What dryfly said.

Remember, the core goal of conservatism is to conserve the existing power structure. The Reagan and Bush I/II administrations have done a good job of furthering that goal by shifting discretionary expenditures from social spending to defense and interest payments. It is always easier to cut welfare for the poor than it is to cut welfare for the rich (defense pork, special tax breaks).

I agree with the concept that Bush and most of the GOP have looked at foreign policy and Iraq Ideologues- a neo conservative driven ideology. But their view of economics is the same-preaching a very laissez faire environment of with extreme amount of liquidity and debt.

Considering the utter failure of their bankrupt incompetent foreign policy - I see the eventual outcome of their economic polices to be no different.

excuse me for the last post- I became preoccupied

posting again

I agree with the concept that Bush and most of the GOP have looked at foreign policy and Iraq as Ideologues- a neo conservative driven ideology. But their view of economics is basically the same- A very pro business/ laissez faire environment.

This economic 'recipe' also includes huge amounts of dangerous liquidity asset bubbles and debt. All aided and abetted by a very compliant politically driven FED.

Considering the utter failure of their bankrupt incompetent foreign policy - I see the eventual outcome of their economic polices to be no different.

i find it offensive that people like Paulson continue to enable the fiction that the annual deficit is fine, given that the general fund deficit is much worse and is only masked by a social security surplus that the ideologically committed think is bogus....

Paulson has learned the trick that all Bush economic advisors - those who don't get themselves fired, anyhow - have to learn. Define the problem in politically convenient terms.

There are a number of factors that come together to determine the US fiscal stance and the fiscal outlook. Paulson picks out one that was first created to look good - the "official" deficit as we define it - to say the problem is soluble. He picks another feature, entitlements, and identifies it as the "real" problem.

Those choices do not constitute an honest assessment of our situation. One could just as easily identify our current budget imbalance as threatening to force the governemt to break promises made, obligations taken on by the government at the behest of voters over the years. Define the problem that way, and the obvious answer is to identify the policy that has shifted us away from a virtuous fiscal stance to a profligate one (that would be tax cuts for the rich), and redress that problem.

Paulson's wide-eyed matter-of-factness makes him a great messenger, but it doesn't make his message and honest one.

Not being an economist, maybe I've missed commenters' outrage over Paulson's characterizing the future deficit (post-2018c.) as an "entitlement deficit."

He didn't "spin" the term "entitlement deficit," lightly. We on the liberal side should listen to him and respond, appropriately.

There is no "entitlement deficit" -- at least, not until some time after 2041c. on the most Chicken Littlest estimates.

What there is is the diminishing of FISA's subsidization of the general fund before 2018c. and the end of the subsidy, thereafter -- at which time other sources of revenue (income taxes) will have to be looked to.

And since the wealthy pay the greatest share of income taxes, Paulson's worried for the future of his social cohort.

Am I wrong?

At least we know now that Hank Paulson is no Paul O'Neal.

Howard, abolishing or at least greatly trimming down SS is a staple of the conservative agenda. Paulson will recycle it when he gets the chance.

Here's an older post from CR to help us out on the matter of the General Fund. According to CR's chart, Clinton came close but never actually did run a General Fund surplus. He should be commended for closing the gap so much though given his predecessors' profligacy.

Also, rather larger SS surpluses started rolling in after the Greenspan Commission suggested front-loading SS payments circa the end of Reagan's second term.

Something of great interest from Bloomberg today

Many analysts have attributed the Democratic victory in last week's congressional elections to a noticeable rightward tilt of the party's candidates in swing districts. That movement has sparked a growing belief that Congress and the president can work collegially together during the next two years to solve the nation's problems.

A look at the detailed positions of the successful candidates, however, explodes that belief as a myth.

It is true that the new Democrats are more conservative, but not across the board on all issues. Indeed, the interesting thing is that a new type of Democrat has emerged that may significantly alter the political landscape for years to come. That person is hard right on social issues, but hard left on economics.

Typical of the new breed is Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, who was just elected to the House of Representatives. Ellsworth writes on his Web site that he regularly attends church and that the lessons I learned in church have helped guide my life.'' This connection informs his discussion of family values:I believe in justice, I believe in hope, I believe in salvation, and I believe in the value of life.''

But on economics, Ellsworth sounds like anything but a right winger. He derides ``bad'' free-trade deals as a giveaway to corporations, and rails against the privatization of Social Security. Does such a person make it easier for the president to work with Congress next year to overhaul Social Security? I don't think so.

Echoes of Pelosi

Heath Shuler of North Carolina writes on his site that he is a pro-life Democrat'' and thatall life is sacred.'' Yet on economic issues, he sounds much like Nancy Pelosi. He criticizes free trade and calls ominously for ``fair trade,'' and -- sound familiar? -- opposes privatization of Social Security. Fair trade is a catch phrase for the kind of free-trade obstructionism practiced by labor unions and anti-globalization ideologues.

Ellsworth and Shuler appear to have been formed by the same cookie cutter that delivered countless new candidates to the Democratic Party. Click on the issues pages of their Web sites, and you find mostly the same topics and positions. The same is true of many others, such as Baron Hill of Indiana who is also pro-life but opposes ``regressive'' tax cuts and Social Security privatization.

President Bill Clinton rose to power in 1992 by leaning in the conservative direction on economics, advocating free trade and middle-class tax cuts, but he was silent on social issues. Today's triangulators are taking the opposite tack.

More Than Iraq

The emergence of this new type of Democrat may have much more far-reaching consequences than you might have thought if you bought the spin that this election was just about Iraq.

The problem with Clinton's triangulation was that too much of the Democratic Party was emotionally vested in traditional populism. A