Glenn Thrush and Reid Epstein's Politico piece on President Obama's "debt problem" helps capture a lot of what's wrong with the larger debate and the political establishment's confusion about fiscal matters.
President Barack Obama won't be able to enjoy much of a victory lap from his win over congressional Republicans on the fiscal cliff fight.
There are about 16.4 trillion reasons why.
The staggering national debt -- up about 60 percent from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 -- is the single biggest blemish on Obama's record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush.
For insights, the piece quotes the head of the right-wing Club for Growth, far-right activist Grover Norquist, and a Democratic economist saying Obama has to "deal with his own left wing."
Sigh.
I realize the political establishment is uncomfortable with large deficits and a massive debt -- though oddly the discomfort only seems to emerge when there's a Democratic president -- but it's worth remembering a few truths from time to time.
First, when there's a global economic crash, and the government needs to invest to rescue the economy, large deficits are good, not bad, especially when borrowing is cheap and easy. Had the president focused on reducing the $1.3 trillion deficit he inherited from Bush/Cheney, instead of job creation and economic growth, the recession would have intensified, and yet, too many reports simply accept it as a given that higher deficits are worthy of condemnation.
Second, under Obama, as the economy started to improve, the deficit started to shrink anyway. Though the political establishment usually ignores these details, the deficit is $300 billion smaller now than when the president took office -- marking the fastest deficit reduction since the end of World War II.
Third, Obama keeps pushing massive debt-reduction proposals on the table, as well as all kinds of policies that shrink the deficit (health care reform, cap and trade, Dream Act), but Republicans have opposed all of them.
And then finally, there's the simple matter of what, exactly, is driving the nation's budget shortfall.
For Politico, the fact that the national debt is nearly 60% larger necessarily makes this a major "blemish" on the president's record. This only makes sense, of course, if one assumes that a larger debt is a bad thing -- and given the circumstances, it's not -- and that it's Obama's policies that are responsible for the increase.
But as we've discussed before, that's simply not the case. The facts are incontrovertible: towards the end of President Clinton's second term, debt clocks that had been established in various U.S. locations had to be shut down -- the deficit had been eliminated and the clocks had never been set to run backwards. By the time Clinton left office in 2001, the nation not only had a large surplus, it was also on track to pay off the entirety of its debt -- roughly $5 trillion at the time -- by the end of the decade.
Then the Bush/Cheney era happened. Republicans took a massive surplus and turned it into an even more massive deficit, adding the costs of two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout to the national charge card.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) later referred to the Bush/Cheney era as a time in which Republicans decided "it was standard practice not to pay for things." In just eight years, GOP policymakers added $5 trillion to the debt in eight years.
But then Obama was just as reckless, right? Wrong. The key takeaway here is that it's Republican policies, not the president's agenda, that's driving the national debt now and into the future.
I'm also a fan of this image, put together by the New York Times, which provides context the Politico piece did not.
The underlying point of the Politico piece is that conservatives are correct about every aspect of the debate: the debt is a real problem, Obama deserves the blame, and it's up to the White House to put things right. There's ample evidence that this is entirely backwards -- economic growth and job creation are the problem, Obama's making things better, and with negative yields on Treasuries, we should be borrowing more, investing more, and leaving deficit reduction for a later, healthier time.
Leave a Comment:
Politico doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.
Or, Sh!t from Shinola. Also, their A$$ from a Hole in the Ground.
Thank you!
Why does anyone pay attention to the far right disinformation project known as "The Politico"?
So TCinLA are you saying that ABC and Disney are far right disinformation Projects? That The Washington Post, which has ties, is also a right wing? I think you must be so far left you can't even see reality anymore.
That’s going to be a pretty pitiful sight next year when some of those rebuilt homes get destroyed again with severe accelerated weather conditions from Global Warming. How many additional people will be killed or should it be said murdered from it all in 2013? But what the heck, corrupt Capitalism, the republicans and the cover up news media will take care of that. Surely, they will bring out their wallets filled with cash to help everybody out. Just don’t hold your breath.
Politico is emblematic of all that is wrong with the media today. Shallow, uninformed and arrogant to a fault, Politico reporters repeat the memes invented by partisan hacks for our daily consumption and they call it journalism.
