# Obama proposes "pay as you go" law to Congress **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239 "2009-06-09T20:06:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/1 "2009-06-09T20:06:31Z")
From [here:](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_budget) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to pay for new increases in federal benefit programs as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars. > > The president’s plan would require Congress to pay for new entitlement spending, such as health care, by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts — a “pay-as-you-go” system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt. I’m all for this. The only thing I hate more than massive irresponsible government spending is massive irresponsible government spending on credit. The current Republican notion that you can increase spending but never dare touch taxes is insane - I would like to see both spending and taxes cut, but you can’t increase spending while cutting taxes in the long term. It’s just poor planning and greed - “let’s get ours now, and screw whoever comes after us”. So if the democrats are going to spend like crazy too, I very much like the idea of proposing that you actually fund it with revenue and not debt. Endless borrowing sets us up with the idea that we can have what we want without paying for it, like an irresponsible kid who took their parents credit card. We need to come to realize that if we want to spend, we have to actually give up something else, whether it be a lower tax rate or spending elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/2 "2009-06-09T20:17:46Z")
Woops, I somehow skimmed over this part: > [@](#): > > The pay-as-you-go rules would not apply to discretionary spending — the portion that Congress decides how to spend each year — which accounts for almost 40 percent of the budget, said Peter Orszag, the administration’s budget director. Well that sucks massively. Well, it’s something - at least someone’s talking about the idea that we can’t run the government on credit forever. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/3 "2009-06-09T20:39:06Z")
If this is true: > [@](#): > > Obama’s “PAYGO” plan would also require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere in the code I think it’s a really bad, bad idea. That’s basically saying there will never be tax cuts again. Why can’t tax cuts be funded by budget cuts? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/4 "2009-06-09T20:52:17Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > I think it’s a really bad, bad idea. That’s basically saying there will never be tax cuts again. Why can’t tax cuts be funded by budget cuts? Yeah - already we’re screwing ourselves by setting a corporate tax rate that is way too high to be competitive. We should be able to cut that without monkeying around with very much else - especially as this is the sort of cut that should pay for itself many times over with increased economic activity. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/5 "2009-06-09T20:57:17Z")
\*Obama \*is calling for a pay-as-you-go policy? Trillion-dollar Stimulus package Obama? That’s rich. That’s like Hannibal Lector advocating vegetarianism…TRM ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/6 "2009-06-09T21:00:34Z")
So wait … he submits a budget with epic, massive, debt of a heretofore unseen scale, driven almost entirely by increased spending; debt not merely for a year or two but in projections as far as the eye can see. Then a couple months later, he turns around and suddenly announces that – gasp – deficits are bad! Who knew! And we’re gonna have to raise taxes to pay for them! Shocking, yes, but what’s to be done? (And oh by the way, we can never lower net taxes ever again.) This is how to bullshit, people. Bush and Clinton got nothing on this guy. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/7 "2009-06-09T21:05:17Z")
I’m having trouble seeing the inconsistency in your post, **furt**. He took out a loan, and now he’s talking about beginning to pay it back. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/8 "2009-06-09T21:07:29Z")
Tim, furt: Lemme guess, anybody who takes out a home loan is automatically a hypocrite if they don’t also max out all their credit cards? ---
**Author:** ![SanDiegoTim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@SanDiegoTim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanDiegoTim)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/9 "2009-06-09T21:15:41Z")
What Obama really said is that needs to have taxes raised. Anyone with a half a brain knows that this congress (and most previous ones) will never cut anything. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/10 "2009-06-09T21:16:11Z")
> [@](#): > > WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to pay for new increases in federal benefit programs as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I mean, come on. Who takes this kind of shit seriously? At least when Bush and the Dems blew the lid off the budget, they had some chance of [getting some of it back](http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/tarp.repayment.fortune/?postversion=2009060914). Then Obama spends another $800 billion on top of that - how in the blinding blue blazes of hell are we going to pay for that kind of pork? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/11 "2009-06-09T21:16:57Z")
By raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. Which was his point. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/12 "2009-06-09T21:27:43Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > By raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. Which was his point. That’s like saying, “Honey, sure we can afford this Lamborghini. I’ll just carry my lunch to work for a few months.” ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/13 "2009-06-09T21:29:34Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > I’m having trouble seeing the inconsistency in your post, **furt**. He took out a loan, and now he’s talking about beginning to pay it back. He took out a loan that everyone knew was too big. He did it saying that he wasn’t going to raise taxes. When fiscal conservatives warned that an Obama administration would mean vastly higher taxes, it was greeted with derision. There are only 2 real possibilities here. 1. He changed his mind. Two months ago, the thought that running massive deficits well into the mid-2010s was fine, but now he thinks it’s a bad idea. If this is true, he’s an idiot. 2. He knew that selling a massive tax hike would be hard … so he sold a massive spending hike, and then decided to cast himself as a “living within our means” fiscal moderate and act as if the tax hikes were something he really didn’t want to do all along. If this is true, he’s a master bullshitter. I don’t think he’s an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/14 "2009-06-09T21:31:19Z")
Actually more like "we can afford these twentysix Lamborghinis if we just cut back on groceries. We can also afford to buy sixteen more next year, and the year after that. But it would be irresponsible not to." Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/15 "2009-06-09T21:35:20Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > That’s like saying, “Honey, sure we can afford this Lamborghini. I’ll just carry my lunch to work for a few months.” As opposed to “I’ll just put it on the credit card”? The faux indignation from the Republican paritsans here (not you) is silly. They were defending massive spending at the same time as cutting taxes not long ago, and suddenly massive spending with at least an attempt to pay for them is comical. Both situations suck - at least the latter is attempting some degree of responsibility, but the response seems to be “hahaha you can’t try to act responsible when you’re doing massive spending! (which both sides do”. His proposal would be better of course if it applied to discretionary spending. In which case it would be “okay, we can buy a lamborghini, but we’re going to have to move into a smaller house and spend most of our paycheck on it” rather than “hey, let’s buy it, and put it on our credit card, and get our kids to be cosigners.. then we can have fun with this lamborghini and hope we die before we face the consequencess” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/16 "2009-06-09T21:43:56Z")
So, aside from the comments about Obama, do the economic conservatives here support or oppose PAYGO? Other than **SenorBeef** ’s comment about discretionary spending, I’m seeing nothing but Rush Limbaugh style ad hominem. (Not that I’m saying he’s an economic conservative, it was just the only insightful comment I saw on the issue.) ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/17 "2009-06-09T21:47:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, aside from the comments about Obama, do the economic conservatives here support or oppose PAYGO?.. I’m an economic conservative, and I definitely support the idea of NOT spending beyond revenues. Haven’t read all the details of “PAYGO” so I won’t tie my opinion to that particular proposal…TRM ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/18 "2009-06-09T23:22:43Z")
You might cynically point out that it has been a rule in the House since the Democrats retook Congress in 2006, and ask why you should expect it to lead to smaller deficits once it is a law. You would be right to ask the question. But beyond that, you ought to note that PayGo doesn’t even apply to one major category of spending: discretionary spending. It applies only to direct spending (ie, entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare). And Obama has also specifically asked for 4 exceptions to the rule. As a result, the new ‘PayGo’ has more holes in it than swiss cheese. > [@](#): > > The PAYGO rules will apply to new tax cuts and mandatory spending, with four major exemptions – any renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the continued efforts to “patch” the Alternative Minimum Tax, any effort to address physician’s payments in Medicare, and modifying the estate tax. In addition, doesn’t this sound like a way to stealthily raise taxes “as part of the system,” rather than having to publicly announce tax increases and face public opposition? If we only hear about the shiny new stuff we’re getting, and the tax increases are stealthed, it makes it much harder to oppose government spending when we don’t have this intermediate stage about complaining about the deficits. ---
**Author:** ![Caldazar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Caldazar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caldazar)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/19 "2009-06-09T23:32:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, aside from the comments about Obama, do the economic conservatives here support or oppose PAYGO? > > Other than **SenorBeef** ’s comment about discretionary spending, I’m seeing nothing but Rush Limbaugh style ad hominem. (Not that I’m saying he’s an economic conservative, it was just the only insightful comment I saw on the issue.) A brief outline of Obama’s proposal can be found [here](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Calls-for-Restoring-Statutory-Pay-As-You-Go-Requirements/). Perhaps many of the criticisms are ad hominem in nature, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are unwarranted. I don’t think many sane people advocate a policy whereby the government should just continue to run substantial deficits forever, so balancing budgets over the long run is desirable. But then, why limit pay-as-you-go rules to mandatory spending only rather than the entire budget in aggregate (or alternatively, treat mandatory spending and discretionary spending separately, but require that they both conform to pay-as-you-go rules)? As **furt** points out, why is this only being brought up now, at a time when the White House is coming under heavy criticism for running up large deficits? Where was Obama’s discussion of pay-as-you-go budget balancing in the context of the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? It gives me the impression that, okay, now that Obama has gotten his big stimulus bill passed, and now that he’s taking some heat, now we all can start talking about fiscal responsibility, as if fiscal responsibility only started to matter recently. Sure, I support balanced budgets, and I support pay-as-you-go rules as one step towards achieving balanced budgets. But I support real pay-as-you-go rules, not false half-measures that allow government to circumvent the restrictions through increased discretionary spending. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239/20 "2009-06-09T23:56:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, aside from the comments about Obama, do the economic conservatives here support or oppose PAYGO? > > Other than **SenorBeef** ’s comment about discretionary spending, I’m seeing nothing but Rush Limbaugh style ad hominem. (Not that I’m saying he’s an economic conservative, it was just the only insightful comment I saw on the issue.) As a principle, I support it. I don’t support it when used as a political weapon to defend the kind of deficit spending you want, or as a figleaf to cover up continued prolifigacy. And I don’t see any ad hominem at all; I see people pointing out the massive disconnect with what’s being said now with what was being said two months ago. If Obama had embraced pay-as-you-go prior to his massive budget increases being put in place, I would have a very different opinion about what is being done here. Of course, if he had done that, he wouldn’t have _gotten_ his massive budget increases … which is the point. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > The faux indignation from the Republican paritsans here (not you) is silly. They were defending massive spending at the same time as cutting taxes not long ago, and suddenly massive spending with at least an attempt to pay for them is comical. Cite? AFAIK, the only partisan Republicans here are **Mr. Moto** and **Shodan** , and I’m pretty sure Moto was not a fan of Bush’s spending. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-proposes-pay-as-you-go-law-to-congress/499239.md?page=2)