Hm, interesting. Can anyone with a New Mexico background chip in w/r/t how he treats real life budgets?

The problem with deficit spending is that the government keeps up the spending even when the economy is good. It also creates the rachet effects that new programs get started during boom times that require even more deficit spenging during the bad times.

Maybe one should point out where government has cut spending and raise taxes during the good times to pay off the debt incurred during a recession. I doubt that it has occurred since the 1950's (and no, the last two years of the Clinton Administration do not count).

Maybe if governments could not deficit spend, they would incur less long term obligations and would set aside funds in a rainy day fund to pay for increase spending during a recession.

Chile has an interesting feature in their constitution that requires balanced budgets in good economic times, but allows deficits during bad times all tied to a number of economic indicators. Of course, this isn't what Richardson is talking about, it's just an unenforceable pander to the economic right. His pro-growth triangulation, is just empty positioning, most likely aimed at increasing his donor base.

Maintaining a relatively small national debt incurred either in funding capital projects or to stimulate the economy is a sound idea. Large scale infrastructure projects and some defense expenditures can be legitimately expensed over time as a sound business practice. Government bonds to fund the debt are actually an extremely important part of the financial world and provide stability and liquidity for classes of investors such as pension funds and older people who need secure investment vehicles. In a nutshell, a national debt, much like a mortgage on a house, can be a positive thing. Reflexive embrace of a balanced budget amendment speaks poorly of any candidate's economic spohistication.

I just don't see a large constituency crying out for balanced budgets. Certainly not the business community, which would hate to see aggregate demand reduced, and only cares about deficits when inflation starts to be a problem. Of course Washington establishment types like David Broder are inordinately fond of the idea, and it's more likely that that's who Richardson is trying to get an in with, rather than any real world constituency.

What's the deal with the guy? The Byron White thing, and now this. It's as if he occasionally gets confused about which party's nomination he's running for.

Maybe he's just one more dick. Remember the groping and harassment allegations?

Basic bookkeeping -- you can "balance" a budget and still borrow gobs of money. Of course, net worth would plummet but that doesn't change the balance.

I wish someone would start pointing out that letting politicians use the term "for a balanced budget" as a synonym for being fiscally responsible gives the unscrupulous ones an easy way to con voters.

I often ask why certain, self-proclaimed politicians or pundits -- in this case Richardson, obviously -- don't become Republicans.

It is often taken as a cheap insult. But it isn't. If Richardson was in the GOP, the GOP would gain a sane moderate and the Democrats would lose a right-wing talking-point regurgitating, self-loathing Democrat. Win-Win, I say!

Yeah, Richardson is for balanced budgets and no government action on the economy because that worked so well for Herbert Hoover in 1929-32. Yep, just let the wizards of wall street run the economy - hedge funds, subprime debt, Enron and all.

Hoover liked fishing and did a lot of that while the economy nosedived. Richardson would be playing the ladies perhaps, instead of fishing. Same result.

it's just an unenforceable pander to the economic right. His pro-growth triangulation, is just empty positioning, most likely aimed at increasing his donor base.

Yep, that's right. This is a freebie position to take, because he knows perfectly well that it will never happen. I doubt he even genuinely believes it.

Oh, and for superdestroyer at 7:10 -- why doesn't Clinton count? Seems like a textbook example to me -- maybe the only one -- of using the good times to pay off the debt from the bad times (and/or bad policies of previous administrations).

Richardson may be a damned fine person and he may have a several really good ideas about how to solve our country's problems, how to make it a better place for a most of us to live.

But he has been in politics for a very long time and he has not developed a following in any constituency. I infer that is so because he doesn't know how do build a following. Similarly, he has not worked on any particular issue enough to be known as an authority on it. He hasn't made any issue his own. I infer that is so because there is no issue that inflames his political soul or attracts his political brain.

I expect a presidential candidate to have at least one of those: the ability to lead or passion for an issue that matters.

"Oh, and for superdestroyer at 7:10 -- why doesn't Clinton count? Seems like a textbook example to me -- maybe the only one -- of using the good times to pay off the debt from the bad times (and/or bad policies of previous administrations)."

