Congressman Rehberg Calls for Reducing Deficit by Increasing the Deficit

by: Matt Singer

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 12:40:06 PM MST

Congressman Denny Rehberg
HAS A SOLUTION TO OUR DEBT PROBLEM:
STOP SPENDING AND BALANCE THE BUDGET!

Congress can decrease the deficit and decrease the debt by:

   * Freezing non-defense discretionary spending
   * Reforming "entitlement" spending
   * Increasing tax incentives for small businesses
   * Lowering taxes for hard-working Americans

Obviously, some practitioners of voodoo economics will argue that resulting improvements in economic growth will make up for any loss of revenue, but the math here is quite fuzzy and, at the tax rates currently levied in the United States, almost certainly inaccurate. There are policy arguments for cutting taxes and accepting the deficits, but we're almost certainly on the wrong stretch of the Laffer curve to have tax cuts actually increase revenue.

But let's look at the other two proposals, starting with the discretionary non-defense spending freeze. First, this is an Obama proposal. Second, in terms of the budget, it's virtually meaningless. Check out this interactive budget graphic from The New York Times. Look at the overall budget, then click on the "Hide Mandatory Spending" button. Now, pretend that the National Security and Veterans Benefits (I'm presuming Rehberg isn't advocating freezing spending on Veterans). Look at what a small share of the budget is left. Now remember that we're not slashing this, we're freezing its growth.

So, not really a big deal.

What's the last proposal? Entitlement reform.

Where to begin with this one? Entitlement reform is GOPese for "cutting Medicare and Social Security," often through privatization. Depending on the particular privatization scheme with Social Security, there's a good chance that Rehberg's proposal would actually increase costs.

But let's just keep in mind that any savings on the Social Security front are likely to be minimal. The real driver of costs within the long-term budget is Medicare (which is one of the big reasons I favor health care reform). Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Republicans' point person on the budget, solves this problem by voucherizing Medicare and freezing its spending, a proposal that has the virtue of balancing the budget solely through spending cuts. Of course, Rehberg has also played politics by pretending to oppose any reduction in Medicare services. Instead, he'll just destroy the program in wholesale fashion.

One last point, despite Paul Ryan's ability to balance the budget solely with spending cuts, it is worth knowing that he had to instruct the CBO to assume no revenue reductions, which means no tax cuts.

In short, Montana's Congressman is pushing fiscal snakeoil. No surprise there. As Tyler Gernant put it a few weeks ago:

While Rehberg claims that fiscal responsibility is at the core of his being, Gernant said he voted for "a massive tax cut for the wealthy that completely eliminates our budget surplus and returns us to deficits."

Gernant said Rehberg voted to put two wars on the country's credit cards and voted for a pharmaceutical drug plan that lets the big drug companies charge the U.S. government whatever they want.

Sadly, politicians rarely explain the federal budget to constituents. Neither, really, does anyone else. That means we're left with misleading crap like this being peddled instead.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Rehberg Gets Schooled by Tyler Gernant

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 13:52:36 PM MST

Gernant said he wouldn't be running if the country was in the same shape it was in 2000, with a $200 billion budget surplus and a booming economy with increasing numbers of jobs.

[...]

While Rehberg claims that fiscal responsibility is at the core of his being, Gernant said he voted for "a massive tax cut for the wealthy that completely eliminates our budget surplus and returns us to deficits." Gernant said Rehberg voted to put two wars on the country's credit cards and voted for a pharmaceutical drug plan that lets the big pharmaceutical drug companies charge the U.S. government whatever they want.

Reward good behavior -- donate today.

Set thine House in order

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 09:20:47 AM MST

At first blush, the answer is 'yes,' of course. You then recite the litany of reasons. Rehberg evil. Me good. You (and, your spouse if you have one), family and friends and supporters decide to go for it.

Then, the reality of the undertaking sets in.

Consider this:

A primary is inevitable. And, you need money. A lot of it.

To make the math easy, let's say you need to raise at least $1.5 million to be credible candidate and you intend to raise it over an 18-month period. Your campaign would need to raise approximately $77,000 a month, or $19,200 a week, or $2,700 every day.

For 18 months.

Of course, things will be slow starting out, so the averages listed above go up, depending on how slowly you make it out of the gate.

You won't have much of a staff. You can't afford one. Volunteers are OK, but you need to spend hours and hours on the phone groveling for dough and then bird-dogging those who agree to contribute to make sure they do.

Money. Money. Money.