Why not go out on top?

lobster,
A few problems with your constitutional amendment. First, economists should be non-partisan number crunchers. Making them run for office, will change their conclusions. Second, no voter knows enough about the people or the science to rationally vote the best economists into office. Third, economists are reverse indicators of economic activity i.e. the majority are almost always wrong about the direction of the economy. Fourth, never be passed.

Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Well lobster presents some old Republican partisan slanders. Current National debt about $11.6 trillion (as of 7/22/09) National debt as of Ronald Reagen's election < $ 1 trillion. Debt accumulated by all Republican administrations from Reagan to now $9.4 trillion. All debt accumulated by all other Presidents in the nations's history $2.2 trillion. Now who grows government most.
After winning the 1994 election and taking over Congress Dick Armey, now the lobbyist for all right wing causes and leader of the Tea Party movement, said ,when asked why federal spending had shifted from the cities to the suburbs, "...to the winner goes the spoils". So much for Democrats increasing spending to buy votes.
As to borrowing from China. This began many years ago as the Republicans accumulated debt. Democrats have done very little until forced to by the huge $1.0+ trillion deficit left by George Bush.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Hello all, 

I fumbled the details of the credit renewal in today's piece. I was working from an earlier version of the compromise and didn't double-check closely enough when it was renewed. Here's what's right: 

 For 1st-time homebuyers (or those who haven't owned a home in 3 years), the credit remains at $8,000. Now, there is another, $6,500 credit for people who already own a home, who buy a home. 

Apologies for the error. Sometimes, I just can't keep up with Congress.

Anthony Ronzio
Editorial Page Editor
Sun Journal
tronzio@sunjournal.com

Note: In addition, many members of Congress seem seriously addicted to the "high" they get from pork-barrel squander. With what are essentially "earmark addicts" at the throttle of federal spending, it’s not surprising that the desire to use federal spending to buy votes is completely out of control. I favor a constitutional amendment that allows voters to elect a panel of economists that determine how much Congress can borrow, and when they have to pay down the national debt.

Since Democrats think party first, country second, then borrowing $billions from countries like China to buy votes makes sense to them. Also the more the Republicans challenge for some of their seats, the more the Democrats in Congress seem to add to borrow to buy votes. For example the House has passed a measure to send all seniors a check of $250, regardless of income, which isn't paid for and is basically a vote grab from Republicans.

The cash for clunker program was very successful. It increased the GDP growth rate from 1.9% to 3.5%. That was its primary goal. It replaced car/trucks with new ones with 10 miles/gal better gas mileage.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Its a serious mistake to think that because some part of the stimulus packaged worked for a few quarters that they can be abandoned. Roosevelt did that in 1937 and produced a serious recession 4 years after the many New Deal stimulus programs were begun. We do not know right now that the housing market is self-sustaining or that the economy in general can continue to grow. At its current rate of growth (3.5%) it will take more than a decade to reduce unemployment to anything near acceptable levels (see the Clinton years at 3.7% average growth over 8 years unemployment was reduced from over 8 to 4.3%. That's too long at 10+%). Jon Albrecht Dixfield