You call the Government Waste Frame a conservative notion...and in the past it was an old school conservative notion.  However, with the new breed of Neo-Con, this is no longer a conservative topic.  The status-quo is to carry a deficit.  The progressive response in changing the status quo is to lower the deficit.

I would frame it as the fiscal responsibility of putting the people's money back to work for them.  This allows us to cut some of the pork programs and insane "bigger than the rest of the world combined" war budget and put it into the programs.  It isn't cutting programs, but a redistribution of the wealth.  For instance, cut some of the high tech military research budget and use it for armor etc, soldier benefits and higher pay.  We need to see fiscal responsibility not as only a monetary issue, but as a moral values issue...We choose to not give your money to businesses and other BS.  We choose to use it on programs to enhance your life, and improve your children's future.

Talking about the deficit problem doesn't
imply a smaller government, what it implies
is that we as a society must pay for needed
services and social investments, and everyone
ought to pay their fair share.  

PAYGO:
Pay as you go.

It's the corporate elite that is evading their
responsibility of paying their fair share.  They earn huge benefits from their position in society, they ought to pay the largest share.

If I go to a bank and get a $10,000 home equity loan, I have not gotten $10,000 richer.  This is exactly equivalent to the Bush tax cuts.  They are paid for entirely by borrowing.

They are not tax cuts, they are tax deferments.  

Progressives pay our bills and honor our committments.

The massive deficits Bush is running will "starve the beast" to the point that it won't matter what frame we use. Deficit spending will be so far in the red, we won't be able to afford new programs. The priority right now is to head off an extension of Bush's tax cuts. The Republican frame can be effective because it's their frame.

How about Newt Gingrich for a frame? Bush is quoting Democrats, so I'd run Newt and everything he said right up their posterior. I'd run Proxmire's Golden Fleece Award and all of the fiscal conservative statements that they used to complain about the deficit.

Democrats can't stop Bush's tax cuts. We need help from fiscal conservative Republicans. The best frame to use against Bush are frames that appeal to Republicans. I briefly looked for numbers on the interest payments on the national debt this weekend. They are holding steady at about $300+ billion/yr. because interest rates are so low.

If Bush's deficit spending goes up to $600 or $700 billion per year, plus interest payments of $500 or $600 billion/yr., depending on interest rates, plus unfunded liabilities from Medicare, we've got one hell of a big hole. Then add a $600 billion/yr. trade deficit.

I've heard deficits talked about in terms of investment in our infrastructure and investment in people. We can talk about seed money for the future. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. Right now, Bush's deficit is not creating jobs or investing in infrastructure. Whatever we say or do is fine.

We can also demonize the fiscal recklessness of Bush and Congress so they can't use the deficit against us in the future. Keynesian deficits can stimulate the economy if they are invested in infrastructure of productive uses.

"Our nation is running on empty, we aren't investing enough in our infrastructure.  The deterioration is already showing, if you know where to look.  The Republicans want you to believe that borrowing money is just as good as real infrastructure-building.  It's not, because it's borrowed infrastructure - it can't last."

In that vein, perhaps the way to reframe the argument is to call for a return to an economy of the people, for the people.  Go straight for their nuts on it and run candidates who will point out that America is being run by people who are promising moral social reforms that they can’t (and shouldn’t) deliver so that they can reap the lions share of our collective cake.  They cut their taxes and tell us that it’s good for us, while screaming that homosexuals are trying to destroy marriage.  They raise the deficit and blame social programs as if poor unwed mothers are walking away with billion dollar defense contracts.  They send their kids to private schools and colleges while demanding vouchers, and claim that atheist and Jews who won’t let you pray in school that is wrecking American education and morality.  They act like a guy who makes 10 million a year is merely working 500 times harder per week then a guy making 20000 so that they should be taxed at about the same rate so that they guy making 20000 a year will get his shit together.  It’s bulshit, and we know it, but we need to connect the two things better perhaps?

