Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

Billions for Wall Street bailout will handcuff next president, analysts say


Human
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted on Fri, Sep. 19, 2008

 

 

My own thoughts on this mess; Maybe if we all played a little less of "Speak No evil, hear no evil, See no evil" then just maybe we can all move forward, because in seeing a problem and just ignoring it "won't make it go away".

 

So when you folks see me post on Latin America? Don't act like you "see no evil" JUST to be loyal to the democrat party cause in the end it still affects us all.

 

FOR THE RECORD; I WILL try to do the same.

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By DAVID LIGHTMAN

McClatchy Newspapers

 

WASHINGTON -- The next president will take office in January with little hope of getting his pet programs enacted quickly, if at all, because of already-massive budget deficits likely to balloon even further from the hundreds of billions expected to be used to bail out Wall Street.

 

"The next president is just not going to have the money to meet his promises," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget-research group.

 

Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain have big plans that would add substantially to the deficit.

 

By 2013, when his changes would be fully implemented, Obama would boost the deficit by $360 billion with his tax cuts and by another $65 billion with his health-care plan while partially offsetting that with $139 billion saved through winding down the Iraq war and making other spending cuts, according to US Budget Watch, a nonpartisan research group.

 

McCain's tax cut plan would add $417 billion to $485 billion to the deficit, while his health-care policies would cost another $54 billion to $65 billion. Iraq troop reductions and "unspecified cuts to balance the budget" could save $291 billion to $304 billion, however.

 

The bottom line: Both would sharply increase the deficit, which already is headed to record territory.

 

"They've got to be asleep not to see this is bad news," said David Walker, the president and chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes sound fiscal policy.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends Sept. 30, will rise to $407 billion, while next year's figure could hit $438 billion, shattering the record of $413 billion in fiscal 2004.

 

The 2008 and 2009 numbers are conservative estimates, since they don't include the federal bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or failed insurer American International Group.

 

Friday, the government unveiled what's likely to be the most expensive twist of all: a still-evolving plan to create a way for the government to buy troubled bank assets, probably the biggest bailout in U.S. history.

 

"We're talking hundreds of billions" of dollars, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said.

 

As a result, "what was already a very difficult decision for the next president - how to deal with taxes and spending - has now become extremely difficult," said Brian Riedl, senior policy analyst at Washington's Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group.

 

Traditionally, the first few months of a new presidency are the White House's most successful. Ronald Reagan won approval of his 25 percent, three-year tax cut in July 1981. Bill Clinton saw his $496 billion, five-year deficit-reduction plan pass in August 1993, and George W. Bush got his $1.35 trillion tax cut through Congress in May 2001.

 

McCain and Obama are touting ambitious efforts to revamp health care and provide tax breaks.

 

Add to that billions in new spending. McCain would increase funding to the No Child Left Behind education program, which would cost an estimated $13 billion in 2013, and would boost the size of the military, a $10 billion plan. Obama also would spend more on education - an estimated $18 billion - would create an "infrastructure reinvestment bank" for $6 billion, would double foreign aid - a $25 billion expense - and increase the size of the military, which would carry a $20 billion price tag.

 

Getting any expansion of health care will be particularly tough, MacGuineas said. "There's no bigger budget buster than health care," she said, as Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to continue increasing steadily.

 

Both candidates want to preserve at least some of the tax cuts that are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. McCain would keep all the key cuts, while Obama would end most of those that affect individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that make more than $250,000.

 

Analysts think they eventually may be able to get some of their more ambitious plans enacted, but they warn that there are a lot of "ifs."

 

Experts agree on this much: It'll be hard to do in 2009.

 

"I suspect what may have been economically and politically palatable six months ago will have to be reviewed," said Doug Rediker, co-director of the New America Foundation's Global Strategic Finance Initiative.

 

James Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at Washington's Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, thought that one way the new president could use his mandate is to say, "The short-term problems are worse than expected, but let's look ahead to 2012. Everything I planned still makes sense."

 

Looking ahead has other dangers, however, notably the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare.

 

There's one glimmer of hope.

 

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, recalled that when the government set up the Resolution Trust Corp. in 1989 to help ailing savings and loan institutions, "the cost was less than expected."

 

When the government bailed out Chrysler Corp. in 1979 with a $1.2 billion loan, it earned an estimated $300 million profit.

 

However, even if the government winds up in the black from this financial crisis, it's unlikely that that'll show up on next year's balance sheet. No one knows how much the bailouts will cost at first, but most see the new president as inheriting a huge deficit.

 

As MacGuineas put it, "It's stifling."

 

ON THE WEB

 

US Budget Watch's analysis of the McCain and Obama fiscal plans: http://usbudgetwatch.org/files/crfb/usbw0915promises.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare has not even started to feel the pinch yet with the baby boomers just now starting to reach social security age.

 

No child left behind is a farce. Sorry but I feel the money that is suppose to go to the education of the children is going to face lifts, and build new school where they may not be needed. That is not improving the scores the students should be getting, but trying to keep up with the Jones. There are schools out there that do not have enough books, everyday supplies, and even qualified teachers to educate them. Then another big thing that the students need are parents who can spend time tutoring their children. I am not blaming the parents because we all have to work, but at what cost? Our children's education.

 

If our national defecate is going to go sky high where does that leave the lower and middle class people? Increased taxes, less services, or up a creek without a paddle.

