Compromise Evident In Budget Proposal

A Good Grade for a Responsible Budget

By: Alan Blinder

Better late than never. As it turns out, much better.

http://online.wsj.com/article/

Topic: The article discussed the recently released budget and how, although it may be late, it is the most likely modle to pass in a less partisan congress. The author also notes that this budget as all do, carries unrealistic optimism, something that the republican party has taken most literally. It is better to have an optmistic plan than a pessimistic one, correct? However, it is important that the budget be based on credible numbers, sensible priorities, appropriate macroeconomics, and putting spending and taxes on reasonable trajectories for the future. These are the four dimensions that the author focuses his article on. First, the numbers. A good budget is based on credible numbers, this does not mean closing loopholes and making cuts on programs to be named later, where funding is cut and added must be explicit and clear. By doing this, the House Republicans will be able to see exactly what programs are receiving more funding. The political reality of the budget must also be recognized. In the budget Obama calls for increased taxing, the intial purpose (to increase revenue) will not pass the republican dominated congress but it is also possible that congress will make adjustments that would used the increased revenue in order to decrease tax rates as a whole. It can be predicted that the guideline provided by the OBM will be utilized a great deal in the house. The national budget reflects the priorities of our country. What we have been dicussing in class is how congress holds the power to make or break bureaucracies through managing their funding, from the budget we can see increased emphasis on some agencies while others have fallen to the wayside, this is often seen as creating a balance between funding current issues and allocating enough funds for future, unpredictable matters. This is where the compromise is extremely clear. Obama has even made cuts to SS and Medicare in an attempt to gain more bipartisan support in the house, this is a wise tactic that he will most definitely see results with. What the question really comes down to is how will this plan suit for the future? will we see a lowered unemployment rate due to increased government spending that so often comes with revenue increase? Or will we see a decreased deficit as the government practices fiscal austerity?

Opinion: I believe that the president has proposed a budget that is extremely moderate, in that it is much more conservative than what most democrats had expected. The Obama administration definetely has prioritized the budget and that is a GOOD thing for both parties. Without this compromise, it is likely that the republicans would not approve the budget that was predicted;with the full fledged programs of medicare and social security. The budget is also effective in reducing the deficit and allocating the funds to relieve the GDP. However, I am not ignorant to the fact that the programs that have been trimmed by the administration will demand an increase in tax beyond the 10 year window. The author and I concur that the budget will benefit some social programs in the future but this will not be at a great cost. 

Conclusion:"The two parties disagree over such priorities is normal. But today's disagreements are extreme. The president's budget priorities are slightly to the left of the political center, slightly to the right of the Senate Democrats, and far to the left of the House Republicans. " Obama has been forced to adapt his budget to get Republican approval in the House to avoid another sequester. I think I speak for the general populous when I say that this is in no way the ideal situation for the Democratic Party. However, bipartisan efforts, as I eloborated on in my last post, is becoming more and more necessary in today's divided government. The budget proposal is predicting republican reaction and in order to save as much time as possible, it has been rather streamlined; meaning that the cuts that would most likely generate debate and republican resistance, have already been determined by the executive himself.