Talking about the deficit works for several reasons:

1. It removes the tax and spend label from the Democrats.

2. For every social program to be gutted there is a corporate welfare program to be gutted.

3. The best "tax break" the middle class ever got is low interest rates:  home ownership, cheap small business financing.  Simple economics:  continue deficit spending and low interest rates are gone.

4. There can be no social justice... until we present a balanced budget, the conservatives will harp on welfare cheats, etc. using the deficit as an excuse.  We can win the "keep more of your money argument" because, as the Soc Sec debate is showing, Americans want to be socially responsible, but they have to feel fiscally responsible first.

5. There's votes to be had-- 19% of the electorate felt strongly enough about this issue to vote for Ross Perot, who is a nutcase.  A Dem with solid balanced budget credentials (like Dean, maybe Warner) could gain a few crucial points with this bloc.

We need to connect tax cuts for the rich with social program cuts for America.

In a conservative budget the rich pay less in taxes than anytime since 19?? (im not sure of the date, but its a damn long time ago), and community policing gets cut by 80%. Heating oil for the poor gets cut by $200 million, as oil prices go up. Fire department aid is getting slashed by 30%. It goes on and on. The necessities of America are getting slashed.

I was watching crossfire (eee, a rare pastime), and I thought that the democratic argument sounded much stronger. If we say "tax cuts for the rich" everytime we mention budget, regular people will see the connection.

Bush's spending cuts are a golden opportunity to crush the republicans with their own ideology. Tax cuts for the rich in order to shaft the poor is the ugliest part of the "Ownership Society" ideology. Its the part we can win.

When they want to let people open private accounts with social security taxes, they have the upper hand, and we are left playing defense. When they want to cut social programs that people rely on, we gain the upper hand. This budget proposal may be best opportunity to take an axe to the unpopular underbelly of the Ownership Society.

You know the word association games pollsters like to do? We should aim to associate "low taxes on the rich" with "social spending cuts." We must assign a cause for the problem the Bush's budgetseeks to address. Republicans will try to reframe it, as a causeless happenstance, and now we must all sacrafice a little for our children's sake.

If we can conflate regressive tax cuts with social cuts, we win.

This can only be done with research.

Any of the above points could be a part of a democratic narrative, but the democratic party must use the opportunity to vote on the Bush budget as an opportunity to present what they stand for in a united way.

The democratic party does not present a consistent message and it does not enforce parlimentary discipline.

As a minority party which can not bring bills to the floor for a vote, the democratic party must reframe the issue around a real constituency that will vote on the issue, it must provide a consistent member by member front and a disciplined vote in congress consistent with their vision.

I think the issue can be reframed in terms of jobs and the need to have affordable money to expand business, and that the Bush economic policies have failed. Clinton's approach closed the budget deficit and created 22 million new jobs, and every GOP member in congress voted against it.

But Democrats have not used this frame and they have allowed the GOP lies about a "booming" Bush economy to go without a response. Statistics about un-employment are a lie as well.

The Bush budget also does not cover the war costs either this should be a cause for concern by the entire political spectrum.

The Bush budget steals from the poor with budgets cuts for the most needy and gives to the wealthy with tax cuts that are regressive and favor the rich.

In this climate, it makes no sense to talk generically about government spending in a New Deal or Great Society kind of way, because it will immediately get tagged as impractical government waste. Part of the reason is that progressives haven't ever needed to point out the value of social programs, so they aren't in the habit of doing that. When social programs are attacked, the response is almost always very abstract, supporting the general idea of government helping out those who can't help themselves, but never really focusing on practical, measurable realities, and I think people really want to see that. For example, just today I read that social security cut poverty among the elderly by more than half since 1959. That something that tax-payers can feel proud of, but Democrats don't seem to be emphasizing the bang you get for your tax dollar. Instead, there's a lot of idealism and general support for government programs, but that doesn't play all that well anymore.

