Reason.tv: 3 Reasons This Budget (and the GOP Response) Won't Win the Future

President Barack Obama's proposed budget for 2012 outlines $3.7 trillion in spending during the next fiscal year and $8 trillion in new debt over the next decade. All without even a notion of how to pay for any of it.

What could possibly go wrong? Or right?

3 Reasons Obama's Budget (and the GOP Response) Won't Fix Anything is written and produced by Meredith Bragg, Austin Bragg, and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approx 2 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

This video is based on this piece for AOL News by Veronique de Rugy and Nick Gillespie.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    At least give them a chance to fail.

  • ||

    Done and done.

  • Realist||

    Again???

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Death panels ain't looking so bad now, are they, assholes? YOU PEOPLE COST TOO MUCH MONEY.

  • ||

    A while back at Urkobold, we joked about the Death Panels actually being Dearth Panels, where the government could allocate and distribute dearth to people.

  • Three Gold Balls||

    Easy to pay for it.

    All the federal government's automobiles will be pawned at car title loan shops.

  • Rich||

    That's actually somewhat intriguing. (Similar to selling off the national parks, etc.) Got any more?

  • Xenocles||

    I think they actually lease a lot of them.

  • Hayseed||

    Licensing Gone Wild: Government Bureaucrats Shut Down 82-Year-Old Barber

    On Jan. 14, the Oregon Board of Cosmetology shut down his shop until he renews his license, a feat that wouldn’t seem that extraordinary except for the fact that Smith hasn’t had to take such a test since he graduated from barber school in 1956.

    Take that into account along with the fact that Smith is 82-years-old.

    After a hearing on Monday, the cosmetology board declined to let Smith cut hair again until he renews that license.

    On Monday afternoon, Smith said he was doing pretty good considering the circumstances.

    “Well they gave me a lot of literature about the test,” said Smith. “I’m still thinking about (whether or not to take) it.”

    The cosmetology board voted to require Smith to re-take and pass the barbering practical examination in order to have his certification reinstated after being in expired status since 2006.

    http://www.tualatintimes.com/n.....6807830900

  • ||

    It sounds like he's taking it calmly. I would have had some choicer words to utter to the press.

  • Al||

    How about enumerating all the reasons Libetarianism will never be tried on a scale larger than a small farm? About about the reasons a libertarian magazine can't stay afloat without donations?

  • Warty||

    D+

  • Restoras||

    Too generous - an F because this is clearly plagiarised from Max.

  • ||

    Drink! anyway.

  • Realist||

    "How about enumerating all the reasons Libetarianism will never be tried on a scale larger than a small farm?" Here is the one and only reason. Most people are fucking stupid and thanks for your example.

  • Tony||

    Or maybe the world isn't just a small farm writ large, and you're stupid for expecting it to be?

  • Restoras||

    What could possibly go wrong? Everything - don't worry, the bond market will let us know when.

    Or right? Nothing. Epic fail unless you count pure and cynical political posturing a substitute for leadership.

  • Mike M.||

    Pshaw, Alfred E. Krugman says there's nothing to worry about because interest rates are still low.

  • ||

    Your forgot to mention the need to stop the empire from spending money on a new Death Star. I mean the last two didn't work, why are we building another one?

  • ||

    Didn't work? DIDN'T WORK?!!

    I don't see any sith ruling the galaxy, do you? I thought not. Those death stars are working EXACTLY as intended, tyvm. It's sith apologists like you who cut death star spending that will be the death of the New Republic.

  • ||

    When a bunch of teenagers in something called an aluminum falcon can blow your alledged planet killing super weapon out of the sky, the guys at Lockheed Martin have sold you a bill of goods.

  • ||

    I thought I was pretty clear. Let me be clearerer: The guys at Lockheed are Rebel plants. The entire point of the Death Stars was to waste Imperial resources while also causing the deaths of as many officers and emperors as possible.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, bitches!

