The push for a debt commission

[coyotes_geek]

CG: This really, really needs to pass..............

**************

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate on Tuesday is likely to vote on a proposal that would create a bipartisan commission charged with reining in the country's debt.

The goal: Create a framework for forcing Congress to make some tough choices -- specifically tax increases and spending cuts.

In a surprise move Saturday, President Obama issued his support for the fiscal commission proposal, which was introduced as an amendment to legislation that would raise the country's legal debt limit by $1.9 trillion.

While the amendment now has 34 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, Obama's 11th hour support may not be enough to ensure the amendment's passage. Some top Democrats have been adamantly opposed to it, as have a large number of Republicans.

It's been a controversial proposal because the 18-member commission would have the force of law, meaning that Congress would be obligated to consider the commission's recommendations and vote for or against them -- no amendments, no filibusters. And they'd have to do so before 2010 is done.

It's not clear when the Senate will vote on the debt limit increase itself. Republicans are likely to vote against it; some Democratic votes are in question too. They don't want to vote for a debt-ceiling increase unless there is a clear signal that there will be a plan to address long-term shortfalls in the federal budget.

Those shortfalls are due in large measure to unsustainable growth in entitlement programs such as Medicare, as well as in interest due on the nation's debt.

The fiscal commission amendment was initially co-sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-ND, and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, the committee's top-ranking Republican.

Should it fail, it's possible its supporters will reconsider a fiscal commission that Obama has been considering establishing by executive order.

But it's a weak substitute, because such a commission would not have the force of law -- lawmakers would have no obligation to even read the commission's recommendations let alone vote on them. Some Republicans have already signaled they would consider such a commission toothless and partisan.

Nevertheless, Obama is likely to mention his commitment to have a commission of one kind or another to help lawmakers address the growing deficits facing the country for decades to come in his State of the Union address on Wednesday evening.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/25/news/economy/fiscal_commission/index.htm

[George Gervin's Afro]

CG: This really, really needs to pass..............

**************

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate on Tuesday is likely to vote on a proposal that would create a bipartisan commission charged with reining in the country's debt.

The goal: Create a framework for forcing Congress to make some tough choices -- specifically tax increases and spending cuts.

In a surprise move Saturday, President Obama issued his support for the fiscal commission proposal, which was introduced as an amendment to legislation that would raise the country's legal debt limit by $1.9 trillion.

While the amendment now has 34 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, Obama's 11th hour support may not be enough to ensure the amendment's passage. Some top Democrats have been adamantly opposed to it, as have a large number of Republicans.

It's been a controversial proposal because the 18-member commission would have the force of law, meaning that Congress would be obligated to consider the commission's recommendations and vote for or against them -- no amendments, no filibusters. And they'd have to do so before 2010 is done.

It's not clear when the Senate will vote on the debt limit increase itself. Republicans are likely to vote against it; some Democratic votes are in question too. They don't want to vote for a debt-ceiling increase unless there is a clear signal that there will be a plan to address long-term shortfalls in the federal budget.

Those shortfalls are due in large measure to unsustainable growth in entitlement programs such as Medicare, as well as in interest due on the nation's debt.

The fiscal commission amendment was initially co-sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-ND, and Sen. Judd Gregg, R-NH, the committee's top-ranking Republican.

Should it fail, it's possible its supporters will reconsider a fiscal commission that Obama has been considering establishing by executive order.

But it's a weak substitute, because such a commission would not have the force of law -- lawmakers would have no obligation to even read the commission's recommendations let alone vote on them. Some Republicans have already signaled they would consider such a commission toothless and partisan.

Nevertheless, Obama is likely to mention his commitment to have a commission of one kind or another to help lawmakers address the growing deficits facing the country for decades to come in his State of the Union address on Wednesday evening.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/25/news/economy/fiscal_commission/index.htm

I am for anything that both sides of the aisle are against.

[doobs]

I am for anything that both sides of the aisle are against.

Are you for 9/11?

jk

[boutons_deux]

silly dog and pony show.

Spend any energy, even more debt, getting the economy moving, which will get taxes at all levels flowing in at all levels of govt to pay down debt.

the Repugs on the commission will say, as sure as they are destructive, nihilist govt-hating obstructionists, that SocSec and Medicare/Medicaid must be cut dramatically (but don't you dare touch the continuous wars nor the flagrantly fraudulently defense budget/MIC welfare).

[EVAY]

I'm in favor of this. Probably won't happen. But it would be good if it would.

[TeyshaBlue]

i'm in favor of this. Probably won't happen. But it would be good if it would.

+1

[boutons_deux]

"tough choices -- specifically tax increases and spending cuts."

The Repugs will block ANY tax increase, except increasing SocSec (like St Ronnie did) while cutting taxes for the the wealthy.

[Marcus Bryant]

Reminiscent of the Base Closure Commission. Congress sets up a commission to punt on the hard choices which members of Congress claim that they know how to make during their campaigns.

[mogrovejo]

+1

+2

[spursncowboys]

My pessimistic side is telling me not to jump up and down in joy. They will find a way to state that debt is good.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course politicians are in favor of debt. More spending without increasing taxes. They may not be caught saying it, but the current national debt and budget deficit are testaments to their predilection.

[SouthernFried]

What are we...12 TRILLION in debt?

Little late to be talking about curtailing spending. This is now multi-generational debt.

"But, we can start, and stop it from growing even more."

They can't even cut funding to miniscule expenditures like NPR. Hell, I'm not sure if govt. expenditures have ever actually went down in my lifetime.

"yeah, that's right...and that's why we need somebody to stop us."

...and so it goes.

[spursncowboys]

$12,302,465,487,917.34 as of 4:00 pm

[boutons_deux]

"cut funding to miniscule expenditures like NPR"

the Pentagon wastes more in one month (and they don't even account for it) that NPR costs all year.

[Nbadan]

Where were all these Faux-Conservatives while Dubya ran the debt up from $5 trillion to over $10 trillion is what I want to know? It's crazy to think paying off debt during a recession will pull the country out of a recession....just not gonna happen...

....Dubya should have payed off some of the debt during his run, but he didn't, and the GOP cheered on years of economic growth backed by govt. jobs and even greater debt...now we are in a recession and these same money concious conservatives want a Democratic administration to pay off debt - dumbasses...

[spursncowboys]

Where were all these Faux-Conservatives while Dubya ran the debt up from $5 trillion to over $10 trillion is what I want to know? It's crazy to think paying off debt during a recession will pull the country out of a recession....just not gonna happen...

....Dubya should have payed off some of the debt during his run, but he didn't, and the GOP cheered on years of economic growth backed by govt. jobs and even greater debt...now we are in a recession and these same money concious conservatives want a Democratic administration to pay off debt - dumbasses...

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

[spursncowboys]

I think a big group of the tea partiers were upset at the spending, regardless of who was president.

[Nbadan]

Pfff.....(projected).....now lets look at history..

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

[Nbadan]

I think a big group of the tea partiers were upset at the spending, regardless of who was president.

You had 8 years to make a difference, and you blew them...

[coyotes_geek]

Pfff.....(projected).....

:lol

Obama is the one making those projections you moron.

[coyotes_geek]

You had 8 years to make a difference, and you blew them...

So that's an excuse for Obama to give us the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history?

[Nbadan]

:lol

Obama is the one making those projections you moron.

So Obama is an economists now?

[Nbadan]

So that's an excuse for Obama to give us the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history?

That was the Bush Administration.....the Obama administration is strapped with high debt and high unemployment because the Bush administration squandered trillions of dollars on a needless war and the Bush tax cuts did little to generate private job growth...

[coyotes_geek]

So Obama is an economists now?

He's the guy in the white house, so if a set of economic projections come out under the title "white house estimate" then he's responsible for it.

[coyotes_geek]

That was the Bush Administration.....the Obama administration is strapped with high debt and high unemployment because the Bush administration squandered trillions of dollars on a needless war and the Bush tax cuts did little to generate private job growth...

Fail. Obama racked up more debt in his first year than Bush did in his first term. In four years he'll rack up more debt than Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush did in 28. This is not a debatable issue.

[spursncowboys]

the war in Iraq has cost 698 billion dollars, the obama stimulis package approved 787 billion dollars

[Nbadan]

Fail. Obama racked up more debt in his first year than Bush did in his first term. In four years he'll rack up more debt than Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush did in 28. This is not a debatable issue.

Fail. The Obama administration inherited the Bush recession and big debt projections while the Bush administration inherited a mild-recession and low to no debt projections...

[EVAY]

the war in Iraq has cost 698 billion dollars, the obama stimulis package approved 787 billion dollars

Wasn't the war in Iraq supposed to be entirely paid for by oil revenues generated by Iran itself?

[Nbadan]

the war in Iraq has cost 698 billion dollars, the obama stimulis package approved 787 billion dollars

Your talking about only the costs so far, the war ain't over yet and all those disabled vets will have to be taken care of the rest of their lives...not to talk about the shattered families they left behind..

[coyotes_geek]

Fail. The Obama administration inherited the Bush recession and big debt projections while the Bush administration inherited a mild-recession and low to no debt projections...

Obama did not inherit a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit.

[EVAY]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Looking at the numbers for 2000 and 2001 and the years from 2002 through 2006, it's pretty hard to deny that the combination of a Republican White House and Republican Congressional control took budget surpluses and turned them into budget deficits on a consistent basis, isn't it?

[Nbadan]

Yep, this debt would have happened if McCain was in the WH too....probably worse because he would have been more likely to try more tax cuts for the rich and Oligarchies...

[coyotes_geek]

Looking at the numbers for 2000 and 2001 and the years from 2002 through 2006, it's pretty hard to deny that the combination of a Republican White House and Republican Congressional control took budget surpluses and turned them into budget deficits on a consistent basis, isn't it?

No doubt. Republicans did not walk their talk. That's a large part of the reason why they got kicked out in the manner they did. W's "compassionate conservatism" was in reality nothing more than "pro-life, pro-war liberal spending" and for the most part, republicans didn't have a problem with it. The only reason that anyone out there is giving them even an ounce of credibility now is that Obama's making W look like the fiscal conservative that he wasn't.

All that being said, I am glad to see that Obama has gotten behind this debt commission and I hope that means he is serious about getting this problem under control. If he delivers, I will give him credit for it. Just like the credit I give Bill Clinton for his handling of the budget.

[Nbadan]

Well, at least your being kinda honest, but do you really want to institute Hoover-like policies while we continue to try and work ourselves out of a recession?

[mogrovejo]

Well, at least your being kinda honest, but do you really want to institute Hoover-like policies while we continue to try and work ourselves out of a recession?

Don't know about him, but Obama does (meaning you do too):
Unimaginable stupidity (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830209/-Unimaginable-stupidity)


So the Obama Administration is preparing to announce a freeze (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830197/-Obama-Embraces-Hooverism) on Federal discretionary spending through 2013.
And they are proposing it in the middle of a the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Apparently, it's a political decision made in response to a single election. Great. A single U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts is now dictating fiscal policy for the next three years.
It might at least make some sense if it were a smart political decision. But there's nothing to suggest that it's anything but unalloyed idiocy.


Obama Embraces Hooverism (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830197/-Obama-Embraces-Hooverism)


There are no words to describe how disastrous this news is (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/obama-administration-proposing-freeze-non-military-spending.php) from TPM:
President Obama will propose freezing non-security discretionary government spending for the next three years, a sweeping plan to attempt deficit reduction that will save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years.

When the administration releases its budget next week, the discretionary spending for government agencies from Health and Human Services to the Department of Treasury will be frozen at its 2010 level in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
A senior administration official detailed the move, speaking on a condition of anonymity because Obama will announce his decision during his State of the Union address Wednesday night....
Exempted from the freeze would be Pentagon funding, and the budgets for Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.
This is a massive mistake. No matter what you think of Obama's performance on the health care bill, or any other issue in 2009, if he sticks to his guns on this, the recession will get much worse, and Democrats will likely lose both Congress and the White House in 2012.
Why do I say this? Because there is no fucking way that this country will experience economic recovery without greater federal spending. Instead of the sensible PAYGO rules that Pelosi brought into force in 2007, which produce responsible spending by identifying new revenues, Obama is panicking and giving into the Larry Summers/Robert Rubin neoliberal argument that somehow, a lack of government spending will produce economic growth. Instead of embracing Keynes, he is embracing Hoover.

[mogrovejo]

Of course, with the baseline already on record levels, a freeze is actually bad news from a deficit perspective - especially considering how limited it is. And probably Obama won't keep up his word anyway.

I just want to note that Obama has gone beyond his customary flip-floping on campaign promises: he's openly embracing a McCain proposal that he bashed in the campaign.

This man is a pathological liar.

[mogrovejo]

Oh, and for the record, Hoover was doing okay till he decided to start spending like a drunken sailor. Are you familiar with FDR's platform when he campaigned vs. Hoover, Nbadan?

[Nbadan]

Don't know about him, but Obama does (meaning you do too):
Unimaginable stupidity (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830209/-Unimaginable-stupidity)


So the Obama Administration is preparing to announce a freeze (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830197/-Obama-Embraces-Hooverism) on Federal discretionary spending through 2013.
And they are proposing it in the middle of a the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Apparently, it's a political decision made in response to a single election. Great. A single U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts is now dictating fiscal policy for the next three years.
It might at least make some sense if it were a smart political decision. But there's nothing to suggest that it's anything but unalloyed idiocy.


Obama Embraces Hooverism (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/25/830197/-Obama-Embraces-Hooverism)


There are no words to describe how disastrous this news is (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/obama-administration-proposing-freeze-non-military-spending.php) from TPM:
President Obama will propose freezing non-security discretionary government spending for the next three years, a sweeping plan to attempt deficit reduction that will save taxpayers $250 billion over 10 years.

When the administration releases its budget next week, the discretionary spending for government agencies from Health and Human Services to the Department of Treasury will be frozen at its 2010 level in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
A senior administration official detailed the move, speaking on a condition of anonymity because Obama will announce his decision during his State of the Union address Wednesday night....
Exempted from the freeze would be Pentagon funding, and the budgets for Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security.
This is a massive mistake. No matter what you think of Obama's performance on the health care bill, or any other issue in 2009, if he sticks to his guns on this, the recession will get much worse, and Democrats will likely lose both Congress and the White House in 2012.
Why do I say this? Because there is no fucking way that this country will experience economic recovery without greater federal spending. Instead of the sensible PAYGO rules that Pelosi brought into force in 2007, which produce responsible spending by identifying new revenues, Obama is panicking and giving into the Larry Summers/Robert Rubin neoliberal argument that somehow, a lack of government spending will produce economic growth. Instead of embracing Keynes, he is embracing Hoover.

Daily KOS? Really? Obama may decrease descretionary spending, but that money will go into other programs, such as one that is being proposed to increase the child tax credit...that money has to be made up somewhere

[Thompson]

In a surprise move Saturday, President Obama issued his support for the fiscal commission proposal, which was introduced as an amendment to legislation that would raise the country's legal debt limit by $1.9 trillion.


Amendment is good, actual bill... not so much. The amendment is only there to make the bill more palatable, and the 'commission' probably won't turn out to be anything near what we're hoping. Without further clarification, no, the bill shouldn't pass.

[boutons_deux]

"698 billion dollars"

way too low. At least $1T committed now (the Pentagan doesn't do accounting), and another $1T over the next 5 decades in care for vets (if the US cares for them). All of the Iraq $$ have been wasted, burned up, with no return and 4000+ wasted dead military, with more to come.

"the obama stimulis package approved 787 billion dollars"

much of the TARP funds will be paid back, with interest at a profit.

While Magic Negro wouldn't have invade Iraq, the Repugs started TARP, would have continued it, and probably would have done their own stimulus.

[coyotes_geek]

CG: Well, it was fun while it lasted............

************

Senate likely to reject idea of deficit task force

WASHINGTON – The Senate is likely to reject a White House-backed plan to establish a bipartisan task force to recommend steps to curb the deficit, even as lawmakers digest the news that President Barack Obama wants a three-year freeze in the domestic budgets they control.

Fresh numbers arriving Tuesday morning from the Congressional Budget Office are expected to bring continued bad news on the deficit, keeping the pressure on Obama and congressional Democrats to demonstrate they're serious about taking on the flood of red ink.

The spending freeze, expected to be proposed by Obama during the State of the Union address on Wednesday, would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, others would have to face cuts; such programs got an almost 10 percent increase this year. The federal budget total was $3.5 trillion.

The freeze on so-called discretionary programs would have only a modest impact on a deficit expected to match last year's $1.4 trillion. The steps needed to really tackle the deficit include tax increases and curbs on benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

That's the idea driving the Obama-backed plan to create a special task force to come up with a plan to curb the spiraling budget deficit. But the Senate sponsors of the plan say it's attracted too much opposition from the right and left to prevail.

Republicans say the panel — it would try to develop a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections for a vote before the new Congress convenes — would lead to big tax hikes. Democratic opponents say they don't want to vote on proposals to cut benefit programs like Social Security without being able to shape the plan.

Obama's three-year spending freeze will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal unpublished details.

It's likely to confront opposition on Capitol Hill, where a handful of powerful lawmakers write 12 annual appropriations bills. They've gotten used to hefty increases but now are being asked to tighten their belts. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., declined to comment, his spokesman said.

The Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and the Homeland Security Department would be exempt from the freeze.

The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings would add up to $250 billion.

The White House is under considerable pressure to cut deficits — the red ink hit a record $1.4 trillion this year — or at least keep them from growing. Encouraged by last week's Massachusetts Senate victory, Republicans are hitting hard on the issue, and polls show voters increasingly concerned.

Sen. John McCain, who lost to Obama in last year's presidential election, said he supports any attempt to cut discretionary domestic spending. "We need to do so," he said Tuesday.

But in an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America," the Arizona Republican said Obama "has got to veto bills that are laden with pork-barrel spending, earmarks."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_budget

[coyotes_geek]

Amendment is good, actual bill... not so much. The amendment is only there to make the bill more palatable, and the 'commission' probably won't turn out to be anything near what we're hoping. Without further clarification, no, the bill shouldn't pass.

As it turns out, the amendment wasn't even that palatable. You can bet that the bill will pass though. There should be a good fight about it though. Republicans would love to get that $1.9T raise in the limit chopped down so as to hopefully force Obama & Co into needing to ask for another one right around election time. Democrats of course want no part of that.

[Drachen]

Fail. Obama racked up more debt in his first year than Bush did in his first term. In four years he'll rack up more debt than Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush did in 28. This is not a debatable issue.

Double fail. Of the ~1.8 trillion dollar deficit, the CBO estimates that ~1.2 trillion are due to Bush-era policies and the remainder are Obama policies. Additionally, you are using Bush's first term as a measuring stick which is unfair considering when he came in there was no deficit spending. What was the net effect of his first term on the national debt?


On Topic: I would LOVE this commission to be created, and to have to reconvene with the rule of law intact every 4 years or so. NO amendments? What a glorious day that would be.

[coyotes_geek]

Double fail. Of the ~1.8 trillion dollar deficit, the CBO estimates that ~1.2 trillion are due to Bush-era policies and the remainder are Obama policies. Additionally, you are using Bush's first term as a measuring stick which is unfair considering when he came in there was no deficit spending. What was the net effect of his first term on the national debt?

Okay, I'll rephrase. Obama racked up more debt in his first year than Bush did in his second term. We can split hairs all you want but at the end of the day the result is the same. This is still the most fiscally irresponsible administration ever.

[Drachen]

Okay, I'll rephrase. Obama racked up more debt in his first year than Bush did in his second term. We can split hairs all you want but at the end of the day the result is the same. This is still the most fiscally irresponsible administration ever.

I won't disagree with you based on the projected budget deficits going from this year and beyond, though before I agree with you I would like to see a similar graph for deficit spending as a % of GDP in past recessions.

Also, I would like to see similar graphs of deficit spending as a % of GDP for boom times to compare to Bush's spending. I don't think that you can look at just spending, but also you must line them up with "environmental factors" such as why aren't we paying down debt when we have the ability to.

[TeyshaBlue]

"cut funding to miniscule expenditures like NPR"

the Pentagon wastes more in one month (and they don't even account for it) that NPR costs all year.

A month? I think you're being generous. More like a fuckin' week.

[coyotes_geek]

I won't disagree with you based on the projected budget deficits going from this year and beyond, though before I agree with you I would like to see a similar graph for deficit spending as a % of GDP in past recessions.

Also, I would like to see similar graphs of deficit spending as a % of GDP for boom times to compare to Bush's spending. I don't think that you can look at just spending, but also you must line them up with "environmental factors" such as why aren't we paying down debt when we have the ability to.

Looks like all that information can be found here. And I agree with you that while the economy was booming between 2003-2007 Bush and the republicans should have been far more budget conscious than they were. I didn't like the deficits Bush was running up which means I really don't like the ones Obama is running up, seeing as how Obama's 2009 & 2010 numbers are still 2 to 3 times worse than anything Bush ever put up. This whole thing really makes me miss Bill Clinton..........

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed_H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%2 0GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

[Drachen]

Looks like all that information can be found here. And I agree with you that while the economy was booming between 2003-2007 Bush and the republicans should have been far more budget conscious than they were. I didn't like the deficits Bush was running up which means I really don't like the ones Obama is running up, seeing as how Obama's 2009 & 2010 numbers are still 2 to 3 times worse than anything Bush ever put up.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed_H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%2 0GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s

Cool, I will take a look later on today, but I do have to say that the Obama numbers might be 2-3 times more than Bush's, but may not be worse. If you lose your job, you are far more likely to have deficit spending, now matter what you do. It is when you have deficit spending right after you got a promotion and are making a ton of money that is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

I will say that once I have a look, it won't matter anyway, because it will just be my opinion of who is more fiscally irresponsible. I have to answer the question "To me, is it more fiscally irresponsible to have 400-500 billion in deficit spending when you are flush with cash, or to have 1-1.3 billion when you aren't." To me it is a closer race than it obviously is to you.


Oh, and I miss Bill Clinton too. I would elect him to a 3rd term given the chance, but I think you miss him as a lesser of two evils whereas I genuinely miss him as a president. I just took a quick look at the link you gave me (I thought it would be more info). I am a little confused because it looks like deficit spending peaked in 07-08 timefram and has started a downward slope into the Obama years. I am not naive enough to think this slope will be permanent and may reverse this year. It surprises me, however.