Social programs should be presented as investments in society and should highlight the return on the investments that we make in real numbers. The tax-payer feels good because they feel that the programs are effective, and they also feel good that politicians are keeping tabs on these things and being good stewards of tax revenue, and talking about keeping down the deficit is part of being a good steward. We should also avoid talking abstractly about government spending, and always talk concretely about spending X dollars to achieve results Y and Z.

Progressives are very vulnerable to the "Redistribution of wealth" charge, and to avoid that label, we need to generate broad support for social programs.

I would add that when the long-term structural deficits are used to finance the conspicuous consumption of the rich instead of growth-generating public investment, then we have the worst of both worlds.

The negative economic effects of long-term deficits are real: macroeconomists believe that every 1% of GDP in the long-term structural budget deficit will raise long-term interest rates by 0.3 points. The consequences, Professor DeLong?

That's $574 billion, nearly $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. That's real -- nothing abstract about it.

So there is no question that we need some long-term deficit reduction. But how much is enough? According to the Congressional Budget Office (via The Economic Policy Institute's Max Sawicky):

So a sustainable budget policy does not necesaarily mean "zero deficit," as DeLong implied, but rather a deficit that does not over time increase the national debt-to-GDP ratio. This leaves more room for public investment and social spending.

According to Max, we ought to balance the benefits of deficit reduction in terms of lower interest rates and higher national savings against the costs of lower public investment and social spending:

In sum, I think we are more than justified in talking about the Bush budgets as being "unsustainable budget policy" because

1. They increase the national debt faster than our ability to pay back that debt; and,

2. The Bush deficits are not being used to finance productive public investment or public services, but rather the wasteful consumption of the rich.

Note this does NOT mean we need to advocate a policy of permanently balanced budgets.

1.  scratch head and try to figure out how to get rid of EPA, social security, NEA, NSF, NPR, etc. -- because of their inherent liberal bias.

2.  Spend and borrow irresponsibly until the deficit is obscenely large.  Make sure most of money goes to political supporters.  

3.  Argue that cutting environmental/social/arts/science programs is the only way out of the problem.  "Tax cuts incease revenues and grow the economy"

I don't think that liberals saying "deficit spending is good" is a winning proposition.  For one thing, Cheney might be encouraged to further mortgage the country.  For another, we don't have the necessary training in straight faced up is downisms.

Democrats need to hammer on a couple of points;  deficts have to be financed somehow, and ultimately we all pay for government debt in the form of higher taxes.  Also, Democrats should be reminding Americans how we got into such a deep hole--  it was the $350 billion tax cuts for the wealthy that are largely responsible for our present budgetary dilemma.

1.  Invest 500 billion into alternate energy to install 100 billion watts of solar power which will put American producers of Solar in the forefront of the market, it will produce a steady stream of power/money and it will lessen our dependance on foreign oil thus lessening our need for foreign policy in the middle east.

2.  We should spend 3 billion on Individual creativity grants.  1 billion would be for K-12.  1 billion would be for College and 1 billion would be for grad school or professional.  Contestants would pair with a school and each state would have a winner of 10 mill for the individual and 10 mill for the school(in each of the three catagories) for some creative thing that makes peoples lives better (state can decide criteria or leave it open, maybe have TV viewers vote).  Winner still owns all rights to the item. (I stole this idea from somewhere but can't remember where)

3.  We should mandate that education is sold in smaller units.  IE College will be broken up into broad catagories like freshman english lit,Calc 1, Calc 2, Algebra, History of Asia 1 etc., and you can take that class from any acredited school and transfer it to any other acredited school.  The schools can deny you their graduation but the US government will give you a degree if you have taken all the classes that make up the program you want.  So if you went to Harvard, Yale and Chicago Jr College you would get a degree from the US government because Harvard and Yale don't want to recognize the Chicago Jr college issues.

4.  We should make it easier for individuals to sell their work on an hour by hour basis.  If the expenses that employers pay for employees were determined on an hourly basis (regardless of salary or hourly employee so 60 hours work is 1.5 times the tax of 40 hours even if they don't pay employee) then employers would be free to hire extra help on an hour by hour basis.  If 3/4 of their workforce was 35+ hours a week then they could hire the other 1/4 hourly without paying this tax or with a bonus.  This would make the employer and the employee bargain at an equal stance for the 1/4 extra time, the employee could get more money for this time than employers are usually willing to pay for 40 hour employees.  

