Dana Milbank: Lawmakers’ fiscal gambles are worse than the sexual ones

[alp227]

During his nine days of lies about his boudoir photography hobby, Rep. Anthony Weiner complained that the issue was a “distraction” from more important matters, such as the debt limit showdown.`

I disagree, and not because I find great substance in Weiner’s genitalia. The naked truth is that his Twitter problem has more to do with the perilous state of the nation’s finances than you might think.

Since another New York congressman by the name of Eric Massa introduced us to “tickle fights” a year ago, sex scandals have been multiplying like rabbits — leading to a surreal moment Monday night, when former New York governor Eliot Spitzer (D-Mayflower Hotel), now a CNN host, found himself moderating a roundtable discussion of sex scandals.

(...)

But while recklessness is pervasive in Washington, most of the time it’s not sexual or financial but professional. President George W. Bush taking the nation to war twice while cutting taxes; President Obama delivering a major transformation of the nation’s health-care system without a single vote from the opposition; Rep. Paul Ryan, the House budget chairman, proposing an end to the Medicare guarantee to make more room for tax cuts; Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, gambling that he can go a second straight year without passing a budget at all.

Full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawmakers-fiscal-gambles-are-worse-than-the-sexual-ones/2011/06/07/AGAfZPLH_story.html

[Zoeisright]

1. He's lumping changing health care in with an illegal war and destroying medicare?

Dana Milbank is an asshole. Fucking repuke.

[alp227]

2. the most recommended comment:

"I agreed point by point with Dana until it came to his statement that "Democrats have been nearly as reckless in resisting real reforms to entitlements." Dammit, the Affordable Health Care Act is based on cutting Medicare's costs by more than half a trillion dollars. True, that won't start until 2014, when it ought to have started far earlier, but it is a great deal more than a gesture. And Milbank is not justified in forgetting or ignoring it."

[Igel]

3. True, it won't start until 2014.

And, true, a year after it was signed into law all the savings are still projections.

True, many of the projections stipulated by Congress or made by the CBO seem unlikely--still, they're the assumptions and we assume that the assumptions are to be assumed.

Similarly, Congress was projected to save nearly a trillion dollars after the Medicare revision in *'s first term. Of course, none of those savings actually happened. Those savings would have amounted to anywhere from a quarter to half of the budget deficit in any given year.

Then again, we had really rosy CBO budget predictions in 1999 and 2000. Of course, they were completely fictitious and assumed not only no recession but a continuation of the growth that had taken place from '96 to '99. (They overlooked the stockmarket problems before the 2000 elections and the leading indicators. They were essentially *told* to overlook the obvious in order to say that all was not only good, but great.)

The projected budget savings that were predicted to start in 2014 are rather less than a gesture. A gesture is at least real. I waved my hand: Something happened; it's a fact. Okay, now what's the status of a budget savings in 2014? Is it a fact? Has it been observed? Has it occurred? Are there witnesses? Can we look at data and infer that it took place or is taking place? No. Yet-future savings are rather less than a gesture: an event quondam does not have the same status as an event futurus (apologies to T.H. White and Latinists).