This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/us/politics/right-left-deficit-trump-budget.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Right and Left React to the Soaring Budget Deficit Right and Left React to the Soaring Budget Deficit
(6 months later)
The political news cycle is fast, and keeping up can be overwhelming. Trying to find differing perspectives worth your time is even harder. That’s why we have scoured the internet for political writing from the right and left that you might not have seen.The political news cycle is fast, and keeping up can be overwhelming. Trying to find differing perspectives worth your time is even harder. That’s why we have scoured the internet for political writing from the right and left that you might not have seen.
Has this series exposed you to new ideas? Tell us how. Email us at ourpicks@nytimes.com.Has this series exposed you to new ideas? Tell us how. Email us at ourpicks@nytimes.com.
For an archive of all the Partisan Writing Roundups, check out Our Picks.For an archive of all the Partisan Writing Roundups, check out Our Picks.
Brian Riedl in National Review:Brian Riedl in National Review:
“Republican lawmakers have spent years promising deficit reduction, spending restraint, and entitlement reform. Despite winning full control of Congress and the White House, the cuts have not come.”
Any talk of fiscal responsibility from Republicans, argues Mr. Riedl, is just “empty rhetoric.” He blames his party’s bipartisan deal to raise spending by $300 billion over the next two years on “precisely the kind of inside-the-Beltway, big-government deal-making” that President Trump was voted in to eliminate. How are we to account for Republicans’ reversing course on the deficit? Part of the reason might have to do with Mr. Trump’s election. The other part, he argues, might have to do with the party’s routine “bluff on spending reform.” Read more »Any talk of fiscal responsibility from Republicans, argues Mr. Riedl, is just “empty rhetoric.” He blames his party’s bipartisan deal to raise spending by $300 billion over the next two years on “precisely the kind of inside-the-Beltway, big-government deal-making” that President Trump was voted in to eliminate. How are we to account for Republicans’ reversing course on the deficit? Part of the reason might have to do with Mr. Trump’s election. The other part, he argues, might have to do with the party’s routine “bluff on spending reform.” Read more »
__________
Nathanael Blake in The Federalist:Nathanael Blake in The Federalist:
“This is a moral problem.”
There’s a lot that politicians like to ascribe to the moral failings of their ideological counterparts. For some reason, Mr. Blake points out, adding to the national debt is not one of these things. As he explains, the national debt “steals from other people’s futures in a way that mere personal debt does not.” The real solution to the problem, he says, is a tough one for most Americans to swallow. “The real money,” he writes, “is spent on the military and middle-class welfare programs.” If we’re serious about funding these program, he argues, then we should be willing to drastically cut military spending and raise taxes on the middle class. Read more »There’s a lot that politicians like to ascribe to the moral failings of their ideological counterparts. For some reason, Mr. Blake points out, adding to the national debt is not one of these things. As he explains, the national debt “steals from other people’s futures in a way that mere personal debt does not.” The real solution to the problem, he says, is a tough one for most Americans to swallow. “The real money,” he writes, “is spent on the military and middle-class welfare programs.” If we’re serious about funding these program, he argues, then we should be willing to drastically cut military spending and raise taxes on the middle class. Read more »
__________
Jordan Weissmann in Slate:Jordan Weissmann in Slate:
“The White House released its official budget proposal today. I’m not going to waste my time reading it, and neither should you.”
Mr. Weissmann suggests that his readers ignore the budget proposed by the Trump administration. After all, he writes, the president already signed a spending bill that raised the government’s budget by $300 billion. This means that the White House’s budget revealed on Monday is “completely irrelevant to any real-world decision making.” Read more »Mr. Weissmann suggests that his readers ignore the budget proposed by the Trump administration. After all, he writes, the president already signed a spending bill that raised the government’s budget by $300 billion. This means that the White House’s budget revealed on Monday is “completely irrelevant to any real-world decision making.” Read more »
__________
Matthew Rozsa in Salon:Matthew Rozsa in Salon:
“During the Obama years, deficit was a four-letter word to the Republican Party.”
The Republicans used to be deficit averse, Mr. Rozsa reminds his readers. So what gave rise to the party’s seemingly newfound tolerance for ballooning debt? Perhaps, he speculates, the party’s fiscal conservatives have been sidelined by Mr. Trump’s ideology. Read more »The Republicans used to be deficit averse, Mr. Rozsa reminds his readers. So what gave rise to the party’s seemingly newfound tolerance for ballooning debt? Perhaps, he speculates, the party’s fiscal conservatives have been sidelined by Mr. Trump’s ideology. Read more »
__________
Robert J. Samuelson in The Washington Post:Robert J. Samuelson in The Washington Post:
“Neither party will make the unpopular choices necessary to pay for an aging society and essential government. Ever-larger budget deficits have become their means of making policy and practicing politics.”
“Most politicians are can kickers,” declares Mr. Samuelson. Politicians of both parties are loath to eliminate popular entitlement programs and military spending, and so far, perhaps they’ve been right. As he points out, this strategy has so far yielded “few economic or political costs.” But, he argues, even though there have been few negative consequences to a soaring national debt in the past, we should still care about the deficit. The reason we should care? In one word, writes Mr. Samuelson, “prudence.” Read more »“Most politicians are can kickers,” declares Mr. Samuelson. Politicians of both parties are loath to eliminate popular entitlement programs and military spending, and so far, perhaps they’ve been right. As he points out, this strategy has so far yielded “few economic or political costs.” But, he argues, even though there have been few negative consequences to a soaring national debt in the past, we should still care about the deficit. The reason we should care? In one word, writes Mr. Samuelson, “prudence.” Read more »
__________
Jonathan Bernstein in Bloomberg:Jonathan Bernstein in Bloomberg:
“The plan the O.M.B. sent to Congress is not, in any real way, the president’s budget proposal.”
There’s nothing new about Congress not taking the president’s budget seriously. However, Mr. Bernstein notes, in the past, “the annual document is still normally regarded as a statement of the president’s preferences and priorities.” This time, however, the budget may mean even less to lawmakers in Washington. It contains proposals and policy ideas, Mr. Bernstein argues, “that Trump has little interest in supporting or fighting for.” Moreover, because the document so clearly reflects the worldview of Mick Mulvaney, the president’s budget director, and not Mr. Trump, it reveals a rift within the executive branch that we don’t often see. It’s unusual, Mr. Bernstein writes, “for a president to be so apparently indifferent to whether the executive branch follows where he leads.” Read more »There’s nothing new about Congress not taking the president’s budget seriously. However, Mr. Bernstein notes, in the past, “the annual document is still normally regarded as a statement of the president’s preferences and priorities.” This time, however, the budget may mean even less to lawmakers in Washington. It contains proposals and policy ideas, Mr. Bernstein argues, “that Trump has little interest in supporting or fighting for.” Moreover, because the document so clearly reflects the worldview of Mick Mulvaney, the president’s budget director, and not Mr. Trump, it reveals a rift within the executive branch that we don’t often see. It’s unusual, Mr. Bernstein writes, “for a president to be so apparently indifferent to whether the executive branch follows where he leads.” Read more »
Want the Partisan Writing Roundup in your inbox? Sign up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter or the What We’re Reading Newsletter.Want the Partisan Writing Roundup in your inbox? Sign up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter or the What We’re Reading Newsletter.
Have thoughts about this collection? Email feedback to ourpicks@nytimes.com.Have thoughts about this collection? Email feedback to ourpicks@nytimes.com.