It says more about me than I should probably admit, but back in 2000 I found the prospect of paying off the national debt to be very exciting.
To me, the pledge to do that, which Bill Clinton made towards the end of his presidency and George W. Bush made as his years in the White House were just beginning, was absolutely thrilling. Because of the lower annual interest payments that would result, no other change then being seriously talked about had the potential to alter the long-term federal budget outlook as positively and permanently.
That's why I found the mid-session review of the budget released yesterday to be so depressing. It was the official notice that the pledge, and all the good things that would come from it, would not be fullfilled. It was also time to admit that the budget politics, economics, and limits of the past decade would continue...and continue...and continue.
That's just not a happy occasion for anyone but those of us who blog, write, and talk about the budget. Business will be booming.
None of this was a surpise, of course. The prospects for paying down the national debt firmly ended back in the first year of the Bush administration. And the close to $490 billion deficit that OMB projected for 2009 has long been assumed or leaked.
Nevertheless, the release of the midsession review on July 28, 2008 should be noted as the official date when the dream of a very different budget debate and fiscal policy opportunities died.
I'll have more about the following shortly. But other observations:
The bad news absolutely is understated. The $482 billion projected fiscal 2009 deficit will actually be closer to $600 billion before the year is over.
The much-ballyhooed Bush administration pledge to cut the deficit in half was a gimmick. There clearly was no commitment to do it more than once (that is, if there really ever was a commitment to do it even once).
From a budget, deficit, debt, interest rate, and fiscal policy perspective, the Bush administration is leaving the country so much worse off than it found it that it will likely hamstring the next president and Congress in ways that aren't yet fully understood.
Based on what we now know for sure about next year's budget, none of the presidential candidates' promises should be taken seriously. Unless they, the country, and those lending us money are willing to tolerate much higher nominal deficits and a larger debt than has so far been imaginable, the next president's options will be severely limited.
More to come.
Midsession budget: Who said getting a loan was tough these days
Who says getting a loan is tough these days? I just got a $1,581 loan ($1,844 if you count the $80bn Iraq funding not in the $482 bn deficit), courtesy of the federal deficit. And so did my wife and son! The best part: we didn't have to fill out any paperwork to get it.
I can't wait until next year when I get to do it again.
Cutting the budget . . . where to start
The first thing they can do to help all the states is to roll back NCLB mandates.
That would save us a couple hundred million a year for starters (reduced testing, reporting, yada, yada), and we could put that to fixing some of these bridges. We've now got tons of concrete falling off of freeway overpasses (safety tip to Republicans coming here for the convention -- duck on underpasses, roll down windows going over bridges).
http://www.mn2020.org/
NCLB is a joke out here. They're already repealing it in 6 states (calling it a "pilot" program -- yeah, gotta love that).
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/isedu/12171...
This administration has pretty much screwed up everything, improved nothing, and at great cost to the taxpayers.
NCLB's focus on testing
NCLB's focus on testing (which some states were already doing) has had the salutory effect of telling us where we are, what our students know or don't know. There's no hiding from the widened racial achievement gap for example. Can't hope to level the playing field without knowing the dimension of the problem, and so the urgency in experimenting with possible solutions---extended-days, charters, vouchers, for-profit school management, merit pay. I can't imagine that the next few generations of parents will tolerate the old government school model.
Testing was useless
Here in Minnesota we were well aware of the racial/economic/non-English speaking achievement gap. Districts already had their own testing programs before NCLB came along and upset the apple cart.
There are so many problems with NCLB I don't know where to begin. If you are working inside the system you'll know what I'm talking about.
The solutions you mention don't do squat to solve the problems -- they are the same old, same old. Schools have been structured the same way for a couple hundred years. The only real innovations I've seen are online learning (for those who can't learn in a classroom environment or need self-paced learning), and college in the high schools (IB, AP, PSEO, etc.).
Every private and public high school in the nation operates on pretty much the same structure . . . so they are all the same, with some differences in coursework/curriculum offered.
Vouchers don't work. Look closely at the Milwaukee Wisconsin experiment with vouchers . . . a disaster.
Many charter schools have failed in Minnesota, due to poor management and inferior teaching standards. I worked at one, so I know what I'm talking about.
Post new comment