What we have to face is that deficit reduction is only possible in our system with great leaps forward in productivity accompanied by gridlock in our political system

While the Dems would like us to think that the deficit reduction happened because some Dems selflessly voted for country over self in the 1993 budget battle which created the budget that laid the foundation for fiscal sanity. That's a nice story, but one which isn't true. What happened was the internet took off, productivity skyrocketed and massive amounts of wealth were created due to the efforts of entreprenuers and inventors in the tech sector. This wealth lead to massive increases in tax revenue which the White House and the Congress couldn't agree on how to spend so they just didn't spend it. (How I long for the days when a Democrat President called a $100B highway bill a wasteful boondoggle. Quaint times.).

If our budget is ever going to be restored to sanity (unlikely until we get split government again), it will be because we had another massive leap forward in innovation. A revolution in energy would be the most likely candidate.

The best bet would be to throw a few tens of billions toward creating an auto engine which generates 250HP with 5000LBs of Torque and gets 45 MPG. We do that, split power in Washington and our deficit will get under control again.

I agree that split government is potentially helpful. If the Republicans would say "no spending increases" and the Democrats would say "no tax cuts," then we might get somewhere. That's essentially what happened in the 90s. But that hasn't been the case lately. These days, the Republicans have been saying "you can keep your Democratic goodies, and we'll give you tax cuts," while the Democrats have been saying "you can keep your Republican tax cuts, and we'll give you more goodies."

I also think you're way too optimistic about productivity and wealth gains. I don't think that productivity can possibly be increased enough to solve our fiscal woes.

The wealth and productivity gains of the early 90s did reduce the annual budget deficit, but didn't even scratch the surface of the cumulative national debt.

In the 90s, we didn't have a looming balloon payment generated by massive health care cost increases and the imminent retirement of 48 million baby boomers.

Our situation now is in no way comparable to the early 90s, and all the differences are to our detriment.

1. I agree that both parties have acted irresponsible, but I think when we have a Rep Congress and a Dem Pres, we can get sainity again. Rep congresses won't create new goodies when a Dem pres is in there, lest the Dem pres get the credit. On the other hand, a Dem congress will create new goodies regardless of who is in charge, simply because that expands the power of the state (although they too are more reticent to do it while a Rep is in charge, but a Rep is less likely to ask - Medicare part D being a notable exception).

2. Productivity won't cure the debt - I thought i was careful in my use of the terms debt and deficit. Perhaps I was not.

3. You are correct that our problems are greater (or, rather, just closer) than they were in the 90s. My point is the only way a solution is going to come about is by a large technological leap. If you look back in history, jumps in wealth are always accompanied by jumps in tech. The next time won't be any different.

You state that during the Clinton era that the democrats didn't balance the budget through fiscal prudence - but rather through the growth of the stock market.

That is false.

Briefly consider the growth in budget for various periods. Of course, the budget is written the preceding year - while the spending within the current year is merely augmented by special allocations that are passed (for instance, in 2001, Bush allocated ~85 billion to be spent after 9/11, and allocated a few billion in spending for faith initiatives... but most of the money spent was budgeted by the previous congress and administration), so it's more fair to look instead at time frames starting the year after the elections:

From 1981 - 1989, the budget grew from 678.2 to 1143.8, a growth of 68.7% in 8 years.

From 1989 - 1993, the budget grew from 1143.8 to 1409.5, a growth of 23.2% in 4 years.

From 1993 - 2001, the budget grew from 1409.5 to 1863.2, a growth of 32.2% in 8 years.

From 2001 - 2008, the budget grew from 1863.2 to 3540.0*, a growth of 90.0% in 8 years.

*this number was projected by the CBO budget outlook published in Jan 2009, and does not contain one single dollar spent by the next president or the next congress. No other periods above were similarly isolated.

The Clinton era showed the most fiscal discipline of any period since the Eisenhower years, and the period where the democrats controlled both houses AND the white house (1993-1994) was the the two-year period with the lowest overall growth in spending since Eisenhower. This remarkable period of fiscal restraint happened because of the deficit reduction bill, which was passed without one single vote from a republican in either house... and when it expired it failed to be extended (narrowly), with every single democrat voting FOR extention and every single republican voting AGAINST it. That bill, which later became an act, FORCED congress to keep its spending in check. Again, every single republican opposed it, and every single republican voted against extending it. As soon as the bill expired (because the republicans had the majority of congress and 100% of the republicans voted against it), republicans immediately started spending money like it was water, and we saw the highest growth rate in our budget in recent history.

No. You are COMPLETELY wrong. The democrats don't like reducing defiicits in the middle of a serious economic crisis... Of course they don't. But they are the only party that has shown ANY fiscal restraint or budget considerations in the past 30 years. (For 20 years prior to that, no party showed any fiscal restraint... you have to go back to Eisenhower to find fiscal conservatives that were republicans).

It wasn't gridlock that kept government from spending itself to oblivion, it was LAWS - which were passed by democrats and overwhelmingly opposed by republicans.

As for the debt growing during the 90's, of course the debt grew, but the debt did not grow nearly as quickly as GDP, and the debt as a percentage of GDP was shrinking rapidly. In the year 2000, the debt only grew ~20 billion. Had we had one more year of actual fiscal responsibility, the debt would have started going down again... but the American people voted against fiscal responsibility - they voted republican.

OK, and now you have Dems in charge of both congress and the WH making the Republican era from 2001-2008 look like a time of unimaginable fiscal sanity. None of Obama's budgets ever get back to Bush's 2007 budget deficit (which was a ridiculous $450B).

Again, wealth growth is driven by innovation and spending sanity is driven by gridlock, and at no time was there sweeter gridlock than in Bill Clinton's second term.

(Also, If you want your numbers to mean something, the please post the annualized spending increase for each year from 1993 through 2001.)

5000LBs of torque? Not a car guy, are you?

meant to say 500 (which is still 150 too many)...my gist is just that we need to find a way to make a relatively powerful engine fuel efficent.

Does anyone really need that?

One of our problems is that we tend to go from the practical to the stimulaing without considering the consequences, if our top speed limit is 70, then thats a lot of wasted horsepower.

The republicans could help if they wanted to, but instead they just want to get back in power and they don't care if the country goes to hell in the meantime.I for one would like to see most of the left's agenda fulfilled, then we can see for certain if the teabaggers have any credibility.

Obama inherited a 1.34 trillion dollar deficit for this year. That's money that the previous congress and administration budgeted and taxes collected on last year's nationwide income. Had he not signed the stimulous package (the only spending that was not allocated by the previous president and the previous congress), then the budget deficit for 2009 would have been 1.34 trillion dollars. Instead, it will be somewhere around 1.8 trillion. Of course, this is the worst recession since the Great Depression (when we generated budget deficits of ~40% of GDP in order to stimulate the economy), so we go back to the main point of the article - which states that liberals do care about the deficit but they believe that deficit spending is necessary to help the economy in times of severe recessions.

You doubtless want me to post the year-by year budget increases in the hopes that you'll see better numbers for the years with a republican congress vs. the years with a democratic congress. I'll ablige, but remember that the first two years were also years where we were recovering from a significant recession, and several stimulous packages were passed - even still, comparing these with the year-by-year increases of the Bush eras (either one) shows quite a bit of difference. The most important factor for this 8-year span was the fact that congress was limited by the deficit reduction act - which the dems voted for and the repubs voted against. Simply to make a point, I went ahead and included the next 8 years for contrast.

Following is the data you requested, though I interjected a few caveats: (budget outlays in billions of dollars)

1981 outlays: 678.2
Reagan passes his first budget:
1982 outlays: 745.7 (9.95% increase)
1983 outlays: 808.4 (8.41% increase)
1984 outlays: 851.9 (5.38% increase)
1985 outlays: 946.4 (11.09% increase)
1986 outlays: 990.4 (4.65% increase)
1987 outlays: 1004.1 (1.38% increase)
1988 outlays: 1064.5 (6.01% increase)
1989 outlays: 1143.8 (7.45% increase)

Average year-over-year increase during Reagan's presidency: 6.79%

Bush I passes his first budget:
1990 outlays: 1253.1 (9.56% increase)
1991 outlays: 1324.3 (5.38% increase)
1992 outlays: 1381.6 (4.33% increase)
1993 outlays: 1409.5 (2.02% increase)

Average year-over-year increase during Bush I's presidency: 5.32%

Clinton passes his first budget:
1994 outlays: 1461.9 (3.72% increase)
1995 outlays: 1515.9 (3.69% increase)

Average year-over-year increase during Clinton with dems controlling both houses: 3.71%

Republican congress starts passing Clinton budgets:
1996 outlays: 1560.6 (2.95% increase)
1997 outlays: 1601.3 (2.61% increase)
1998 outlays: 1652.7 (3.21% increase)
1999 outlays: 1702.0 (2.98% increase)
2000 outlays: 1789.2 (5.12% increase)
2001 outlays: 1863.2 (4.16% increase)

Average year-over-year increase during Clinton term with republicans controlling both houses: 3.51%

George Bush's administration passes first budget:
2002 outlays: 2011.2 (7.94% increase)
2003 outlays: 2160.1 (7.40% increase)
2004 outlays: 2293.0 (6.15% increase)
2005 outlays: 2472.2 (7.82% increase)
2006 outlays: 2655.4 (7.41% increase)
2007 outlays: 2728.9 (2.77% increase)
2008 outlays: 2978.5 (9.15% increase)
*2009 outlays: 3543 (18.95% increase)

Average year-over-year increase during Bush II term: 8.45%

Obama passes his first budget:
**2010 outlays: 3644 (2.85% increase)

*this is taken from the CBO's budget outlook published Jan 2009, no emergency spending passed by the current congress or administration is considered, only that which was allocated and passed by the previous administration.

**this is taken from the updated CBO budget outlook published August 2009. This projected budget outlay includes the total budget for 2010 passed by congress and signed by Obama, as well as the portion of the 2009 stimulous package that is expected to be spent during 2010. The percentage year-over-year increase only takes into account the portion of 2009 spending attributable to Bush and the previous congress. If this number is compared to the updated expected outlays - including the stimulous package - then the actual year - over - year budget will show a NEGATIVE 1.19% growth... But I'll believe that when I see it (I expect a "stimulous II" to pass next year).

As much as he inherited a large deficit (which is why I went only until 2007, but should have said 2008 as 2009 is the weird year), he exasperated things by throwing another $780B on to the fire. And, as you fully know, the lions share of that large deficit was due to the TARP program - which is an outlier. Obama's budgets, which again, never get back down to 2008 levels of deficit spending regularly rival Bush's share of the 2009. Saying that Obama inherited a 1.34T budget is technically correct, but extremely dishonest.

here is the graph you need to see:

<link>

Again, I am NOT TRYING TO BLAME OBAMA FOR 2009 (except for the stimulus portion of course).

Second, are your arguments always self defeating? If you look at your annualized increases, the smallest numbers just happen to be the period in which I based my "gridlock is good" argument.

Third, Throwing out Obama's 2.85% increase in 2010 over 2009 is dishonest. I shouldn't even have to say that. That fact that that number isn't a -15% is proof that he is spending money wildly.

yes, by all means, let's enact the left's full agenda without knowing if it is going to work (we'll just ignore the rousing success of the Canadian and NIH systems), so then, when it doesn't work (because it won't) it will just be so easy to repeal, because government programs with large constituencies are notoriously easy to just do away with. Happens all the time. Just like when we figured out the AFWDC was broken, it was so easy to repeal...all we needed was a centrist Democrat president, a sizable Congressional Majority of center-right office holders, large economic prosperity in the country and an election year! Surely, those conditions duplicate themselves with great regularity.

The 1.34 trillion dollar deficit is not largely due to TARP, that's only ~300 billion of it... The rest is due to other spending increases (allocated by Bush and his congress) and a ~400 billion dollar net decrease in tax revenues due to the fact that most businesses and investors lost their shirts in the third quarter. The 1.34 trillion dollar deficit is a very big number, which Obama increased by ~500 billion. Again, most economists agree that increasing the deficit will help an economy recover from a recession, and we're in a recession - so Obama is spending his way out of it... But the money that is spent to improve the economy results in jobs and income streams that are now dependent... you can't just flat-out cut them or else you immediately crash the economy back to a point where it was before you spent your stimulous. So budget cuts must be done carefully as more private sector jobs gradually come online, often after targeted local infrastructure spending (this was the pattern in the 90's, and it worked).

The budget has always increased - this is due to inflation and population growth, and the gradual growth in manditory spending such as Social Security and Medicare. Those who are fiscally sound merely oversee a budget increase that is less than nominal GDP growth (Clinton), those who are fiscally irresponsible oversee a budget increase that is far greater than nominal GDP growth (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II). If Obama holds the budget growth to only 3% or less/year for the next 8 years, then he will see the budget balance again without any tax increases required (beyond the planned sunset of Bush's tax cuts).

As for your second point, I hardly see how I helped prove your point. The period that you spoke of had only a 0.02% lower average growth than the period in which Clinton was president and the democrats held both houses... yet Clinton's term had an average budget growth of, 1.76% less than Bush I's average budget growth, 3.23% less than Reagan's average budget growth, and 4.89% less than Bush II's average budget growth. Attempting to state that this proves the determining factor is DIVIDED GOVERNMENT rather than having a fiscally sound White House and a legal restriction that prevents congress from spending... shows nothing but desperate partisan grasping on your behalf. 0.2% is far less significant than 3.23%, and Regan had a divided government his full presidency.

If you want any claim to intellectual honesty, the figures show one thing:

It was Clinton and the balanced budget act (supported by democrats and opposed by ALL republicans) that made the balanced budget possible. The republicans are absolutely irresponsible when it comes to budget matters, as shown very clearly by history.

I don't think any party can lay claim to a spotless record of fiscal responsibility.

You seem to obsess about the couple-few years under Clinton when we successfully reduced the budget deficit (although still made no significant improvement on the national debt). Yes, those were relatively good years compared to the otherwise catastrophically inept fiscal policies of both parties in every other year. I'd sure rather have had a couple more years like those than what we've had since. If your self-esteem and party identity requires homage to be paid to The Great Clinton for these accomplishments, then please, consider said homage paid.

Now, can we put aside partisan cheerleading, and partisan sniping, and address what happens next?

No matter whether it is the Golden Wonderful Democrats or the Wicked Nasty Republicans who are in power, our projected spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid isn't going away. You say that budgets always increase due to population growth - true enough, but it isn't always the case that we have a massive balloon of 48.5 million people leaving the workforce and joining the retirement rolls, while entering the most health care intensive period of their lives. These trends are quite out of the ordinary, and neither Republican nor Democrat policy proposals realistically address these fiscal realities.

Health reform to control costs is necessary to improve our fiscal picture, but real cost control doesn't seem to be on the table this time around. From where I sit, some liberals like Obama pay lip service to cost control, but propose nothing that will really accomplish meaningful cost control. Others on the left, such as Slate's own Mickey Kaus, continually ridicule the very notion of cost control, and express utter delight that cost control has been defeated for this round of health reform.

Republicans are no better. Whenever the left has put forward some timid half-hearted proposal for cost control, like cost-effectiveness review or end of life care counseling, the Right starts screaming "Death Panels!" and then the Left can't abandon the idea fast enough.

Neither tax increases nor spending cuts alone can possibly deal with the magnitude of our projected debt. We will need both tax increases AND spending cuts, and we will need them very soon. I don't see any prospect of this happening, and I don't hear either party talking with any sense of realistic proportion about what needs to be done. We have a problem in the trillions, and these clowns get up and crow about a budget savings of a few million here or there. They aren't even talking in the right order of magnitude.

We will get tax hikes and spending cuts eventually - when people stop buying US debt, the government checks start to bounce, and the economy collapses, we will be forced to live within our means. It just sickens me to see how deep we are digging this hole, because it just means our day of reckoning will be all the more painful.

Headhunter you are the first conservative I can recall to admit that tax increases do not choke off economic growth. There may be potential for sanity in the Republican party but I'm pretty sure you couldn't win a primary if you admit this using your real name.

You do continue the great conservative tradition of consistency when you rail against government spending and pray for gridlock then go on to say:

The best bet would be to throw a few tens of billions toward creating an auto engine which generates 250HP with 5000LBs of Torque and gets 45 MPG.

Now who do you believe should be throwing these "few tens of billions" if not the federal government? Do you intend to round up a few teabaggers with that kind of money? Either way don't waste our time, a Prius or Insight already get better milage CITY and highway and are selling as fast as Toyota and Honda can produce them. Neither may get from 0 - 180 mph in 4 seconds like the car you describe above but like someone else said your not a car guy are you. Bettting your not a techie either.

We do not need gridlock, we need leadership and we need it from both sides for the aisle. We will not have both oars in the water as long as Republicans continue with the premise that tax cuts are the only acceptable solution to any problem.

Didn't Cheney say deficits don't matter?