A Balanced Budget Ammendment Is A Terrible Idea

Bobby Jindal attempts to make the case for a federal balanced budget amendment:

"A federal balanced budget amendment. States have balanced budget laws, small businesses have to balance their budgets, and families have to do the same. This is an idea that is supported by virtually every American who does not live in the 202 area code. It’s common sense. It is also laughed at in Washington. When you mention the BBA as a solution, they roll their eyes and write you off as a non-serious person. But the American public is dead serious about it, and they should be."

A federal balanced budget amendment is one of the most popular horrible ideas in political discourse today. You simply cannot compare personal budgets, business budgets, or even state budgets to national budgets in this way. People and businesses can balance their budgets because in doing so they don't also jeopardize their incomes (unlike the government, as can be seen very clearly from the austerity crisis/fiscal cliff). State governments can balance their budgets because they can always count on the federal government to both make up the shortfall. Calling a balanced budget "common sense" shows just how ridiculous the idea of "common sense" can be when applied to counter intuitive fields like this. Americans who are calling for a balanced budget do not truly understand what they are doing. This is evidenced by the fact that so many Americans are so completely ignorant of what is actually in the federal budget. This leaves conservative pundit David Frum to ponder a hypothetical question:

"It would be wonderful to hear Gov. Jindal identify the specific cuts he would have made during the nadir of the recession, when revenues as a share of GDP were around 15%, the lowest since the Second World War. At that point, cutting PBS and foreign aid won't get you to 15%. At 15%, you have to slash entitlements (can't do that!) and the Department of Defense (good luck getting southern senators on board with that!)."

Frum also notes that conservatives can still be conservative without going to such absurd lengths:

"Yes, Washington is too bloated. Yes, Washington is trying to do too many things it should leave to private citizens and state governments. Yes, Washington should be aiming to leave the federal government's share of GDP near the historical norm of 18-20 percent. And yes, I too am concerned by Ezra Klein's warning that 18 percent won't be able to pay for our existing and future obligations. We have to address these problems, and as conservatives, we must work to restrain the federal government from consuming an ever larger share of the gross domestic product.

But you don't win elections by promising to cut benefits, retard growth, and paralyze government when it is needed most -- during the depths of recessions. That's a terrible electoral strategy, but it's also horrible leadership from a party elite. Gov. Jindal can unload all the populist rhetoric he'd like, but he's as elite as anyone in Washington, DC, and that role comes with obligations."

No doubt the left has quite a few bad ideas as well. But that does not excuse the right from avoiding the most important responsibilities expected of an elected politician:

"Endorsing a balanced budget amendment, laughing off the uncertainty of messing with the debt ceiling, and deriding efforts to keep our nation functioning is an abdication of those responsibilities. I hope we see better in the future from Gov. Jindal."

The Roundup: Election Edition

Greg Sargent: The Morning Plum: No, Romney and Ryan don’t really want a `great debate’

"Romney wants to repeal the unpopular Obamacare, and promises he’d do something for some people with preexisting conditions — because replacing it with nothing would be even more unpopular. Romney says he’d get rid of Wall Street reform, and vows to replace it with unspecified “common sense” regulations — because replacing reform with nothing is also a political nonstarter. Romney says he’d cut whole agencies to make government more efficient and cost-effective, but won’t say which ones; and Ryan won’t explain in meaningful detail how he’d achieve the draconian spending cuts necessary to make his numbers work — because when the talk turns to specifics, suddenly cutting government is politically very difficult indeed, and gutting social programs would be very unpopular. Romney and Ryan won’t say how they’d pay for their tax cuts — because they must be paid for by hiking the middle class’s tax burden or exploding the deficit, neither of which is politically palatable." (emphasis mine)

When asked about cutting the size of government, most people are conservatives. When you get into asking about the specifics, the leftward shift is incredible!


Ezra Klein: Obama’s money gap: Incompetence, incumbency or meaningless?
Romney is currently outspending Obama 2 to 1, partly because of Obama's negative attitude toward wall street. However, there seems to be little if any effect on the polls. The country already largely feels like they know Obama. So negative a advertising will only do so much to hurt him. Romney would theoretically be better off running on his own strengths rather than attack Obama. But those strengths in the most important areas (jobs, budget) are quite suspect to say the least.

Ezra Klein: The real Romney-Ryan budgets cuts aren’t to Medicare. They’re to programs for the poor.

"And so, if you look at Ryan’s specific cuts, most of them are programs for poor people. In fact, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that more than six of every 10 dollars Ryan cuts from the federal budget is coming from programs for the poor" (emphasis mine)

And Romney's is MUCH worse!

No, Republicans Have Not Suddenly Developed a Love of Policy Wonkery

"Conservatives are excited about Ryan because he's a true believer, not because they've developed a sudden love of budget wonkery. They would have been equally ecstatic about Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio, and they're breathing a sigh of rel ief that Romney didn't pick Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty, both of whom are plenty serious policy wonks but don't have quite the right-wing fire in their eyes that the other guys do."

Desperate Measures: Paul Ryan Tries To Revive the “Death Panel” Canard
Spreading malicious lies about ObamaCare in 2010 helped bolster Republicans to take over the house in 2011. Only problem, Obama is campaigning now and, even though he is behind in spending (for the last month or so), he has money in the cof fers to help keep him from falling too far behind. And he has the incmbant advantage, meaning attacks against him are much less effective. So he has the means to dispel this misinformation campaign (and the sad truth: start some of his own)

"But even if seniors like the first Gen Xer on a presidential ticket personally, the Pew poll shows that they dislike Ryan’s plan even more than their younger counterparts.

This points to an information vacuum, which is why death panels are back, and why this campaign is only going to get uglier from here."

Republicans Wanted a Culture War, Now They're Getting It

"If conservatives do indeed want a "truce" on issues like abortion, that's fine with me: let them start observing one. Leave Planned Parenthood the hell alone. Stop pushing for laws that challenge Roe v. Wade. Shut down all your ultrasounds . Tell Bob Vander Plaats to stop trying to run pro-marriage-equality judges off the Iowa Supreme Court. Take all those dog whistles about "respect for life" and "constitutional originalism" out of your platforms and speeches. Promise us you won't put unholy pressure on a President Romney to ensure the next new member of the Supreme Court will vote to turn abortion policy back to the states or even protect zygotes under the 14th Amendment."

Paul Krugman: Nobody Cares About the Deficit

"If the right was at all consistent, it would be denouncing the CBO report for failing to take into account the impact of a lower deficit in deterring the invisible bond vigilantes and encouraging the confidence fairy."

Five things to know about Mitt Romney’s energy plan 
Five points on Romney's energy plan:

1. North American energy independence is already expected to largely happen by 2020, regardless of who is in the white house 
2. Romney's refusal to accept Obama's fuel-efficiency standards will make his plan more difficult. 
3. Energy independence will not significantly lower prices since oil is still traded in world markets (exhibit A: Canada) 
4. Although energy independence may have gross job gains (likely much smaller than what Romney has predicted), the net effect will likely be insignificant. 
5. Romney does not tackle environmental concerns (global warming, fracking, oil spills), which may mean "public concern over fracking could stymie gas development."

Why the Weak Economy Doesn't Doom Obama

"So think of it this way. In 1980, Jimmy Carter didn't have an argument for re-election that appealed very far beyond the Democratic base. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale simply didn't have much of an argument for getting rid of Ronald Reagan. The Republicans didn't have a good argument for holding on to power in 2006, nor did the Democrats in 2010. The elections reflect that.

This year, Barack Obama has an argument -- he didn't inherit the mess, and the economy is slowly expanding. That's an argument that is probably good enough to get him to 46 or 47 percent of the vote. Similarly, Mitt Romney has a pretty good argument for electing a new president, one that will shore up his base and Republican-leaning independents. Thus, we should probably expect what we're presently seeing in the polls: a close race, to be decided by a relatively small slice of the electorate." (emphasis mine)

Ezra Klein: The GOP has picked the wrong time to rediscover gold
When people think of returning to the gold standard, they think of it as a way of controlling inflation. However, it actually does precisely the opposite. Gold prices are tied to demand across global markets, meaning inflation would be tied to the whims of gold buyers and the fed would lose its ability to control it.

"Unlike 1981, in other words, when the gold standard made a kind of superficial sense as a response to our problems, 2012 is a moment when a gold standard would clearly have worsened our problems. Dramatically. As Eichengreen concludes, the idea’s “proponents paint the gold standard as a guarantee of financial stability; in practice, it would be precisely the opposite.”

Not reimbursing towns for expenses dealing with presidential incumbent campaigns is common for BOTH PARTIES.