Suppose Kerry Wins, But......

Republicans retain control of Congress.

It seems a likely scenario to me. Republicans have a slim lead, and probably will keep it.

As a result (let us suppose), Kerry is unable to convince Congress to jettison the tax cuts. As a result, a major source of the funds Kerry says he wants to spend are not available. Whereupon Kerry is faced with an unpleasant choice.

He claims he wants to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He also wants to spend a good deal of money right away. . If no new funds are available, would you recommend that he
[ul][li]abandon the spending, and concentrate on cutting back so as to eliminate the deficit, or[/li][li]spend the money on job creation anyway, and hope the theoretical increase in tax revenue makes up the difference (Reaganomics redux), or [/li][li]spend the money on increasing health care, and disregard the deficit, or [/li][li]spend the money on health care and job creation, and hope the economy returns to the fever pitch of the 80s and 90s, or[/li][li]something else?[/ul][/li]If you think he should cut spending, where would you like him to start? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? Homeland security? Cut and run in Iraq, and never mind what happens later? Cancel the prescription drug benefit? Hope to buy enough cheap drugs from Canada to make up the difference?

Or do you expect that gridlock (and Kerry’s shortcomings as a legislator) will prevent Kerry from doing much of anything, about the deficit or anything else? This is my expectation. I am guessing that Kerry won’t be able to rescind the tax cuts, nor will he get major spending passed. Then, either the economy will continue to recover and the deficit will be reduced anyway, or it won’t, and it won’t.

Your thoughts?

Regards,
Shodan

Frankly, I wouldn’t wish the job of taking over for Bush on anyone, but Kerry wants it, so I’m gonna vote for him. Bush has fucked up international relations beyond all recognition, so Kerry will really have his work cut out for him there. And if, as you suggest, he gets stuck with a Republican Congress, he’s gonna have a hard time getting things done. He’s still a better choice than Bush, though. At least I would feel that Kerry isn’t going to go out of his way to get us into more foreign wars. And while it’s possible that Kerry is going to get stymied by Congress in trying to reduce the defecit, Bush’s record suggests that he wouldn’t even try.

Well, to be fair, some of the money he wants to spend he hopes to raise via tax cuts. Those should be easier to pass than the tax cut roll backs. Also he is using the multi year method to evaluate his proposals, so there is certainly some form of Reagan redux as you say.

My preference would be to cut back on the spending in order to attempt to balance the budget. (Of course, I’d ask Bush to do the same. ;)) This might, in fact, be a shrewd political move on his part. If he could be seen trying to get enough new spending passed along with the tax increase, he would probably have a good chance of convincing everyone that the Republicans blocked his healthcare, education, jobs growth initiatives in favor of tax cuts for the very wealthy. I’m not sure, but that sort of class warfare rhetoric is probably still effective. If he were good enough at it, he might even reclaim much of the congress in his midterm elections. I’m not sure it would work, but it certainly could.

Does that count as something else?

I’d like him to fire his VP and hire Bush, then resign. But that’s just me :slight_smile:

Actually, Shodan, that would be an ideal world to me. We see truly minimalist government and true fiscal sanity (historically) when gridlock has been the rule of the day.

Clinton in WH and Democratic Congress? Disastrous Health Care Debacle

Clinton in WH and Republican Congress? Pushing and Pulling leading to deficit reduction because they have to compromise.

I’d take it in a heartbeat.

I’m confused. IIRC, Clinton’s health care plan did NOT pass. Since reform was never enacted, health care remains a huge issue to this day.

I forget, but doesn’t Kerry support a return to the PAYGO rules? If so, wouldn’t some of the options you laid out be impossible for him?

Yes cut defense. ELIMINATE Homeland Security, don’t just cut it, and get the hell out of Iraq after turning over authority to the Iraqis and to the UN. We are a criminal presence in that country, we’ve done enough damage and we need to get out.

Having said all that, there are things that Kerry can do even with a hostile congress- Appointing moderate judges instead of whacko, religious activists for instance. There are probably going to be some vacancies on the Supreme Court and it’s crucial that Bush not be allowed any hand in filling those holes.

Kerry can sign executive order to open up stem cell research. He can let the Patriots Act die like a dog. He can choose not to endorse or enable the Constitution to be defaced by an anti-gay hate amendment. He can choose not to lie his way into illegal wars.

Anyway, if the Pubbies want to obstruct him it just becomes a campaign issue for the 2006 congressional elections. They’d only be screwing themselves.

Ditto. That’s probably the best case that can be made, from my standpoint, for putting a Dem in the Whitehouse.

I must admit it is suductive.

I think the country was in excellent shape with Clinton in the White House while the GOP ruled the Congress. Note that we had a booming economy, a government surplus, and peace with this arrangement. IF the GOP holds Congress, then gridlock is a great reason to vote for Kerry. Mind you, I’d love to see the Dems take all three prizes this year (White House, House, and Senate), but split control does honestly seem to work.

Sorry to take so long to return to this thread - my PC crashed after I hit Submit, and I couldn’t get back to see if it went thru.

Maybe I don’t understand Kerry’s plans. My understanding was that he wants to rescind the tax cuts for those making more than $200K per year. The figure I heard was this would amount to an increase of taxes of $609 billion over ten years. Using this money, he is going to do everything he wants to do.

I believe he thinks his tax changes on business, where he raises taxes on businesses who outsource overseas and cuts rates overall by 5%, is going to be self-funding. So I don’t think he is going to raise any extra from that.

But my scenario is where Kerry doesn’t get the extra $60 billion per year to spend. Should he try to do the spending anyway, or cut back and try to balance the budget (half-way) anyhow?

Jonathan Chance - I can see how that might be a best-case scenario. I can also see how, given the spending habits of a government where the Republicans control all three branches, it might turn out to be a worst-case scenario. That is, we don’t pass any tax increases, we do pass tax cuts, we also pass lots of new spending, and the deficit goes thru the roof. Think early 90s, with Kerry playing the role of the affable but ineffective legislator.

The trouble is the same as most of the rest of government spending. The programs costing the most are considered untouchable. Kerry has not suggested that we are going to cut back on any of the sources of our current deficit. He isn’t going to cut and run from Iraq. He doesn’t want to spend less on health care - just the opposite. He doesn’t want to spend less on homeland security - I read on his website at one point that he wants to spend $5 billion per year more than Bush is doing. Kerry objected to the prescription drug benefit because it didn’t do enough, not because it was too expensive. He wants to spend $30 billion more on AIDS, as well as increasing spending on TB and malaria, cancelling debts for nations with big AIDS problems, and more. Kerry wants to spend another $25 billion on college tuition.

It isn’t clear from his website if he means all these things per year, but if he does, we have already spent every dime from rescinding the tax cuts, and we haven’t even begun with health care or Medicare, or $127 billion for school construction, greater farm subsidies, an extra $25 billion over two years so state governments don’t cut back on anything, etc., etc.

blowero - it is already clear that you think Kerry would do better than Bush. Based on the scenario as presented - which I don’t think is all that far-fetched - what would you recommend that Kerry do - balance the budget, or spend on what he thinks is important?

Don’t think that is going to work. Kerry wants to increase spending on Homeland Security, not cut it. And he isn’t cutting defense spending either. He wants to increase the size of the military by 40,000 troops, spend more on military housing, extend medical and dental benefits to unemployed reservists, increased spending on veteran health benefits, and spend more on education and death benefits.

Regards,
Shodan

No, I think you’re missing my point.

With the White House (and its higher practical ability to influence the electorate) in one party and Congress (with its higher ability to pass laws) in another we get little action. And what action we DO get tends to be more centrist because it requires public support on both sides to make it happen. Toss is also that neither sides fringe programs are likely to be able to pass both tests (legislative and executive) and you get a minimalist government that has trouble BOTH lowering taxes AND raising spending.

I know it’s a bitter pill for the uber-rich to swallow, but this isn’t a good time to be giving big tax breaks to the wealthy, not while the debt is piling up. Trickle-down is a bogus theory - it doesn’t work. I would recommend that Kerry do what he says he will do, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

I have already figured that Kerry will (if he is even elected) have a deadlock in the Republican Congress. The best that he can hope for is to roll back the future tax cuts and grit his teeth until either the Democrats can take Congress in '06 or he gets thrown out in '08.

He does have some hope for getting the excessive tax cuts rolled back. There is a rising element in the Republican Congress that is more concerned with fiscal responsibility than passing sexually oriented prohibitions. If they can make common cause with the Democrats, there is a chance they could stop the bleeding. (The majority of the taxes that GWB claims that Kerry wants to “raise” are actually future cuts that were scheduled to take place, based on the utterly unrealistic budget projections from the Spring of 2001. Many of them have not even been implemented, yet, so their elimination will not actually remove more money from anyone’s pocket–they simply mean that taxes will not continue to fall as the debt goes into a critical condition.)