    Now, where'd I put my stormtrooper-helmet xylophone...

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    But at what cost?

    Behold: The Endor Holocaust

    You sir, are worse than Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pot and every other egg breaker and omelet maker!

  • ||

    Never happened.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    DENIER!!!!!11111!!!!eleventy!!!eat@joes!!!

  • ||

    Ewoks: They're what's for dinner!

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    Silly John, they worked fine! Well, despite a slight design flaw in the first one...

    But more to the point, the upkeep for clones and slave wookies (who I understand eat their weight in meat) is astronomical. Seen the price of food lately?

    Now the Imperial Fleet, there's ya a boodoggle...

  • ||

    I have been complaining about the wookies for years. The whole thing is just a payoff to the farmers on Tatooine. Who do you think supplies all that meat?

  • ||

    You'll get no argument from me about moisture farming subsidies, but trying to tie it to some Wookie Conspiracy is a stretch at best.

  • Sovereign Immunity||

    It's the Hutts, always the Hutts.

  • ||

    Racist.

  • ||

    Say, was there ever a Hutt Jedi? If not, I think they may have some basis for a discrimination claim.

  • celtigirl||

    why, yes there was a Hutt Jedi: Beldorian

    Of course, he fell to the dark side, but what do you expect from a scion of a gangster clan?

  • ||

    Well, okay then.

  • Combaticus||

    If you can't spell Wookiee correctly, I can't take you seriously.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Damned Tatooine Imperial Caucuses. Some other system should get to go first, you know.

  • Tim||

    If they had spent even a little fucking money on teaching the troops to shoot straight, none of the rest of it would have happened.

  • ||

    Also, what's up with that armor? Doesn't work against blasters, obviously, and also appears useless against even the simplest, most primitive weapons. Why wear it?

  • alan||

    I envy R. A. Salvatore in that he was assigned the writing duties for killing off Chewbacca.

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Are the [] some kind of tag? Will we get a nicely printed index when all the rants are done?

  • ||

    CTML - The CrazyText Markup Language

  • ||

    (CrazyTalk....Had to retype it because of the All Glorious And Very Helpful Spam Filter...)

  • ||

    What was that bit about the Great Lakes?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He's Canadian? This explains much. :)

  • ||

    I am intrigued by your post and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • Simply ...||

    ... CLICK HERE [ ]

  • Realist||

    Hercules has cramp between the ears!

  • ||

    We have an entire generation of elites and a political class produced by them who completly lack imagination. It is like they can't imagine things ever going really south, so they act like they never will even though it is obvious that is what is going to happen if they don't do something. This political class is starting to give the one that gave us the civil war a run for its money as the worst in the nation's history.

  • ||

    And the next war won't be so civil, either!

  • ||

    It's not just the political class who can't imagine things ever going really south, so they act like they never will. I know lots of people who think being concerned about federal spending or even more odd, concern about civil liberties makes you kind of a paranoid. Like the shit will never hit the fan HERE.

  • Random Dude||

    It's a perverted form of American exceptionalism, which I shall call American invincibilism.

    The funny thing is that most of the people who embrace the "it can never happen here" philosophy at this current moment are of a leftist persuasion and have always criticized the right for such behavior.

    "Like, dude, don't worry. American socialism... I mean.... that'll totally work. Just watch."

    It's not like the Tea Partiers are clamoring in the streets because of a deep belief that America is invincible.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    After the next civil war we are going to refer to it as "going north".

  • Nothing left to cut||

    The following lists the percentage increases (after adjusting for inflation) from FY2000 to FY2012:

    Agriculture: 648%
    Commerce: 44%
    Defense: 108%
    Education: 71%
    Energy: 92%
    HHS: 1599%
    HUD: 64%
    Interior: 28%
    Justice: 42%
    Labor: 649%
    State: 673%
    Transportation: 449%
    Treasury: 750%
    Veteran Affairs: 411%
    EPA: 9%
    NASA: 5%
    NSF: 60%
    SBA: 18%

    In total, after adjusting for inflation, the current budget is about $1.5 trillion more than Clinton's FY2000 budget.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    wtf are they doing at the Department of Frikkin Agriculture? Is that all the corn/ethanol subsidy bullshit that they are using to make all our food more expensive and our cars run shittier? Least we are getting our money's worth on that.

  • Realist||

    Plus we have fucking idiots electing fucking idiots.

  • Barack Obama||

    Even if we overspend like crazy, and other countries suffer when they do the same, nothing bad will ever happen to us. See, I do believe in American exceptionalism!

  • Binky||

    How about we focus on "winning the present" first?

  • Tony||

    If Republicans and their lapdog conventional wisdom media machine said the biggest problem in the world right now was insects from outer space, that's what every second article on reason would be about and what every one of you simps would be pontificating about daily. Why is the deficit the most important thing right at this moment? Polls show Americans care much more about employment than the deficit, and both can't really be solved at the same time.

    Have to give the starve-the-beasters credit--even with a Democratic white house they haven't let up a single bit on their neverending crusade to give poor people's money to rich people.

  • ||

    What's hilarious is that you actually appear to believe the shit you write, Tony.

  • Tncm||

    "f Republicans and their lapdog conventional wisdom media machine said the biggest problem in the world right now was insects from outer space, that's what every second article on reason would be about and what every one of you simps would be pontificating about daily."

    I don't know if you've noticed this or not Tony, but we're currently running a budget deficit larger than the one incurred during World War II. We're also quickly approaching the legal debt ceiling of some $14 trillion. I'm thinking maybe, gee, I don't know, that's kinda important?

    "Why is the deficit the most important thing right at this moment?"

    If you don't get why running deficits, which largely amounts to funding things through the magic of Fed printing presses, is bad for the economy after people here have explained it to you day in and day out then you're completely hopeless. I will not rehash explanations that have been laid out on this website by Reason's published authors and its commentators literally for months. You either get it, or you don't.

    "Polls show Americans care much more about employment than the deficit, and both can't really be solved at the same time."

    I don't get the Left's fetish for full employment. Inflation causes employment temporarily, sure, most everyone here gets that. You can lock up labor in unproductive efforts by just having people build up pyramids to have them knocked down again. Libertarians understand why this isn't prudent fiscal policy, but apparently you don't; it's okay, Keynes didn't either, and he won the Nobel Prize in Economics. I'd tell you to go read Bastiat's "Parable of the Broken Window", but it was written like, 200 years ago by some French dude, and as you like to remind us over and over again, truth has an expiration date.

    But let's go back to the issue of employment. North Korea has full employment. Prior to bureaucratic reforms pursued by Raul Castro, Cuba maintained full employment. Under Mao Zedong, the People's Republic of China had full employment. It is clear that "employment=economic growth" is a false paradigm. But remember Tony, libertarians have known this for centuries. You seem to think that your arguments are subtle, nuanced, and original, when quite the opposite is true.

    "Have to give the starve-the-beasters credit--even with a Democratic white house they haven't let up a single bit on their neverending crusade to give poor people's money to rich people."

    I've given up debating property rights with you. When it comes to such basic concepts like "ownership", you are unforgivably stupid.

  • Tony||

    Yes we're running large deficits. Is that a bigger crisis than 10% unemployment? I don't think so. Why do you think it is? Because bobbleheads on teevee tell you it is? You have to be specific here, and tell all those unemployed people and the future unemployed why deficits and debt are such an immediate crisis that we need to sacrifice their livelihoods for it. Is it an immediate crisis, as in we're on the brink of defaulting, or is it just a convenient excuse being trotted out by people whose agenda is to cut government services?