Any bets that the piece was actually written by Thrush and Epstein?
the best part of their article is where they say that under President Obama that the dificit has decreased by $300 Billion. Those idiots don't understand money at all. The rate at which unfunded spending decrease, meaning that the money borrowed is still increasing just at a slower rate. If you put more on your credit card for the month than you pay off at the end of the month you still owe the cc company.
.....because you are not understanding what the difference is between the debt and the deficit
The prevailing policies of President George W. Bush not only challenged economic realities, they were also not paid for, and many of those duly elected members who aided and abetted Bush economic policy are the detractors bashing Pres. Obama's efforts to right our national economy.
The story the Politico reporters haven't the sense to ferret out is the story of rank hypocrisy and partisan opining amounting to flak and Republican obstructionism! Seemingly, any reporting on this matter that does not frame the story in historical reality will be done by reporters who haven't the sense (or are too intellectually lazy) to check reality themselves!
Politico owes Americans who can read and think, much better than what it chooses to give! -Kevo
Might as well try to sell the insulting economic garbage of "Trickle down" , or Stevie Forbes earnest face selling "Flat Taxes" , as complain about a right wing , or should I say mainstream media , homily .
The prevailing policies of President George W. Bush not only challenged economic realities, they were also not paid for
Yes, and as the chart above shows, the one biggest contributor to the annual deficits are the "Bush Era" tax cuts....which are still in place, even after the "cliff" negotiations. And they are still not paid for. The Republicans put a lot of debt on the books with the huge deficits, but I see nothing really changed - and the fact that the one singular biggest culprit to all this red ink is continuing makes the cliff compromise (temporary of course) effing laughable. Apparently, we will never really do anything of substance on the matter of deficits and debt.
All of which is why I don't understand why MSNBC gives such positive coverage to "Politico reports..." as if it were a reliable news source reporting the whole story, with context, without bias, etc. To me, Politico is one step away from FOX News in its "fair and balanced reporting?"; thus, my concern for this network's utilization of their reports and reporters.
Hush, hush, I thought I heard her
Calling my name now
Hush, she took my heart
But I love her just the same now
Hush, thought I heard her
Calling my name now
Hush, hush, I need her loving
But I'm not to blame now
Agree with you Judy.
I read this recent article that explained the national debt. It was on "about.com" which I think doesn't have any known political biases. During his first term ($5 tril in 4 yrs compared to Bush's $3.2 tril in 8 yrs), Obama didnt start off very well. But since he has 4 more years, perhaps it is best to reserve judgment until then on his ability to handle debt. Perhaps he can turn things around.
The Best Way to Measure Debt by President:
Therefore, the most accurate way to measure the debt by President is to sum all the budget deficits. That's because the President is responsible for his budget priorities. It takes into account spending, and anticipated revenue from proposed tax cuts or hikes.
There are a few caveats, however. First, Congress does have a role, since it must approve the budget. Second, each President inherits a previous President's policies. For example, every President has had to compensate for lower revenue thanks to President Reagan's tax cuts. That's because tax increases are a sure way to prevent re-election.
Third, while every President has had to deal with a recession, all recessions were not created equal. Furthermore, some Presidents have had to deal with unusual events, like the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. While these weren't part of the business cycle, they required responses that came with economic price tags.
President Barack Obama:
President Obama contributed the most to the debt, with cumulative deficits totaling $5.073 trillion in just four years. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package, which added $787 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding job-creating public works projects. The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt over two years. Obama's budget included increased defense spending to around $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama had to contend with higher mandatory mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare. He also sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. However, these savings didn't show up until the later years.
President George W. Bush:
President Bush is next, racking up $3.294 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to a new records, between $600-$800 billion a year. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts.
Gee , how is this in the least bit helpful ?
You don't see a bias here?!?!? 1) They assign the 2008 budget to Obama. 2) They treat Katrina as an unexpected need to spend, but the Bush Admin really didn't spend much as a result of it. 3) Somehow they don't see the 2008 bank disaster as a cause for spending. They only see it as an excuse low revenues.
Ya, its conceivable to take as much as $1.5 tril away from Obama and give it to Bush. Which then gives the new result as follows: $3.5 tril Obama in 4 yrs vs. $4.7 tril to Bush in 8 yrs. I don't like the direction that Obama is trending with the debt, but perhaps he can turn things around in 4 yrs. I sure hope he does.
The about.com piece and the Politco piece share the same problematic assumptions. First is the assumption any President actually creates and owns all of the debt racked up during his Presidency. Obama didn't create the "Great Recession" which dropped tax revenues like a stone while requiring an incredible expenditure of money spent in response. No President should be charged with the mess Obama inherited. If anything his response was insufficient. In a way the same can be said about Bush and Afganistan. After 911 that was a war we had to fight.
What Presidents are responsible for are self inflicted wounds. Medicare D and the war in Iraq were self inflicted wounds. The same can be said for the 2003 round of Bush Tax Cuts. I am not so sure the 2001 round was all that bad. We had been running surpluses for about 3 years, and an argument can be made that the 2001 round of tax cuts was needed to help pull America out of the shallow recession it suffered.
That brings us to the second problem with the about.com and Politico pieces, the assumption that all debt is bad. It isn't always a good thing for a national budget to be balanced and for the nation to be debt free any more than it is always a good thing that your family budget be balanced and that you be debt free. Right now I owe money on my house. I am buying my car on time. Most Americans are in the same boat. There is nothing wrong with buying on time if you are buying things you need like a home, a car, an education and maybe some of the luxuries of life you can actually afford. Our lives would be much poorer if we didn't have the abilitity to incur debt. So would our national economy. The key is using the ability to incur debt in a responsible way. At the national level we need to spend money on infrastructure, defense, education, basic research and welfare. As long as servicing the debt created by these activities doesn't become unbearable the United States creating debt is a good thing.
Ron,
Your clear explanation is what is needed for people to get some understanding of the national debt. I don't completely understand it and I doubt many others do, either. More clear information is important. I just hang on to Ezra Klein saying that national debt is not a bad thing!
One of the problems with the debt is that the Federal government runs on a cash basis. It has no way of spreading out capitol investment over time or even accounting for the value of the assets we the people own through the federal government.
Six years ago when I built a house which cost approximately $166,000.00, I did not expect to pay for it all at once. I did have about $30,000.00 in savings that I spent so that my initial mortgage was only about $136,000.00. I expect to have 30 years to pay that mortgage.
When the U.S. Government pays $3,000,000.00 for a fighter Jet (this price is a guess), it is expected to pay the full amount for this plane out of its annual tax revenue even though the plane is an asset which sould last at least 20 years. The point is that the government has no way of distinguishing between running expenses that should be paid for out of current income and capital investment which should be amortized over the life of the asset. And we judge the debt against annual GDP and tax revenue. We do not compare it to government assets. My property with my now six year old house is valued at approximately $270,000.00. In other words the money I borrowed to build my house increased my net worth by at least $100,000.00. When the government builds a new visitors center at Mesa Verde, that is a capital improvement to government property and should be in a seperate budget from the salaries paid to the rangers who work at the National Park.
The added value to government assets is never considered when deficits are calculated.
Ron, I will agree with you to a point. I still didn't believe that war with Afghanistan was necessary either. While they harbored bin Laden - he was a Saudi national and invading Afghanistan wasn't the answer. Sorry, I believe that war is the failure of politicians to settle issues. No, I'm not a "peace-nik" but to me both of these wars and the ensuing damage done both to the Afghani's, Iraqi's & to our troops was so NOT worth the price we're all paying.
Bflynch -- Is there indeed a new visitors' center at Mesa Verde? If so, may have to move that up on the bucket list.
There is a new visitors center that is being built at Mesa Verde. I think it was part of the stimulus money. I live in Cortez, CO, the gateway to Mesa Verde. That is why I used that as an example. We could of course close all the National Parks and stop spending money to maintain them, but that would really hurt the economy in places like Cortez. Every dollar the government spends goes into the pocket of someone. That is why cutting spending is so hard. That spending is someone's income.
Thanks for letting me know! I spent 15 years in Albuquerque, making an annual quasi-vacation of 4-5 days to MV for solitude just before they closed up for the winter. It always seemed irrational to let that and all the other wonderful places that cost so little wither on the budgetary vine. So I'd spend a few $ and take away photos and memories that survive almost 20 years later.