I see no way for him to achieve any serious increase in spending.

I think you guys need to look more closely at the spending increases Kerry is proposing. The one to increase education spending, for instance, I think has a good chance of passing. Basically he is proposing that any mandate from congress on local governments be paid for by congress. I think this has quite a bit of support in Republican circles.

I agree that he has little chance of passing a Hillary style spending bill. But I also think it is naive of us to assume that he would make such a mistake. Clinton only did it because he had a Democratic congress. Kerry will not make such a mistake.

Wouldn’t it be an odd result if the Republican Congress refused to re institute PAYGO and as a result the second half of Kerry’s presidency greatly increased spending?

I think taking back the House is considered unlikely, but the Senate isn’t impossible. It’s 51-to-48 now (with Jeffords siding with the Democrats), and it sure looks like Peter Fitzgerald’s seat from Illinois is going to Barak Obama. That would make it 50 to 49 there.

I don’t agree that the pubbies have a lock on retaining congress. There have been two special elections this year and the dems have won both of them. Both filling formerly pubbie seats.

Were I a pubbie. I’d worry.

Hmm. Should a GOP Congress decide to show Kerry whose boss, just for the fuck of it, what do I think he should do? (Actually still try to reduce the deficit or play a game of fiscal chicken are the two main options. Lets assume the former)

I think rolling back the Medicare drug bill is one way to start, as there is just enough vague general disapproval that it isn’t political suicide. Not that the GOP won’t rip him a new one while they sigh in secret approval.

Cutting money on homeland security really isn’t an option, as we aren’t spending terribly much there in the first place.

I think that this situation would almost require us to bug out of Iraq. We are supposed to fight this war entirely on credit? Unless the cost falls far beneath the several billion a week its cost us so far we can’t afford to stay. If raising taxes* in order to fund a war is off limits it shows the relative importance to Congress of the two. CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN: CUT AND RUN! Authorization (to use force) or no authorization to use force, the President cannot be expected to fight a war without money. Power of the purse, doncha know.

I don’t think cutting Soc. Sec. benefits is either morally or politically viable. Plus it would probably be unwise to announce that the US government feels no obligation to pay its debts when it requires massive foreign investment to pay for itself.

My guess is that the President could go on the offensive and make it very plain who is forcing him to cut road bills, veterans benefits, etc. across the board. Unless the GOP leadership has gotten better at the game since Gingrich they will most likely be forced to compromise on something (although Kerry is certainly no Clinton).

*or rather, stopping tax cuts before they occur/rolling back certain tax cuts

An alternative scenario? If GeeDubyas approval ratings continue on thier toiletward trajectory, at a certain point House/Senate Republicans are going to get nervous, going to start looking for a way to hedge their bets. That’s going to be tough, since so many of them have already bet the farm on GeeDubya, when it looked like he’d breeze into his second term on a path of garlands.

But a lot of Republicans aren’t so encumbered. The old-style Republicans, with more familiarity with actuarial tables than fire and brimstone. They can’t be all too happy with the ascension of the radical wing. If there’s sufficient daylight between them and GeeDubya, they might survive a catastrophic election, so longs as they are identified with the center-right.

The possibility exists that this election is a disaster for Pubbies (a prospect I can meet with calm aplomb). If it starts to look like that, the rodents will remember that they don’t have the same obligations as the captains of sinking ships, and have a wider range of options. They will haul ass to save ass, ideology be damned.

The man to watch, the caged canary, is Tom DeLay (R-Undead). His high pressure style annoys even the people who don’t want to murder him. He is, shall we say, abrasive. Ol’ Tom is starting to have a few problems. If the House smells blood, they will rip him asunder, and thier instincts are keen. If they smell blood, damn sure betcha there is blood.

If the Bushiviks get the drubbing they so thorougly deserve, the next Congress will be decidedly centrist in tone and outlook. (Which would, in fact, be the administration GeeDubyaCo sold us in the first place.) That would not be as left as my partisan wishes would have it, but so be it. We need a break.

But a centrist Congress, one already more or less committed to compromise, might very well get a lot more done. If the centrist fact is recognized, few members will propose radical legislation, save for quixotic gestures. In other words, if the bills come to the floor already shaped by compromise, there is less to wrangle, posture, and bloviate.

Might even get some worthwhile shit done.