    So libertarians don't care about employment, yet they advocate no social safety net. It's not employment that concerns me as far as fixing the fiscal outlook, it's people outside of the top 5% or so having disposable income. Yes, we need to spread the wealth, because no amount of cutting the federal budget will solve its debt problem, but increasing the size of the tax base will.

    I've given up debating property rights with you. When it comes to such basic concepts like "ownership", you are unforgivably stupid.

    I'm well aware that, to you, people are entitled to whatever the status quo happens to deliver to them, however unfair, unless you're poor of course, in which case you probably aren't entitled to even the pittance you have.

  • Tncm||

    Remember Tony, politics and logic are a deadly combination. If one applies the latter too thoroughly to the former, he or she may accidentally become a libertarian.

    Better to ground your political beliefs in raw emotionalism and class warfare. I hear you get get invited to better parties, at least.

  • Tony||

    Logic isn't enough in the absence of facts.

  • Tncm||

    "Yes we're running large deficits. Is that a bigger crisis than 10% unemployment? I don't think so. Why do you think it is?"

    That is a false dichotomy, Tony. You have can have low unemployment and a budget surplus, as evident by the Coolidge administration and many other Gilded Age presidencies. There was even gradual price deflation all throughout the Gilded Age, blowing up another one of your Leftist fallacies.

    "Because bobbleheads on teevee tell you it is? You have to be specific here, and tell all those unemployed people and the future unemployed why deficits and debt are such an immediate crisis that we need to sacrifice their livelihoods for it. Is it an immediate crisis, as in we're on the brink of defaulting, or is it just a convenient excuse being trotted out by people whose agenda is to cut government services?"

    I try not to watch network news, but your ad hominem has been duly noted. I'm not going to get into this with you again, but I'll briefly summarize why debt and deficits are bad: it crowds out private investment, causes capital consumption, locks up labor and other resources in unproductive efforts, erodes the value of the national currency, causes regime uncertainty, and in the long run lowers the standard of living, prolongs recessions, and causes unemployment. If you are unclear on what any of these things mean, I'll be glad to link you to appropriate material or explain it myself.

    "So libertarians don't care about employment, yet they advocate no social safety net."

    I've never claimed that I don't care about unemployment, it's just that employment and economic growth aren't inseparably linked. In fact, as capital grows and improves we can expect shorter working hours and lower demand for "physical" labor, all while real wages and the standard of living rise.

    But yes, I oppose all government safety nets, though I can't speak for everyone on this site.

    " It's not employment that concerns me as far as fixing the fiscal outlook, it's people outside of the top 5% or so having disposable income."

    Wealth disparity and differences in wage rates is a natural and necessary part of the market process, just like fluctuations and variations in the prices of goods and services. Income inequality is aggravated, however, by regulations and corporate welfare which stifles competition to the benefit of larger firms, and promote economies of scale in all industries. But using government thugs to enforce the bankrupt ideology of egalitarianism and economic democracy is something I will always oppose.

    "Yes, we need to spread the wealth, because no amount of cutting the federal budget will solve its debt problem, but increasing the size of the tax base will."

    The upper-class are the most mobile segment of our population. They can more easily "vote with their feet" in response to higher taxes than the middle class or poor can. Google "Laffer curve".

    If you cut government expenditures to the point where income exceeds spending, you can begin to pay down the national debt. This isn't even economics anymore, it's basic accounting.

    "I'm well aware that, to you, people are entitled to whatever the status quo happens to deliver to them, however unfair, unless you're poor of course, in which case you probably aren't entitled to even the pittance you have."

    The free market is not a living entity and thus to claim that it can give or takes thing away from people is fallacious. No one is entitled to anything that they haven't received via gift or exchange; all else is theft.

  • thomas sabo watches||

    Found your blog and decided to have a quick read, not what a normally do but nice one. Nice to see a blog for a change that isn’t full of spam and rubbish, and actually makes some sense. Anyway, nice write up.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • دليل||

    asfasczx

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement