trillion.

- Snoops.

#24 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-18 04:05 PM | Reply

How doea block granting Medicaid reduce costs other than through reduction of services?
#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-04-16 04:19 PM | FLAG:

By giving states more control over the program it can be tailored to meet the unique needs that each state has to try to address.

#12 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-04-16 04:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Rick Scott has the unique need of not wanting poor people to get health care paid for by the government.

Well it's not really a unique need as in every single Republicrap has the same need since Ronnie Raygun.

#25 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-18 04:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort