I think we've got an old-fashioned disagreement here at CG&G.  Unlike Stan, I fully expect the federal government to abide by a balanced budget standard, and I reserve the right to be disappointed, cranky, and vocal about it when it doesn't.  By a balanced budget standard, I mean:

1) For the General Fund (i.e., excluding Social Security and Medicare Part A), a target of balancing the budget over a complete business cycle.  Alternatively, I would accept a weaker standard of no upward trend in the ratio of (total) debt to GDP. 

This allows for countercyclical budget policy.  It does not allow for so-called stimulus packages that are enacted with no intention of repaying the additional borrowing at the next turnaround in the business cycle.  It also does not allow for semi-annual budget forecasts that have on-budget deficits during periods of above-average growth.  With this standard in place, it doesn't run afoul of Stan's concern about whether a budget deficit is the short-term policy in 2013.

My "Fiscal Fitness" column from this week's Roll Call is about John McCain's promise to balance the budget by 2013.

Comments much appreciated.

The word "plan" is in quotes in the title above because what John McCain announced yesterday isn't really a plan that holds together to accomplish something; it's a laundry list the candidate will pull from whenever he needs a talking point. 

Want deficit reduction?  I've got it.  Just look at my plan.

Want an energy policy? Look at my plan.

Want taxes cut?  I've got it, check out my plan.

Among many others, Brad DeLong and Economistmom have more details and an analysis worth reading.  But the easiest way to determine what this was all about is to look at what the candidate actually said yesterday as opposed to teh 14-page written document. According to a reporter from a national publications who called me, McCain never mentioned the worrd "deficit"and didn't talk about deficit reduction.  As a result, this paper decided not to publish a story on it.  In the reporter's terms, his editors "took a pass."

I was wondering over the past few days, particularly with the recent media attention devoted to General Wesley Clark's appearance on Face the Nation and its several day aftermath in the news media, how long it should take people to make up their minds about how to cast their ballots in an election like this year's primaries or general election.  The relevance Clark's interview is that I think it is a good example of a political celebrity saying something that is not well considered (to put it charitably), easy to sensationalize in an excerpt, and of almost no consequence in helping voters decide which candidate to support.

You're playing golf.  You're on the 4th hole.  It's a par 4 and you do it in 3.  (I know this is hard to believe; just work with me.)

You got a birdie on that 4th hole so, according to golf vernacular, you're "minus 1" or 1 below par.  But you actually have 3 more strokes than you had at the end of the previous hole, so you're actually "plus 3."

So which is it, minus 1 or plus 3?

I was asked the equivalent of that question yesterday during a presentation I was making on the 2008 election.  But even though I was the last speaker before the morning session ended and everyone in the room was about to head out with a box lunch for the first tee, the question was about gasoline prices rather than golf.

The question was why were Americans so angry about the price of gasoline when we were paying so much less than most of the rest of the world.

Between now and the November elections, we will likely hear Senator McCain describe his preferences for Supreme Court nominees who will not "legislate from the bench."  I think the liberal wing of the court--including Justice Kennedy writing for the 5-4 majority--gave him a clear example of legislating from the bench in today's Kennedy v. Louisiana decision.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

Gene Steuerle holds forth on the very undemocratic impact of our generation's promises to ourselves on the tax burden of the next:

At its core, democracy is about equal rights to vote—and have your representatives vote—on the nation's current priorities. But many recent laws attempt to deny us—and, even more so, our children—the opportunity to determine those priorities.

The reason is simple, but its effects are profound. Never before in U.S. history have so many promises been made to so many people for so many years into the future. Every additional promise, no matter what its merit, only attempts to tie that fiscal straightjacket tighter around future voters.

If our tax laws merely stay the same from 2006 to 2010, for instance, government revenues would rise by several hundred billion dollars. But guess what? Most of those revenue increases are already committed, mainly to the growing costs of our current health and retirement programs.

When people ask me who I want to win the presidency on November 4th, I say, "I just want the government to function again."  On Capitol Hill, I worked for Republicans and Democrats.  I learned that government functioned best when Republican and Democrats worked together, traveled together, ate together, and compromised together.  The earned income tax credit I formulated and helped enact in 1975 was a Republican idea passed by Democrats.  Bill Clinton pushed welfare reform into existence, and George W. Bush expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs.  There's a pattern here.

The Washington Post had an interesting article yesterday by Lori Montgomery that asks the right question: given the real budget outlook, the AMT and expiring tax cut trains coming down the track, and the cost of what's being proposed, should anyone take what the presidential candidates are saying seriously?

CG&G's own Pete Davis has been on top of this issue for some time (see here, and here).  Our own Andrew Samwick has been writing about it even longer.  And I'll have a piece this Tuesday on what to expect budgetwise from whoever gets elected.

But in the meantime, the Post story is definitely worth a few minutes of your time.

I've been traveling much of the past two weeks for work. Nine cities, seven states, and close to 30 presentations about the election and the economy.

What I'm about to say is based purely on anecdotal information. It is not meant to be statistically significant or a good sample. And my audiences were anything but a good cross section of the general population.

But my conclusion is as straight forward as possible: Americans, or at least those I spoke to and with, are very very angry.

Their anger initially seemed to be directed at specific things. Understandably, gasoline prices always seemed to be the first thing mentioned, for example. In fact, the economy in general was a constant source of anger. No one I spoke with over the past few days seems to be looking at the current economic situation as positive. Costs are going up, jobs are going down, inflation is rising, housing is unsettled, investment opportunities are limited, etc.

People are really angry at George Bush.