American Politics mark something something

[davos]

last post in prior thread:

Scot, I'm not in favor of eliminating either department, state or federal, though I would seriously consider shifting power and funding within that structure. Not necessarily just from state to federal, but from school board to superintendent up to state boards.

Regional differences aside, I do think there are some basic standards that are reasonable to be applied nationally. I think the failure to enforce them, or enforce them in a way based solely on tests, or focusing on the middle while ignoring the gifted, has been a major problem. That's why I like programs like Race to the Top.

carry on.

[Swordfish]

Scot, I'm not in favor of eliminating either department, state or federal, though I would seriously consider shifting power and funding within that structure. Not necessarily just from state to federal, but from school board to superintendent up to state boards.

Regional differences aside, I do think there are some basic standards that are reasonable to be applied nationally. I think the failure to enforce them, or enforce them in a way based solely on tests, or focusing on the middle while ignoring the gifted, has been a major problem.

And yet you would transfer even more resources to the agency that created that problem?

Why stop at the federal level? i mean, why not transfer those resources to the UN, and establish global standards and tests?

Bigger is better/more efficient, right?

It's entirely possible to have non standard educational systems that are none the less quite effective.

See also: Europe.

Obviously raising taxes is not the same as cutting spending, but they represent the only realistic ways to balance the budget. I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here.

I'm trying to make the point that suggesting raising taxes, in particular SS taxes, doesn't accomplish the desired result of cutting spending. And raising SS taxes at this point in particular, given what has happened to surpluses in the past, DOES actually contribute to long term defecit problems.

it's not complicated, and you yourself seem to have more or less re-stated it in your first sentence, so i'm not sure where your uncertainty lies.

:dunno:

[BloodRider]

And raising SS taxes at this point in particular, given what has happened to surpluses in the past, DOES actually contribute to long term defecit problems.

Well if you are worried about surpluses going away I have a suggestion for you. Don't vote Republican.

In other news Taxes are down. Shhh... Don't tell the crazies.

[Swordfish]

Well if you are worried about surpluses going away

Aren't you?

Don't vote Republican.

I'm many elections ahead of you on that, but thanks for the pointless, partisan advice nonetheless.

[Commodore]

A couple of different military bloggers are reporting that Mullah Omar has been captured.

[Annelise]

Who else will be trusted to administer Pell Grants, ACG Grants, SMART Grants, Federal Direct loan programs (Stafford and Perkins), and Federal work-study program.

May I present a couple candidates? http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/04/former_detroit_schools_officia.html

Seriously, will someone please ship Detroit your most efficient criminal to be mayor, because this is a complete free for all.

[Alcibiades]

Hehehe. If anyone wants some quality entertainment for an hour, look no further than the debate for the Republican Senate nomination in the great state of Kentucky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeF9SJOYFhM&feature=player_embedded

In addition to the two main candidates, we have Gurley Martin and John Stephenson providing some quality answers to these questions!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, less than 2 months after the passage of the health care bill, the CBO has come out and said it's going to cost $115B more than initially estimated. Oops.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

[Guy Kilmore]

Well, less than 2 months after the passage of the health care bill, the CBO has come out and said it's going to cost $115B more than initially estimated. Oops.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

I would say "could" cost, it depends if congress approves all the appropriations (if that is the correct word) possible.

[Alcibiades]

Well, if memory serves, the original figure said deficit reduction by 200 billion. So, if this new CBO thing is correct, it will still reduce the deficit by somewhere around 100 billion, correct? It sounds like the whole thing could come close to perfectly breaking even over 10 years, with any real savings coming in the years to follow (when things like the efficiency and best practices panels for medicare come into effect).

[alguien]

And yet you would transfer even more resources to the agency that created that problem?

Not sure what you mean here. The DoE did not create the problem, since most education is currently administered at a state and local level. And its doing terrible.

Why stop at the federal level? i mean, why not transfer those resources to the UN, and establish global standards and tests? Bigger is better/more efficient, right?

It can be. I've yet to be convinced that smaller is more efficient. Quite the opposite, actually.

It's entirely possible to have non standard educational systems that are none the less quite effective.

See also: Europe.