 

 

Posted on Fri, Sep. 19, 2008

My own thoughts on this mess; Maybe if we all played a little less of "Speak No evil, hear no evil, See no evil" then just maybe we can all move forward, because in seeing a problem and just ignoring it "won't make it go away".

 

So when you folks see me post on Latin America? Don't act like you "see no evil" JUST to be loyal to the democrat party cause in the end it still affects us all.

 

FOR THE RECORD; I WILL try to do the same.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By DAVID LIGHTMAN

McClatchy Newspapers

 

WASHINGTON -- The next president will take office in January with little hope of getting his pet programs enacted quickly, if at all, because of already-massive budget deficits likely to balloon even further from the hundreds of billions expected to be used to bail out Wall Street.

 

"The next president is just not going to have the money to meet his promises," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget-research group.

 

Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain have big plans that would add substantially to the deficit.

 

By 2013, when his changes would be fully implemented, Obama would boost the deficit by $360 billion with his tax cuts and by another $65 billion with his health-care plan while partially offsetting that with $139 billion saved through winding down the Iraq war and making other spending cuts, according to US Budget Watch, a nonpartisan research group.

 

McCain's tax cut plan would add $417 billion to $485 billion to the deficit, while his health-care policies would cost another $54 billion to $65 billion. Iraq troop reductions and "unspecified cuts to balance the budget" could save $291 billion to $304 billion, however.

 

The bottom line: Both would sharply increase the deficit, which already is headed to record territory.

 

"They've got to be asleep not to see this is bad news," said David Walker, the president and chief executive officer of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes sound fiscal policy.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends Sept. 30, will rise to $407 billion, while next year's figure could hit $438 billion, shattering the record of $413 billion in fiscal 2004.

 

The 2008 and 2009 numbers are conservative estimates, since they don't include the federal bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or failed insurer American International Group.

 

Friday, the government unveiled what's likely to be the most expensive twist of all: a still-evolving plan to create a way for the government to buy troubled bank assets, probably the biggest bailout in U.S. history.

 

"We're talking hundreds of billions" of dollars, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said.

 

As a result, "what was already a very difficult decision for the next president - how to deal with taxes and spending - has now become extremely difficult," said Brian Riedl, senior policy analyst at Washington's Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group.

 

Traditionally, the first few months of a new presidency are the White House's most successful. Ronald Reagan won approval of his 25 percent, three-year tax cut in July 1981. Bill Clinton saw his $496 billion, five-year deficit-reduction plan pass in August 1993, and George W. Bush got his $1.35 trillion tax cut through Congress in May 2001.

 

McCain and Obama are touting ambitious efforts to revamp health care and provide tax breaks.

 

Add to that billions in new spending. McCain would increase funding to the No Child Left Behind education program, which would cost an estimated $13 billion in 2013, and would boost the size of the military, a $10 billion plan. Obama also would spend more on education - an estimated $18 billion - would create an "infrastructure reinvestment bank" for $6 billion, would double foreign aid - a $25 billion expense - and increase the size of the military, which would carry a $20 billion price tag.

 

Getting any expansion of health care will be particularly tough, MacGuineas said. "There's no bigger budget buster than health care," she said, as Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to continue increasing steadily.

 

Both candidates want to preserve at least some of the tax cuts that are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. McCain would keep all the key cuts, while Obama would end most of those that affect individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that make more than $250,000.

 

Analysts think they eventually may be able to get some of their more ambitious plans enacted, but they warn that there are a lot of "ifs."

 

Experts agree on this much: It'll be hard to do in 2009.

 

"I suspect what may have been economically and politically palatable six months ago will have to be reviewed," said Doug Rediker, co-director of the New America Foundation's Global Strategic Finance Initiative.

 

James Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at Washington's Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, thought that one way the new president could use his mandate is to say, "The short-term problems are worse than expected, but let's look ahead to 2012. Everything I planned still makes sense."

 

Looking ahead has other dangers, however, notably the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare.

 

There's one glimmer of hope.

 

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, recalled that when the government set up the Resolution Trust Corp. in 1989 to help ailing savings and loan institutions, "the cost was less than expected."

 

When the government bailed out Chrysler Corp. in 1979 with a $1.2 billion loan, it earned an estimated $300 million profit.

 

However, even if the government winds up in the black from this financial crisis, it's unlikely that that'll show up on next year's balance sheet. No one knows how much the bailouts will cost at first, but most see the new president as inheriting a huge deficit.

 

As MacGuineas put it, "It's stifling."

 

ON THE WEB

 

US Budget Watch's analysis of the McCain and Obama fiscal plans: http://usbudgetwatch.org/files/crfb/usbw0915promises.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We socialize Wall Street when it is in debt. We privatize Wall Street when it is in profit. The heads of these firms joke about it while drinking a gin and tonic on their million dollar yacht. When will it end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Yeah!!!, but the sad FACT is that the politics in my corner of politics IS NOT going to change.

 

When Law said that I made him think, but What I got out of it was that that type of politics of seeing no evil and hearing no evil WILL continue. <It was a hope that I had that people would see the Truth, but again That's not going to Happen.

 

I had to try, and I got an answer. It was just not the one I was hoping for "Live, and Learn".>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see Bolivia is now siding with Venezuela.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...