From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DEBT PER CAPITA (was Hillary Clinton....President ?)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:33:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov19.102730.270@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>In article <1ee8efINN8e6@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew
>J. Lazarus) writes: 

Warning: Another clueless pseudoconservative refuted ahead! But it's
long.

[corless wrote]
#Personally, I believe a good deal of the national
#debt can be attributed to the tremendous tax cuts instituted during the
#Reagan administration along with the hugh defense outlays.  But then, doesn't
#Congress share in this responsibility?
 
[I responded]
>> Yes. I have posted many times the statistic that Federal Funds receipts
>> (this excludes Soc Sec, Medica*, and other trust funds) fell
>> precipitously frm the Reagan Tax Cut. Adjusting for inflation, Federal
>> Funds Receipts did not return to their 1981 level until 1986! 1984
>> incometax receipts were below 1982 in current (a fortiori constant)
>> dollars.
>> The net Reaganistas like to confuse the issue by posting revenue figures
>> which include Social Security (taxes for which went UP) with Federal
>> Funds.

>There's no confusion.  It's intellectually dishonest to EXclude Soc Sec,
>Medica*, and other trust funds, since -- as we all know -- most of that is
>p*ssed away on day-to-day operating expenses, just as Congress legislated. 

In your rush to absolve Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, you have
omitted to observe that your paragraph STRENGTHENS my argument and
WEAKENS your own. First, your claim about day-to-day operating expenses
is rubbish, outlays are also separated  between Federal Funds and Trust
Funds. What you mean, I assume, is that the "surplus" generated in the
Trust Funds is used to hide the deficit in day-to-day expenses. True.
And this indicates that THE TRUE DEFICIT IS EVEN LARGER THAN ADMITTED,
because the Trust Funds need to run a HIGHER surplus to pay for the
future. I repeat: the Reagan defense build-up was to be paid for from
Federal Funds, and receipts for those tumbled. It was not to be paid for
by Social Security taxes, which went up and hid the true deficit.
There is no rebuttal of this in your paragraph. I think it is
EXTRAORDINARILY dishonest, bordering on lying, to boast that tax cuts
raise revenue, and then to hide this by appropriating receipts, not of
the taxes whose rates were lowered, but of the taxes whose rates were
raised.

As to your constant harping about Congress, as yu well know, since the
1920s the Congress has pretty much started from a budget prepared by the
Executive Branch, and not from scratch. I don't suppose you credit
Congress with winning World War II, but of course only Congress could
declare World War II.

>> Sure Congress bears some responsibility: especially the REPUBLICAN
>> Senate (1980-1986, net Reaganistas claim falsely that it was only two
>> years) 

>So, according to your history, the Democrats are completely innocent, despite 
>having controlled Congress almost continuously since before you were born?

No, those that went along with Reagan get a (small) share of blame.

>Never mind, let it pass.  How far some will go to rewrite history!  As for your
>assertion that the other party controlled the Senate for four additional years,
>please post your source. 

I will bet you $100 -- one hundred dollars -- that the Republicans
controlled the Senate for six (long) years. Put up or shut up.

>> Of course, even then Congress's budget often
>> had a smaller deficit than the budget plan submitted by the President.

>Irrelevant, since it's Congress' budget -- not the President's -- that is 
>implemented.  This should have been taught to you at about the fourth-grade 
>level.  And, as has been pointed out before, the "official" budget does not
>include the traditional "appropriations" bills that are passed after the budget
>deal is done.  If there even IS a budget: for the fiscal years 1985, 1986,
>1987, and 1988, there WAS no budget, only one huge "continuing resolutions"
>that were tossed at Reagan on a pass-it-or-shut-down-the-gov't basis.

Most of what you write is factually untrue. The rest is misleading. For
example, additional appropriations are often passed in response to
emergencies: emergencies which would have arisen even if the President's
budget passed exactly. Your complaints that Congress  passed little
resolutions and one big unveto-able resolution are internally
contradictory. As to whose budget, I repeat that for sixty years or more
the budget has been prepared by the President and submitted to Congress.
There was little difference between the deficit in the two proposals.
You well know that one o the major themes of the recent presidential
races has been what each candidate would do with the budget. (Even
before the advent of one comprehensive budget, Congress voted separately on
authorizations for govt deptartments prepared by the departments
themselves. Conservatives get so upset at Congressional
"micro-management" except when trying to evade responsibility
themselves.)

The continuing resolutions finance the government WHILE the budget is
being finished. The budget was approved later.

>> However, most of the blame goes to the architects of the plan: President
>> Ronald Senile Reagan and his administration.

andy