Were you in Cortez the year after the big fire, when so many new ruins were uncovered, and so many went unexplored by the archaeologists for lack of $? If you were, then you may rightfully have been more concerned that the fires didn't destroy Cortez than that a few old cedar trees were charred.
Don't you imagine that most of us have our personal magical places, supported by small state or federal budgets, that we carry around in our souls? And we ache at the thought that such spaces may disappear before our grandchildren know them.
Sorry to ramble. Back to dishes.
But really, thank you so very much for your reply.
What a ridiculous bunch of claptrap.:
Which is it, 600 or 800--or some number in between? And didn't you just say:
And no mention of TARP, the two wars or Medicare part D? How can that be?
Also note:
But no mention of Bush tax cuts adding to the debt, I guess it only does that if a Democrat signed the bill.
And if all that isn't obvious enough for you, The hit job on Obama closes with:
Lets see now, who was President in 2008? Oh yeah, Bush was. Still this intended to say that Obama shouldn't have increased all that spending when revenues were down, but of course it also doesn't consider the impact of that spending--the debt was reduced by about three hundred billion due in large part to the millions of jobs created or saved by the stimulus and other policies.
Cherry picking results on the economy from about.com is just stupid.
In case you're unaware, "about.com" pieces are written by freelance writers cutting and pasting from articles in Wikipedia they find, for $50/article.
Proof once again that "you get what you pay for."
TCLA, I agree. You do get what you pay for.
FR33, because we have a democracy you may very well get what you seek in the years ahead: higher taxes, increasing debt, more people needing govt support, 7.5%+ unemployment coupled with underemployment, increase in new govt workers jobs, and Bush being blamed for all ills for the forseeable future. It does appear our country is heading that way, slowly, as evidenced by Obama winning the election. It just seems like at some point Obama supporters needs to put on their big-boy underwear and take responsibility for something that has happened (other than Obamacare) during his presidency. It seems Bush must own everything (heck some Americans still believe he was the mastermind behind the trade tower attacks) whereas Obama gets a free pass on all things. Both made mistakes in their presidency. Both need held accountable, and quite simply Obama has not helped reduce the debt. But he is getting his desired increase in taxes so time will tell what impact that will have on all of us.
Love&Peace - I suggest that you put on your "big boy underwear" - while the deficit has grown under President Obama, it's not grown nearly as much as under his predecessors. And "the government" has also taken in much less revenue than Bush who inherited a surplus. And yes, Bush was reckless, feckless and irresponsible but he also had a GOP Congress that still presumed that tax cuts would create jobs - a scenario we've done over and over and over to NO avail. So enough with blaming this President for inheriting a Depression and NOT cleaning it up fast enough - after all it took the last guy 8 years and a spend-thrift Congress to create the current morass!
We all know it takes a Democrat to lower the deficit and the debt, and a Repugnicon to spend. This is part of the reality-based caucus don't you know. And we all know you Repugnicons would love to forget your "great leader" Bush was actually a Repugnicon, supported by Repugnicon majorities who implemented Repugnicon wet dream policies, but you just cannot forget, because we will be here to point out where his policy of spend and shoot left us even while we finish digging out of the mess. You want to call that blaming? Fine.
As to Obama's mistakes, as long as we have the pack of lies about the debt to beat down and the lies about Benghazi, and; well it goes on and on, right up to the birther stupidity and beyond. As long as you Repugnicons keep yapping about your factless fantasies, you won't be able to hear us talk about Obama's actual mistakes. Here's a clue, stop whining about all the fake crap and you might actually to hear us griping about what he is doing wrong.
....you all do realize that about.com is not a news agency or a website ran by professionals, yes? Community members- people like you and I- sign up to become a member of about.com and then they write articles on the website similar to Google's blogspot. The articles that receive the most thumbs up or views then gets sponsorship to make money (again just like blogspot). About.com works similarly to that of "yahoo answers" or "e-wiki." It's a website that judges truth on the basis of thumbs up or thumbs down.
The biggest contributor to the debt problem is unemployment. Get the unemployment rate down around 6% and the deficit will start to shrink at a much faster pace. Social Security does not add to the debt.
Not only does SS not add to the debt, a large portion of the deft is owed to the SS trust fund. Yes a large portion of the debt is owed to China; they have bought a lot of US treasury bonds, which are using it to back their currency. But a very large portion of the debt is owed to the Senior citizens of this country. Our pension benefits are supposed to be held in trust in the SS trust fund, but a lot of what is in that trust fund are IOUs from the govenment. Now a lot of people want to cut our benefits so that they will not have to pay those IOUs.
The figures I have seen showed China owning between 8 and 9 percent of our debt a lot of debt but not as much as most think.
Republicans aren't really worried about the deficit or about spending. Their ultimate aim is to destroy SS and Medicare and any other program that helps people and not business. They want to cut people welfare, but not corporate welfare.
In all the phony house legislation in the last congress, many of the bills they passed were to increase spending for defense mainly. There are so many programs that could be cut and the country would be just as well off or better.
There are so many non-people programs that need to be changed, such as our so called farm program, where we pay farmers not to plant something that they had no intention of panting anyway. We subsidise the dairy industry instead of letting the market set prices.
There are so many wasteful programs that could be cut. We need to cut a lot of the programs that were brought about by the so called war on terrorism. We spend billions on the clandestine service and now the DIA is going to duplicate the CIA in a lot of regions. More doesn't necessarily make better.
Make no mistake about it, the republicans are after SS, Medicare and any other social program.
Make no mistake about it, the republicans are after SS, Medicare and any other social program.
As they have been ever since losing the election of 1932.
Near the end of Clinton's term there was a PROJECTED surplus, never actually realized, from assuming that the economy would continue to expand as is had during the dot com bubble, and congress was "on track" to increase spending to use this projected surplus. The earliest rationale for the Bush tax cuts was providing an alternative to increasing spending that had a chance of actually passing Congress. During the period between the election and Bush's inauguration the dot com bubble began to go bust and the economy entered a recession--check the NBER website if you doubt this--and the projected surplus disappeared before the Bush tax cuts took effect.
Ever so correct, EconLibr! Unlike L&P, who does not seem to have been attentive to what Bush actually did with regard to those infamous 2001 tax cuts; he voiced almost no concern about a recession (9/11-caused but anticipated as he ran in 2000?). Instead he asserted that it was unconscionable that the Gummint have a surplus: "Give those taxpayers back their money!!".
And we've been getting it back ever since, actual budgetary status and events be damned. As a certifiable ol' fart, I am still mindful of my personal contribution to US debt from the Bush tax cuts -- which I railed against but in the end accepted.
As for the old homily about "debt being bad", Ron (#7.4) demolishes that with exquisite patience and clarity.
It's best to just accept that doctrinaire, ideological budget/deficit/debt "hawks" have a congenital aversion to facts and reality.
These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move on. Move on.
So the surplus that Bush said he was giving back was wiped out before he could give it back because of a short mild recession in 2001? And yet he gave it back anyway?
So the surplus that Bush said he was giving back was wiped out before he could give it back because of a short mild recession in 2001? And yet he gave it back anyway?
As President Cheney said to John Snow at the time, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
One of these days Repugnicons will realize that those things which they are proud of, which they think means that they are smart--those are the reason nobody trusts them any more.
It just gets harder and harder to take people like that seriously.
The projected surplus was based on a continued expansion, at dot com bubble rates, so ANY recession would have wiped it out, even a "short mild" one. The tax cuts were originally proposed as an alternative to increasing spending--there was never any serious proposal to use the surplus to reduce the national debt. As it worked out congress cut tax rates and increased spending anyway. A pretty good statistical argument can be made for the proposition that the deficits that followed were "caused" by the increased spending--the numbers match, the deficits were about as big as the spending increases. Estimating what tax receipts would have been had the cuts not been made, and whether they would have covered the increased spending, is somewhat harder.
The ONLY debt reduction that the Republicans want is cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and any other program that helps the elderly, children, and the poor.
That's exactly correct, Karensc. And guess who's going to help them do that.
Not if I have anything to say about it.
Last paragraph - first sentence - I think you mean "conservatives are INcorrect..."
Why do politicians ignore economists?
Some of them don't do arithmetic.
Which ones, politicians or economists?
Might as well add in the generally innumerate voting public, as well.
... and/or they read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was a textbook, rather than a particularly odious work of fiction.
FM -- You mean it wasn't a textbook? Gee, and I read it through so carefully, just in case there was a pop quiz.
It was exciting reading at the time (9th grade in '66) during a self-imposed reading challenge at school, when we gave extra credit for making it through John Galt's speech to the world from his Gulch. Then I started listening to pop music (93-KHJ), and my descent into the Dark Side (of progressive liberalism) began.
Some of them don't do arithmetic.
Calling economics a "science" is like calling dowsing a "science." An actual science has certain facts and knowledge that everyone accepts without having to resort to politics as a reason to do so.
And there you see why my Master's thesis in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences "The Social Sciences Aren't.... Sciences" didn't lead to an academic career.
The most hypocritical element of this entire debt and deficit debate is that those who scream the loudest about it are the same people who refuse to cut either defense spending or medicare payment rates... and who refuse to raise taxes. Now, in the household budgets they are so fond of quoting, when a family deficit spends, and as they don't have the luxury of printing money as does the federal government, they MUST either increase income or cut major expenses, or both.
But in this case, the case of the federal budget, the Teapublicans refuse to do either, yet scream that we must BALANCE THE BUDGET!!! Well, then raise taxes and cut spending!... "B BU BBUT... that will cause a recession!!!" they say. We can't do that!"
Turns out that growth through austerity is just another fairy tale, like cutting tax rates increases tax revenues.
This is a very easy problem to solve. Let's think about this logically. We didn't used to have multi-trillion dollar debts. When did all that began? It began with Reagan, when he gave the rich 50% tax cuts.
Under Reagan, the rich went from paying 70% top marginal income taxes to 28%. The result? Less than 1 trillion in debt before he was sworn into office to just under 4 trillion when he left office.
Since then, taxes on the rich have never gotten higher than 39.6%. And the trillions in debt just keeps getting piled on.
It's not the Bush tax cuts we have to get rid of. It's the Reagan tax cuts.
These taxes were cut based upon the promise that these tax cuts would create economic growth. In fact, taxes on investment (capital gains) and taxes on corporations all have declined during this time. The result? GDP growth has been in continual decline since then. Unemployment has gone higher too.
When you average these figures out, decade by decade, you can see the result of these policies.
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/averagetaxratesunemploymentandgdpgrowth.jpg
I think the Republican't approach to the purpose of government still reflects a heaping dose of what used to be called patronage. In this parallel universe, when Republican'ts win, government is there to enrich their friends, at the expense of their enemies. Hence regressive taxes and all kinds of corporate welfare, i.e. tax dollars to the wealthy. Debt is massively increased and those moneys applied to more corporate welfare (wars, etc.), with the added benefit of handing this monstrous debt over to Democrats when the pendulum swings their way (as it inevitably will, since unbridled greed is bad for the economy). They figure the beast has been starved and any attempt to expand the safety net will die in the crib. (Or worse, the safety net will have to be taken apart BY THE DEMOCRATS, in order to restore fiscal sanity). The Republican'ts then view Democratic efforts to rescue the people as Democrat patronage: i.e. buying the votes of the 99%. In their reptilian, zero-sum mindset, "the people" are just another interest group seeking to suck dry the national treasury. Once you've glimpsed this nightmare of privilege run amuck, the Republican't tone deafness to suffering becomes more tangible, but never forgivable.
@Alva: Agreed, Reagan was the germ at the onset of today's plague. "Supply side", "trickle down", blah blah it's all window dressing for greed.
It would be nice to see an update on the graph from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that reflects the changes resulting from the recent fiscal debt deal.
Moved
The Republicans signing off on tax increases for top income earners is actually a good thing: it lays bare the Democrats' fraudulent argument that this is the cure-all for the debt crisis. Now that this is out of the way it will make Democrats have to finally face the music: spending is and has been the real problem. The voters are watching. And, yes, Mr. Obama, as you enter your 5th year as President, you do own the economy....you can no longer blame anything on Bush as you just successfully repealed his tax cuts.