I had exactly the same question for the same reasons. I guess it's the mirror image of It's OK If You're a Republican -- It Doesn't Count If You're a Democrat.

Richardson's economic record in New Mexico is pretty good. The real estate boom helped, but he also seemed to manage the economy well.

Here's the problem with state governors, though -- though state economies are often compared to national ones, states are more limited when it comes to being able to raise deficits to get through hard times. So state governors just have no experience with the valid techniques that Ezra Klein is talking about.

I would cut Richardson some slack on this. I'm glad he's saying it even if his remedy is a little crude. Today's politicians, Right or Left, are far more likely to institute massive deficits regardless of economic conditions or ultimate consequences than restrain spending in the face of an economy needing stimulation. Another Reagan legacy.

One of the inherent problems with "citizen media" is that it is not bound to some of the strict standards of fact checking in major newsrooms. So a quote is taken, totally out of context, and a four or five paragraph "story" is created, followed by a score of comments all feeding from the same trough of bullshit.

Had you checked your facts, done your research, you would have found that Bill Richardson is proposing EXACTLY the type of Balanced Budget Amendment that AJ praises. As in Chile, Richardson's view of a Balanced Budget Amendment would provide for exceptions in times of both economic and military crisis.

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's what I have to do in my own home, and in my own business. Your outgo cannot exceed your income, unless there is an emergency. Why is that bad?

Oh, no, I got a better idea! Let's continue to allow the Repukes to successfully label the Democratic nominee as a "tax and spend liberal" (one phrase spoken as one word). Let's not be able to rebut that phrase. Let's guarantee that a Republican gets in the White House for four more years. Let's guarantee another round of SC justices like Roberts and Alito.

Folks, you need to find a candidate that is electable. It's not the most polarizing woman in politics; it's not the charismatic senator with no stand on the issues (who calls himself an environmentalist while supporting subsidies for the coal industry); it's not the Senator preaching a new war on poverty when he couldn't even deliver his own state to the Kerry win column; and it's not even a pedantic former Vice-President who's not going to run anyway.

Look at a candidate, who has won re-election in a decidely purple state by almost 70% of the vote, with 40% of the Republicans voting for him. As for Senescent's troll on New Mexico, how is New Mexico different from Arkansas?

Personally, I like a Democrat who talks about fiscal restraint.

Bush has put us in an effed up position by prosecuting a war without raising taxes. Josh Marshall has theorized that BUsh is actively trying to put the U.S. deeper into debt as a tool to bring down Social Security. If he bankrupts us enough, eventually Social Security will be unsaveable. That's the idea, anyway.

Of course Bush has also encouraged a "me-first, no sacrifice" philosophy throughout his presidency. We're at war, but, except for the troops and their families, there's been ZERO sacrifice. That attitude has permeated to the point where the idea of raising taxes has become a third rail politically.

You say tax receipts go down during a recession, Ezra, and that's true. But if we were to raise taxes on the upper brackets, raise taxes on capital gains, and roll back the estate tax cuts, I think you'd be shocked how much fiscal ground we could cover.

When you talk about all the government services we desperately need during a recession, would you include the 1 trillion dollars a year we spend on our military, homeland security, and the Iraq War? Do you think we could cut back on that a little bit?

We desperately need an adult in the White House. A person who can reintroduce the idea of shared sacrifice, and of leaving this country better than we found it for our children. A person who can lead -- not in words, but in actions, and not just on flag waving and boot stomping but on boring things like the budget.

Such a thing will involve raising taxes, no?

Richardson's talking points have always reminded me of Schwarzenegger. The standard ridiculous fiscal conservative and social moderate lines spewed all over the place. How has he raised so much money? Is it from the Club for Growth types?

California Dave, you're blaming the victim by calling Hillary Clinton the most polarizing woman in politics. The Democratic Party should take the lead on evolving beyond sexism. See Steve Clemons' site, The Washington Note, for a thoughtful take on the good and possibly very bad sides of Richardson.

how has Richardson's nature as somewhat of a sexual predator stayed out of the headlines this long? jeez will this clown just goooo away?

Richardson's view of a Balanced Budget Amendment would provide for exceptions in times of both economic and military crisis. -- California Dave

Dave, do you have any citation to support that statement? I'm assuming you must, given your love of fact checking. Here's why I ask: In the Salon interview, Richardson never mentions these aspects. I would have thought he might have if he believed an amendment with these important exceptions you talk about.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

I sort of see a contradiction in your domestic policy. You talk about your support for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. This would have been approved during the era of the Gingrich Congress if Bill Clinton had not been opposed to it. If it went through in a Richardson administration with you supporting it, wouldn't that rule out the funds for any expansion of healthcare or education or other major domestic initiatives?

If you recall, the Clinton deficit-reduction plan, which passed by one vote [in 1993], caused the resurgence in the economy. We grew 20 million more jobs, a [budget] surplus. When we pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, first of all I would never pass it if a recession or a war was going on. But you stage it, [over] several years. You commit yourself to certain steps.

No, I believe it would immediately send a signal to grow the economy, make more budget funds available. And I still believe that you could reshift priorities and spend more on healthcare and education. I think you could do it.

I was able to do it. I cut taxes in New Mexico. I increased spending for healthcare and education and had a surplus because the economy grew. I am a believer in growing the economy and being a pro-growth Democrat. I'm not somebody for whom every solution is a tax increase or more spending.

But isn't there a difference between talking about a balanced budget, which Bill Clinton achieved, and putting into play a constitutional mechanism that the Republicans could use against any new spending programs?

No, I think you also have to take other steps that involve tough medicine like a line-item veto. Clinton tried to do it and he almost got it done. Pay-as-you-go policies. Corporate welfare. I'd have a national commission like the base-closure commission that would list all the $73 billion in fat in corporate welfare in one vote and not allow it to be picked up. It would be tough to get rid of earmarks, you know that. But we've got to significantly reduce them or make them open.

none of what the pro-Richardson posters are advocating requires a balanced budget amendment! and there's no need for one. there's just a need to have a competent adult human being in the White House, competent adult human beings in Congress & the the Justice Dept., and competent adult human beings running the media. can we have some kind of amendment to ensure those things instead?

this isn't Richardson showing "fiscal restraint" or "economic responsibility" (as the measure he calls for is potentially disastrously irresponsible), he's just using Republican talking points to take shots, and undeserved ones, at his fellow Democrats. big no-no. if that's all you can come up with, you are unable to make a case for yourself, Mr. Richardson.

and oh, CA Dave - I had a look at Richardson's campaign website, his 'issues' section makes no mention of a balanced budget amendment, much less giving any kind of nuanced take on one like you suggest we should all just magically know Richardson has. what is your source for this? searches of 'ontheissues', the NM.gov website also turned up nothing other than quotes of him saying "yes" when asked if he supports a balanced budget amendment. i seriously doubt the guy has thought much about it beyond "hmm, that will sound good in front of cameras".

Oh, no, I got a better idea! Let's continue to allow the Repukes to successfully label the Democratic nominee as a "tax and spend liberal" (one phrase spoken as one word).

When's the last time that old warhorse got trotted out, '92? As I recall it did not work then, precisely because the GOP was in a poor position to criticize anyone's fiscal policies.

Richardson is the candidate weakest on core Democratic principles at the exact moment when core Republican principles are most suspect. You'd have to drop all the way to Kucinich or Gravel to find a worse standard-bearer for '08.

talking about an amendment for balance budgets isn't talking about fiscal responsibility- it's a gimmick. much like flag burning.

Oh, no, I got a better idea! Let's continue to allow the Repukes to successfully label the Democratic nominee as a "tax and spend liberal" (one phrase spoken as one word). Let's not be able to rebut that phrase. Let's guarantee that a Republican gets in the White House for four more years. Let's guarantee another round of SC justices like Roberts and Alito.

Folks, you need to find a candidate that is electable.

You assume that Republican name-calling bears any relationship to what Democrats actually do or advocate.

Republicans called Bill Clinton a "tax and spend liberal" despite the fact that he balanced the budget and then some. Having the facts on our side makes no difference to them.

So your talk of "finding a candidate that's electable" is code speak for "finding a candidate who cowers before Republicans".

I prefer a candidate who will stand up for Democratic principles and make a strong defense of them, rather than capitulating to Republican arguments.

This period of post-Bush Jr. reconstruction of this nation will be difficult and trying; maybe somewhat less so than rebuilding after the US finally defeated the Southern racist insurgency, or after the Great Republican Depression, but certainly a time which should be seen as a time to rescue the nation from utter failure.

If such reconstruction of this nation as a free, well-governed, energy-independenct, economically more just, and ecologically at least sane if not smart can take place under a balanced budget, fine.

If it takes some deficit spending to prioritize the re-establishment of this nation as a real country with a potential for actual development, rather than a former power degrading rapidly into a Latin-American-style banana republic, then so be it.

a rainy-day fund is a good idea but does anyone seriously think that it wouldn't be raided by politicians?

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's what I have to do in my own home, and in my own business. Your outgo cannot exceed your income, unless there is an emergency. Why is that bad?

So you can't have a credit card or mortgage? You paid for your car in cash?

This guy isn't a "conservative Democrat," he's a Republican (albeit one who believes in fiscal responsibility). The Dems need to totally and completely repudiate this nonsense, and tell him to follow Lieberman into the other party, where they both belong. Fortunately, he's going nowhere in the polls.

The first thing Bill R did when he got elected was cut taxes--for us, making over 100k. Remind you of anyone?

I hate bill Richardson and if he is a VP selection I'll be pissed. But the very root of his point is valid, though not the things that come out of his mouth.

Democrats should run on cutting taxes in 2008. It's an easy political victory and thanks to the Bush adminstration there is a lot of fat to be trimmed off the government. We could shift the tax burden off the middle class and back on to those top 1%. It would be easy both legislatively and politically to repeal the estate tax and the top tier of the bush tax cuts, the Paris Hilton tax cut, and shift those tax cuts to small businesses and to the middle class.

Furthermore imagine framing the issue such the savings we get from pulling out of Iraq being used towards helping fund the tax cuts and helping pay for a universal health care system, which in a sense is another tax break for many businesses.

So while Richardson is an idiot and so is the balance budget amendment, the idea of progressive tax cuts are a great idea.

An interesting thought...has any government ever examined targeted tax cuts. Meaning an available tax cut/exemption etc for the expressed purpose of creating a jobs.

I know it would be complicated but this is taxes.Everything is complicated.

Democrats should run on cutting taxes in 2008. It's an easy political victory and thanks to the Bush adminstration there is a lot of fat to be trimmed off the government. We could shift the tax burden off the middle class and back on to those top 1%.

A few points in response:

1. There is indeed a lot of "fat" that could be trimmed from the budget, but most of it is in the military budget, which as far as I'm aware (though glad to be wrong) no candidate is talking about cutting.

2. The scenario you've laid out wouldn't really be a tax cut, would it? I agree that taxes should be raised on the very wealthy, after which we could perhaps investigate cutting them on the middle class, but that would just be shifting taxes upwards. Cutting them for some, raising them for others. Which is fine, but there's no way the media would even refer to it as a "tax cut."

My troll? On New Mexico? Jeez, cynical much?

Democrats should run on cutting taxes in 2008. It's an easy political victory and thanks to the Bush adminstration there is a lot of fat to be trimmed off the government. We could shift the tax burden off the middle class and back on to those top 1%.

I seem to remember Kerry running on a middle-class tax cut. It doesn't matter. The Republicans will still plant a tax-n-spend label on the nominee EVEN IF IT'S RICHARDSON. And it still won't matter because Americans value Democrats by and large on domestic issues.

The thing I don't understand about Richardson's aversion to taxes is that I think it's ancient history. Americans more and more have no problem with a tax increase in exchange for decent services. I even told Richardson this at a blogger meeting, cited statistics and everything. His response was "I think that thinking gets us in a lot of trouble." With who? Most Americans are in favor of it! The only trouble it gets you in is with economic royalists who won't vote for anyone with a D in front of their name anyway.

If the prospective CEO of, for instance, General Electric, promised to make the company great by having it neither a borrower nor a lender be, the board would be quite correct to say, "what a kook!"

If a prospective marriage partner said, "We'll never take out any loans, no matter what happens," then the other prospective spouse would be quite correct to say, "what a kook!" (unless they're so rich that they'd get no significant benefit from a mortgage.)

Bush's budget mistake wasn't that he borrowed money, it's that borrowed in unwise ways, and then used borrowed money in unwise ways.

Richardson is probably too smart to believe the bunk he says, but if he believed it, then voters would be quite correct to say, "what a kook!"

I got three letters and two words for Billie-boy:

FDR and Great Depression.

'nuff said.

I don't hear really good stuff about the MedicAid program (Value Options) he brought back to the state; supposedly due to some hefty campaign support. I'm withholding judgment though, til I know more...

Graz Hopper,

I was thinking the same thing.

There is such a thing as good debt. Otherwise, I would have never been able to attend college. This is applicable to many of the folks I know. Richardson comes from an affluent family. Perhaps, his acceptance of such "balance budget" nonsense comes from his pampered class status.

dday,

Richardson keeps on getting pounded on by "prominent bloggers" about his pro-conservative talking points and he refuses to change. I find it perplexing that his assistant Joaquin Guerra constantly goes on MyDD to deliver BreakingBlue hits. Doesn't Joaquin read what is being said about him? I get the sense that Richardson only wants to pontificate to bloggers. He seems more interested in what the Cato Institute has to say about him.

Who likes Bill Richardson?
The people who vote in the online straw poll at Pajamas Media, where Richardson has been consistently winning the weekly poll.

Bill Richardson is not a Republican. He is not a conservative Democrat. He is an opportunist.

You saw the real Bill Richardson when Wen Ho Lee was accused by a right-wing crank of being a spy for China and was hauled off to prison, denied counsel for a year, and paraded by the New York Times as a traitor to be executed.

What?

You didn't hear anything about Richardson?

Precisely. Richardson was Wen Ho Lee's boss. He stood aside to let the FBI do all of these things to Wen Ho Lee. If he wasn't an opportunist, he would have stood up and said that incarcerating people without access to counsel (or to anybody, for that matter) and threatening them with execution, all on the basis of exactly no evidence.

If he had, George Bush might have found it a bit harder to set up Guantanamo. As it is, all Bush had to do was shrug and say, "It happened in Clinton's Administration."

With all due respec to just about everyone who has posted above, we are missing out on a very important point.

This ain't our daddy's deficit spending. We're borrowing from the Chinese (basically, plus a few other governments.).

This not only means that our politics, therefore, are becoming increasingly intertwined with China's; but also that we are vulnerable to such contingencies as a collapse in the Chinese stock market or domestic unrest over there.

Furthermore, as globalization proceeds, the geographic terrain covered by the United States as well as the affairs of its domestic population is growing less and less relevant as a measure of what "the economy" is or is not.

So, to say that we should "manage" the economy either through "deficit stimulus" or by "fiscal restraint" is growing less and less meaningful. And what does it mean to be "pro growth" when the sought after growth takes place in Bangalore and not in Buffalo?

I don't have any answers to these sorts of question; but I submit that it is vital that we recognize that the rules of the game are now changing and that continuing to talk as if neoKeynesianims vs. supply side adequately frames the issue is to fail to recognize this.

To repeat part of what CalDave said above, I've seen another report that in a campaign event Richardson said he favored exceptions for military and economic emergencies. Couldn't find anything about this either way at his website, though, so he doesn't seem to have his act together on this yet.

Phew,

Big Bill. I just said g'night to a group of Las Vegas ( that's New Mexico) activists who'd come in to Santa Fe to petition after the afternoon showing of Sicko. Our parting words were how outrageous it is that Bill's never called on who he is - that goes for NM too, but here people are mostly just scared of him.
He started his political career with Kissinger in the Nixon Whitehouse in the 60s and was executive director of Kissinger associates when he ran for Gov in 2002. Richardson's dad took City Bank into Mexico as the only foreign owned bank allowed there with an exclusive 15 yr. contract. He then worked down through South America basically creating Latin American debt structure. Bill's mom is from top 1% of Mexican wealth - essentially royalty - don't hear much of her do yuo?
Richardson has run NM with a patron's fist - many times more corrupt than any of the last five Governor's. He's benefitted from huge oil/gas revenues, but has basically just ripped NM off for his big run. We're still last in nearly every major social and economic category in the US.The book on all this is Frozen Lightning, if you want to go into depth.
Just last legislative session he had the top lobbyist from the largest coal/nuke electric utlity (PNM) working out of his office to push one major, and scary utility bill, a sort of dereg on steroids - very corrupt. You can read more at the website www.breakthegrip.org. Richardson has been a disaster for NM. I pray we don't get him in any form nationally.

The scenario you've laid out wouldn't really be a tax cut, would it? I agree that taxes should be raised on the very wealthy, after which we could perhaps investigate cutting them on the middle class, but that would just be shifting taxes upwards. Cutting them for some, raising them for others. Which is fine, but there's no way the media would even refer to it as a "tax cut."

Bill Clinton would disagree with you. The media refers to it by the talking points being flung out there. We have to win the framing game. What else is new? I think even on a technical level its a tax cut. A middle class tax cut is still a tax cut.

There is indeed a lot of "fat" that could be trimmed from the budget, but most of it is in the military budget, which as far as I'm aware (though glad to be wrong) no candidate is talking about cutting.

Ummm earmarks...government subsidies for businesses? Most of the military spending is Iraq spending which will decrease as we withdraw. One of my points actually.

I seem to remember Kerry running on a middle-class tax cut.

Kerry ran on national security and Iraq. Clearly a tax reforms were not a major/significant part of his platform. Besides we ALL know Kerry lost for lots of other reasons. Even still his tax plan was sort of "Oh I need an answer to tax questions....uhhh Bush's tax cuts suck, moving on..."

The scenario you've laid out wouldn't really be a tax cut, would it? I agree that taxes should be raised on the very wealthy, after which we could perhaps investigate cutting them on the middle class, but that would just be shifting taxes upwards. Cutting them for some, raising them for others. Which is fine, but there's no way the media would even refer to it as a "tax cut."

Bill Clinton would disagree with you. The media refers to it by the talking points being flung out there. We have to win the framing game. What else is new? I think even on a technical level its a tax cut. A middle class tax cut is still a tax cut.

There is indeed a lot of "fat" that could be trimmed from the budget, but most of it is in the military budget, which as far as I'm aware (though glad to be wrong) no candidate is talking about cutting.

Ummm earmarks...government subsidies for businesses? Most of the military spending is Iraq spending which will decrease as we withdraw. One of my points actually.

I seem to remember Kerry running on a middle-class tax cut.

Kerry ran on national security and Iraq. Clearly a tax reforms were not a major/significant part of his platform. Besides we ALL know Kerry lost for lots of other reasons. Even still his tax plan was sort of "Oh I need an answer to tax questions....uhhh Bush's tax cuts suck, moving on..."

So the guy believes in paying the bills in cash makes him .............a Republican?

I am not sure what kool-Aid Ezra swallowed, but from my vantage point the Republicans seem to love selling T-Bills to the Communist Chinese government.

Maybe Ezra is such a pro Hillary lemming it shocks his senses when he hears a Democratic Presidential candidate take a stand on an issue.

Maybe it makes him a little nervous seeing how his candidate is milquetoast in a pantsuit.

Could someone please tell me what is Hillary's burning issue before they coronate her?

So the guy believes in paying the bills in cash makes him .............a Republican?

I am not sure what kool-Aid Ezra swallowed, but from my vantage point the Republicans seem to love selling T-Bills to the Communist Chinese government.

Maybe Ezra is such a pro Hillary lemming it shocks his senses when he hears a Democratic Presidential candidate take a stand on an issue.

Maybe it makes him a little nervous seeing how his candidate is milquetoast in a pantsuit.

Could someone please tell me what is Hillary's burning issue before they coronate her?

The rationale for a balanced-budget amendment back in the day was that, politicians being who they were, force was the only way it would happen.

Bill Clinton did it without a gun to his dog's head.

Try these on:

A balanced budget amendment? What for? Just put the Democrats in charge again.

A balanced budget amendment? What we need is a Bill Clinton Amendment.

The only thing wrong with the American economy is that people keep putting Republicans in office.

Well, as a new mexican, I'd say he's been a pretty good democrat. He's no FDR, but who is anymore? There are no FDR's running that I can tell.

Actually, a balanced budget amendment doesn't have to prevent increasing social programs in a recessions. You raise taxes.

New Mexico has been doing pretty well with his governance. I'm not excited by him running for president, because the race baiting is going to be even more embarassing than if Obama gets the nod and it will play in a lot of places that baiting Obama would not. He's definitely the most qualified IMO, even counting Clinton's executive experience.

The crap about Richardson being corrupt is just crap... say hi to the republican operative. This state, like most state governments, is full of patronage and corruption. Richardson's government has brought in a lot of outsiders to reduce it, and while there have been scandals, they have not had any link to richardson at all. The AG's have been given a lot more free reign to deal with it, unlike in the last governor's administration (Gary "lets have a canned buffalo hunt to reward my campaign contributors" Johnson)

Truthfully, I'd like to keep him as governor because what is waiting in the wings is much more frightening. Richardson has brought a lot of businesses to NM, improved social services dramatically, paid government workers and teachers much better, and set NM on a course to be a technological center so we don't have to fear Albuquerque becoming an industrial sludge pit like a lot of other cities. And all at a surplus.

I don't think he's been as good to unions as I would have hoped. Again, no FDR :( He has tried to make UNM more like other major universities, which is a mixed blessing/curse. He is the most scientifically saavy of the candidates, the least likely to throw religion into the debate, and he knows energy policy.

There are 4 really good democratic candidates running. Debate their strong points. Savaging them with bullshit smears only helps the right wingers later.

Charles, you absolutely nailed it when you said: "Bill Richardson is not a Republican. He is not a conservative Democrat. He is an opportunist."

I think everyone who's ever worked in politics in NM will agree with that.

"Maybe Ezra is such a pro Hillary lemming it shocks his senses when he hears a Democratic Presidential candidate take a stand on an issue."

The problem is, as Ezra explained, the balanced budget amendment is an impractical idea.

Ezra's too polite.

The Balanced Budget amendment is a crackpot idea.

That along with his enthusiasm for "free" trade makes Richardson toxic. Although he would probably make a good Secretary of State.

"it's what I have to do in my own home, and in my own business. Your outgo cannot exceed your income, unless there is an emergency. Why is that bad?"

In fiscal matters the federal government is not at all like any state government (many of which have constitutional balanced budget requirements) and absolutely no resemblence to your home budget.

The federal government has vastly greater responsiblities that include making and executing foreign policy, financial obligations like Social Security, Medicare and other pensions. The federal government makes binding international trade agreements, maintains a money supply, coins and prints money, etc., etc.

The federal government must have an elasticity that is beyond the purview of any state and, my god, nothing like your home budget.

The home budget example always seems to come up in these discussions. It is the most ridiculous of all examples.

Your home budget has an end point. Your end point.

Federal budget activity is continuous, ongoing.

I imagine that if Richardson were to become a serious candidate, Paul Krugman would explain why either cutting governement expenditures or raising taxes during a recession will make the recession worse. Both will result in a reduction on the total expenditures on final goods and services just at a time when they need to increase to pull the economy back upward.

