Centerfield

"I think that Kerry...should make the deficit the major domestic issue of his campaign."

I don't know. Do you think that most voters truly understand the consequences of the deficit? It's pretty sophisticated economics we're talking about here. And keep in mind, a lot of American consumers are in debt themselves and fail to see the implications.

(Of course, in my humble opinion, a good politician is one who educates his constituents about the consequences of action or inaction.)

I think that voters intuitively understand that continuing deficits are a serious problem. I also think that the "we are selfishly running up a crushing debt for our children and grandchildren to deal with" argument has an impact on people. It certainly has an impact on me.

You nailed it in your reply, Todd. Kerry doesn't need to educate voters to the nuances of economic theory. I think that'd turn off more voters than it would turn on. Rather he should keep it simple and talk in terms of the debt that's being passed on to our children. That motivates me.

I agree as well. Drawing an analogy between household finances and the deficit would hit a lot of over-extended people where they live.

Language war suggestion (actually Kerry has already used this):

Use the term 'birth tax'! Every Kerry, Edwards, the spin-meisters, pundits, every supporter, every day: the Bush record gives every child born for the next 15 years (a guess!) a ready-made debt, a BIRTH-TAX.

Kerry has a proven record as a deficit hawk? I guess ui must have missed that while he was my senator for the last couple of decades. I really need to pay more attention.

While I agree that the deficit should be an important issue, I am not at all convinced that it's a winning issue in this election. I continue to believe that the first post 9/11 election is going to be a referendum on the admin's overall response to 9/11. Even if people are impressed by tough talk and good ideas on other issues, they'll still pull the lever on the basis of their opinion of the admin's overall 9/11 response.

But I admit that this may well be an erroneous impression that's been instilled in me through its constant reinforcement in the blogosheric echo chamber.

bk,

I too believe that election is going to be largely a referendum on the admin's overall response to 9/11, and I expect that issue to dominate the debate. As a result, I think that Kerry needs to focus on only one or two domestic issues, and I think that the deficit is the best domestic issue he has.

And by the way, I said "allegedly" a deficit hawk, citing the article. I haven't done a thorough enough review of his Senate record to speak authoritatively on whether he qualifies for that description.

View the deficit as a percentage of GDP. Different huh? It's the difference between Bill Gates taking out a million dollar loan and me doing the same. That being said, the deficit must be controlled if we are to avoid severe tax consequences down the road. But this blather about the deficit being "all-time high" is nonsense. Look at the big picture, folks.

Deficits will come and go depending on the economy of the times. Both parties have had a hand in running up the national debt. The GOP will point to the fact that the times are extraordinary and their partners across the isle voted for the budget busting items also. This issue is dead in the starting gate

Well, deficits have two sides.
1) The gov't spending too much.
2) The gov't not taxing enough.

Um, I'd support an increase in the gas tax, 1 penny each week, until the deficit went away. But you know, and I know (and wanted you to know I know), this ain't gonna happen.

Spending is the problem, gov't pork. The Dems are not serious about the deficit until they can talk about cutting spending.

Increasing punishment, er, taxes (on the rich!) is not gonna be so great -- higher taxes lead to less growth, and fewer jobs.

Personally, I really wish the Dems would focus on reducing spending, but I don't see it this year.

I think the comment about viewing the deficit as a proportion of GDP is very much on target. We don't need hyperbole like "largest" ever." OTOH, the comment that deficits come and go is just facile.

Anyone can run a proportionally small deficit pretty much indefinitely as long as the deficit stays as a small proportion of income. The long-term overarching question is "are we losing ground?" If the amount of money that we spend annually is a continually growing percentage more than the amount that we receive to pay those debts, that's not a sustainable situation. EVERYONE should understand that. IMO, it's not debatable.

The other very important issue regarding deficit spending is our expectation of future costs to be incurred. It's almost irrefutable that government obligations on social security and medicare are going to continue growing at rates much higher than the rate at which the government collects
tax dollars. Unless we do something about it, and the sooner the better. The current growth in both life expectancy and health care costs makes our current practices unsustainable, and we should deal with that right now.

On this topic, I notice that the better off one is financially and the more one has socked away for retirement, the more likely one is to speak blithely of "not counting on social security" or substantially reducing benefits and increasing the retirement age.

I believe some tweaks in these areas are both necessary and inevitable. But there are those who think the basic numbers on benefit payouts and retirement age are going to change substantially. These people vastly underestimate the extent of the weakness of the financial status of the lion's share of middle income workers who are seriously underfunding 401ks etc. It might be fun to look at your big 401k and think that the people who haven't put away enough are just going to be SOL, but that's not a very realistic assumption given that we live in a democracy that works by majority rule.

Consider instead the likelihood that if you just take care of your own nest egg and poo-poo the budget burden of deficits in the face of future budget burdens, the majority of the less fortunate are going to come looking for YOUR money.

So if you've been prudent, conservative, and successful with your money, consider the utility of dealing with the budget now, lest the solution to the problem 20 years from now be to give YOU the shaft.

I don't think you'll need to wait 20 years to see it, Brian. Maybe not even five. Bill Clinton said he was only going to raise taxes on the rich. But he taxed me, and I wasn't rich.

There are one heck of a lot of baby boomers out there with million-plus net worths, when you count their retirement funds (and don't I wish I was one!). With the alternative minimum tax creeping downwards, and the possible restoration of the estate tax at it original confiscatory levels, and longevity creeping up, there's going to be a lot of very unhappy middle-class people in the coming years when they realize that Soical Security may well be a major factor in their finances, despite their best planning.

One of the trends I keep an eye on is expatriate retirement. People leaving the US to go live where their funds go farther. It's a growing trend, and the rate of growth is itself accelerating. Also notable is that many of them are getting the quaint notion that their retirement funds are better kept offshore, away from the long seizure arm of the IRS. They pay their taxes, but they keep their options open.

Then there's the birth rate, and immigration, and everything I see tells me that no matter who's in the White House, we're going to see little emphasis on keeping young, fertile new taxpayers out of the United States, and a lot more emphasis on getting their funds into the U.S. Treasury.

The only way to halt those trends is to help the rest of the workld get richer, which will make us comparitively poorer. Even if that means we're still getting richer on an absolute basis, it doesn't make it an easier sell.