I don't disagree with this. Certainly one must take regional and ethnographic factors into account when it comes to education. But this doesn't change the fact that literacy, math, history, and science don't change when studied from region to region.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, if this new CBO thing is correct....

Exactly.

[The Progressive]

So we're kosher with CBO's finding now?

Lol, sure was a different tune mere weeks ago.

Also cute how the conclusion by it would still reduce the deficit by $100 billions is totally ignored in hysteria.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So we're kosher with CBO's finding now? Lol, sure was a different tune mere weeks ago.

Nope. I expect this one to be proven horribly wrong as well. It's just makes the point easier to demonstrate when they contradict their own prior estimates.

[Nathanael]

I believe that original blog post is slightly inaccurate - the story I read on CNN said the CBO doubled their estimate of discretionary spending from $55 billion to $115 billion, not that they thought it would cost $115 billion more.

Link

A CBO report sent Tuesday to Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said the estimated rise in discretionary spending - which is spending requiring annual congressional authorization - over the first 10 years under the new legislation could exceed

$115 billion.

On March 11, exactly two months earlier, the non-partisan CBO reported the estimated increase for discretionary spending could exceed $55 billion.

Douglas Elmendorf, the CBO director, said the latest report "updates and expands" on the previous report. He noted that assessing effects on discretionary spending was speculative because such appropriations require

congressional action, and could be larger or smaller than initially anticipated.

The health care legislation was estimated by CBO to cost $940 billion over 10 years and reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the same period.

Increased costs in discretionary spending would not necessarily offset the estimated deficit reduction. Congress requires most discretionary spending to have available resources under so-called "pay to go" rules.

A more accurate summary would be that healthcare reform will reduce the deficit by $83 billion instead of $143 billion.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

A more accurate summary would be that healthcare reform will reduce the deficit by $83 billion instead of $143 billion.

Actually, a more accurate summary would be that the CBO now estimates that the health care reform bill will reduce the deficit by $83B instead of $143B. We don't know what that estimate will be in, say, another 3 months. Or whether that estimate will accurately predict the relevant costs and revenues.

The CBO also noted that there is a category of costs for which they've offered no estimate:

Explicit authorizations for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending for which no specific funding levels are identified in the legislation. That type of provision generally includes legislative language that authorizes the appropriation of “such sums as may be necessary,” often for a particular period of time.

Because there was no amount specified for those programs, the CBO didn't estimate any cost at all. And in terms of the bottom line, not providing a cost estimate is equivalent to estimating a cost of zero. For something we know isn't free. Funny how that works.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=835

[TrackerNeil]

Slate's Timothy Noah has something interesting to say about health insurance reform and costs.

I've so far stayed out of this debate because I think it's just a surrogate for whether or not the law is a good idea. No one who thinks that invading Iraq was wise and prudent is going to change his mind because it broke the bank, and no one who opposed the invasion is going to think differently if someone proved it was a well-financed military venture. Obviously I supported reform, so I think that even if it requires raising taxes it's a good investment.

[Swordfish]

Slate's Timothy Noah has something interesting to say about health insurance reform and costs.

The idea that health care reform constituted meaningful reduction of the budget deficit was always oversold.

Glad we can all finally agree on this point.

Hooray for intellectual honesty.

Of course, then the rest of the article goes on to basically contradict his understanding of that point by doing THE EXACT SAME KIND OF THING, but still...

Progress....

[Shryke]

Of course Swordfish, take the first sentence out of context and say the rest of the article is wrong because only teh first sentence actually agrees with your bullshit. Brilliant!!!

During the month of March, CBO's 10-year savings estimates for the health care bill rose from $118 billion to $138 billion to $143 billion. Yet Boehner uttered not a peep of complaint about Democrats not "being truthful about its full impact on the nation's finances." That's because the bill's estimated cost was going down, not up. The fact is we can't know the precise extent to which the health reform law's tax increases, Medicare spending cuts, and new spending will balance out, because there are too many variables. But given the roughly $113 billion in government spending it currently looks like the bill will save, it seems a safe bet that Obamacare will be able to finance itself over the next decade. That's no minor accomplishment.

[Shryke]

Also, this was kinda neat.

A big long list of all the money Arizona is losing because of their new laws:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37021347/ns/us_news-life/