Centerfield

Bravo!!

Anyone know how he's approached this issue during his numerous terms in Congress? Is this a new convert or has he been this outspoken all along? Just curious...

For the record...I like the guy. Always have. Just not that familiar with his prior stances in this area.

While Rep Ford appears to have a strong record of fiscal caution I would suggest several things: 1) With entitlements being such a large part of the federal budget, to balance the budget will require a larger influx of dollars to the fed coffers (i.e. taxes) and/or significant cuts in these entitltment programs 2) If I understand correctly the cited cuts in entitlements in this budget were not cuts but decreases in the rate of planned increases 3) Balanced Budget Amendment: didn't get consistent traction in the Republican party in the past. Will it really get any traction in the Democratic Party?

A-men...period

Ford sure talks purty, don't he?

(I like Ford, but can't resist.)

Sure we can clone this guy. It's called voting for other candidates who make similar pledges.

It is correct to say that neither party will take up a balanced budget amendment, with both so heavily influenced by special interests that benefit from excessive spending. Any such amendment would have to come from a bipartisan coalition of fiscally responsible congressmen, though it would be quite an uphill battle.

Harold Ford is the future, and the hope of America. We really need more people like him to offer real leadership. He's consistently stood for fiscla discipline and common sense issues.

OK, that's sounds a bit like hero-worship I know, but I've always liked Harold Ford.

I would like to see spending and deficits controlled better. However, deficits as a percentage of GNP are not out of line with historical norms at all. It is simply not a crisis today.

I hope focusing on deficits does not distract us from the true crisis, which is entitlement spending.

Susan's right, BTW. The deficit's not nearly as bad as cried up to be, and the national debt is nowhere near historic highs. Not that it's a good thing, especially if the load increase carries on unabated, but a balanced budget isn't at all the panacea it is imagined to be. The affordability of debt is a function of income and interest rates, and some government debt is necessary for a smoothly functioning economy.

If you isolate out what Ford is saying by the elements, he's saying that we're not spending and taxing enough. Does the phrase "tax & spend Democrat" ring any bells? Uh huh. Thought it might.

I'll wear "tax and spend" proudly, because it means we actually PAY FOR THE PARTY AS WE GO.

Unlike certain "spend-it-alls" - kids who run up the credit card, SPENDING AT LEAST AS MUCH, I might add.

The numbers have changed little since I posted them. I could update the Bush numbers, but that would just make things worse for you, so I can make a virtue out of laziness.

One of these months I'll have to examine growth rates to see whether deficits or taxes affect growth.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/001227.html

I don't live that far from Tennessee. Maybe I should sneak across the border and vote for this guy.

The numbers have changed little since I posted them. I could update the Bush numbers, but that would just make things worse for you, so I can make a virtue out of laziness.

Nope. Post 'em. Then we can dissect out the portions going to entitlements to show actual discretionary spending.

My argument has nothing to do with entitlements. In fact, I agree that Bush II - level deficits are less of an issue than long-range entitlements. I was just having fun with your invocation of the (ready for bold?) tax-and-spend" Democrats (unbold).

Isn't that exactly what he called for, Jon? :-)

At least Ford throws in the "simplify the tax code" sound bite (though he does it while thinking up new ways to complicate it). A look at his actual positions claiming to add up to "fiscal responsibility" makes his stance a bit more clear--they're impossible to accomplish without gutting the military AND radically increasing taxes on "the rich." And even then they wouldn't balance the budget.

He talks a good game, he has some good ideas, and he's a very appealing fellow. But the particulars of his positions and his actual votes add up to the usual Dem class-warfare demogoguery. Demonize the rich and the Republicans, and promise something for free to everybody else. He's quite good at it. He should be--he had a lifetime of watching his father doing it, and walked into his dad's seat in Congress directly out of law school.

Is it demonizing when he's talking about a true thing, a phenomenon well backed by facts?

Republican Presidents really DO fail to balance budgets, in my experience. Can you show any evidence that Bush places more than a mild priority on keeping the budget balanced? Us Democrats believe keeping debt low is more important than keeping taxes low, so it's a completely fair issue.

Demonizing would be a fair call if you caught Ford talking about Bush eating children or taking over the country by force.

LOL, Jon. ALL Presidents fail to balance budgets--mostly because it's Congress that controls the budgets. Remember? It's in the Constitution and everything. Scapegoating is fun (that's what Presidents are for, isn't it?) but pointless. "Balanced budget" is a yak point, not a realistic one. Some national debt is required for economic health, the question is how much. It's a non-static figure that depends on more than one factor, and centers on interest rates and inflation.

Us Democrats believe keeping debt low is more important than keeping taxes low, so it's a completely fair issue.

Since Dems historically cannibalize defense in order to increase other discretionary spending, and since the non-discretionary programs were created by Dems, I think you're standing on less than a full leg there, by at least a toe or two. It's an awful new position for the Democrats--not that one can exactly credit the GOP with much more than lip service. :-)

For all the holier-than-thou prattle over the years from all sides about a "balanced budget," the only time a balanced budget has ever actually occured in modern times was when the economy hit unexpected growth spurts.