Temporary tax cuts targeted at the people most likely to spend the additional income (the lower income groups) are an effective policy to use to help bring a recession to an end, unless they they are matched by cuts in government spending, as required by a balanced budget amendment. In that case the stimulative effect of the tax cuts is more than offset by the effect of the reduced government purchases and this will acutally have a small contractionary effect on the economy.

Cutting taxes when the economy is under inflationary pressure and running huge deficts, as is the case now, is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Who supports Bill Richardson? Well, this activist Democrat who:

Resisted the Draft during Vietnam.

Went to jail multiple times for anti-war and civil rights civil disobedience.

Worked in the primary campaigns of Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and John Kerry and then actively supported Bill Clinton and Al Gore when they had won the nomination.

And I am supporting Richardson in the primary because:

1). There has been so much damage done to the United States internationally over the last 7 years that we desperately need foreign policy experience in the White House. Obama and Edwards don't have it and the Clinton team were and are still supporters of the Iraq war.

2). Next to Al Gore, Richardson has the longest and deepest Environmental record. And that just might be an important issue in the next decade.

3). Despite the faulty memory of some of the previous posters, "Tax & Spend Liberals" is still a potent meme. Bill Clinton's fiscal conservatism and Bush's irresponsibility has curbed it somewhat but for the independent swing voters, a Democrat committed to attaining a balanced budget is a critical selling point.

4). Finally, I'm sick of Democrats beating their head against the Southern Electoral block. The Western/Mountain states of AZ, NM, CO, MT and Nevada are ripe for the taking by a Democrat who can appeal to these somewhat libertarian/small government voters. Richardson has shown he can win these voters, not to mention the potential Latino voters he can appeal to.

With these states, we don't have to worry about Florida in 2008.

So according to the posters above, this background and goals make me a Republican for supporting Richardson?

I don't think so.

Perhaps far more importantly, a balanced budget amendment is UNENFORCEABLE.

Just ask the states which have them. It's trivial to doctor the accounting so that the budget is "balanced" without actually balancing it.

To follow up, some ways to evade a balanced budget requirement.

(1) Include "revenue" from printing money or selling money-equivalents.

(2) Reporting income from future years in current years, while reporting expenses from the current year in future years -- very very popular.

(3) Falsify revenue and expense estimates -- already extremely common.

(4) Issue bonds or other debt, but arrange to locate the debt in an "independent authority" while using a transaction to locate the resulting cash in the budget -- it looks like revenue to the budget, but there's actually this debt off in the "authority". "Selling" the Indiana Toll Road worked this way. A similar scheme is used routinely to evade constitutional debt limits in NY.

Test.

For all those who are uncomfrotable with Bill Richardson, please read the cover story on 7/11/2007's Albuquerque Journal - which is representative of BR's sleazy campaign ethics. We are calling him "El Caudillo" here in Nuevo Mexico.

I was hoping Stephen would chime in on this.

"Americans more and more have no problem with a tax increase in exchange for decent services"

I don´t know. Bush the first lost an election after raising taxes. And he had a good approval following the first gulf war.

And most democrats that got reelected with good approval ratings last year did cut taxes. And the problem here is not only winning, but winning with a good margin.

Regarding deficits, c´mon. After Lyndon Johnson, most republicans run great deficits while the democrats were worried about fixing them. They, not you, should be worried about that.

By the way, I don´t get this: a guy is a republican because he pledged to.. cut taxes? Are you nuts?

Serious people believe in a balanced budget amendment over the business cycle. Require deficit spending during recessionary periods. We already do this somewhat through automatic stabilizers. Require surplus during non-recessionary periods.

Ezra, this post demonstrates your extreme youth and, with it, your simplemindedness. Governments have shown that they will run a deficit ANYTIME and ALL THE TIME, not just during a recession. It's really sweet of you to assume otherwise, but it just demonstrates your lack of wisdom. We have had deficits almost every year, hardly during recessions. So correct yourself, little boy, and get with the program.