All of these approaches will lower the debt either by reducing inports (1), increasing growth (1-5) or providing an income for Governent (1).  Some of these ideas are more popular than others but I think they could all be sold...

Fine reasoning of the sort in this thread has no impact on the electorate.

People who think along the lines of this thread are already liberals.

People who need help from government want help from government, not fancy distinctions and abstruse reasoning.

And the people who drank the Kool Aid are not listening.

Listen. To reach the Kool Aid drinkers, we have to break through on some issue. One issue. We have to help them become disillusioned.

They see Republicans as the fiscally responsible ones who protect the country from TaxandSpend.

Talking about the budget deficit attacks the Rethug strength and threatens to turn it into a weakness.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO!

Karl Rove's basic principle is to attack and neutralize his opponent's strength. Pounding on the deficit moves the ball in that direction.

Rove never worries about logical consistency. He never frets about how today's tactic will seem to commit his troops to some future course of action. If necessary, they'll do the opposite of what they say today.

Now, we don't have to go quite that far. But we need to see that the electorate does not go around remembering what people said in the past and holding them responsible to it. It was the Wurlitzer that blamed Kerry for inconsistencies, not people's memories.

If we do not break through the illusions by which Americans perceive the Republican Party, then it doesn't matter what we say or do.

We have got to break their strengths down. We have got to get Americans to begin to question their leadership.

If we can crack that seamless facadse, then possibilities emerge.

And if possibilities emerge, then we can get Americans to see all sorts of things. Eventually, we need to get Americans to start seeing the fact that "No Taxes" is killing them.

But before that we need an opening in the Rethug armour. This could be such an opening.

Go for it now and quit agonizing about the long term.

Stop fretting, people! Stop worrying endlessly about finding the perfect message. I swear we are STILL not capable of getting the fundamental fact about today's politics:

This is war. Attack the enemy or die.

Deficit hawking is an important part of putting together a new coalition in the coming years.  The Republicans are on the verge of (if not past the verge) of permanently forfeiting their right to claim to be the bearers of fiscal responsibility.  There are a large group of voters (largely younger suburban voters) that are not comfortable with voting for the Democratic party for two main reasons right now.

More on the flip....

Democrats need to talk about what the government was actually formed to accomplish, not abstact concepts like social justice. I think a strategy placing programs in the following categories (see below) would be hard for the GOP to oppose and if they start to use our new constitutional language in their own proposals it only hurts because the very first words of the Constitution JUSTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT.

My quick thoughts...

Establish Justice - writing just laws for all people, not constructing laws as loopholes for backers

Insure Domestic Tranquillity - I'm drawing a blank..help me out on this one.

Provide for the Common Defence - Democrats should support large increases in troop numbers. It' good military strategy, good for morale, and good for the localities that host the troops. Adopt an aggressive posture on troop numbers and cut funds for NSA and black ops. Democrats can attack the GOP for supporting intelligence technology at the expense of human intelligence. If the technology is so good, where is Bin Laden? Human intelligence for the Common Defence (Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, etc.) should be a Democratic issue.

Promote the general Welfare - Like Social Social security. A single payer system for health care fits nicely under this concept - the Constitution doesn't say promote profit margins for HMOs and Big Pharm, does it? Democrats need to frame social programs as promiting the general Welfare.

Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves - To ourselves, not every nation on earth. We promote liberty by example, not through wars of choice.

The GOP makes a lot of hay with concepts of government that exist only in their strategy sessions (every judge deserves and up and down vote, activist judges are legislating from the bench, the President can not follow laws he thinks are unconstitutional (hat tip Alberto Gonzales!) and on and on....Why not promote a Democratic agenda that is born out of the ACTUAL founding document of our government?

He was saying they don't matter politically.  

That word, "deficit", actually only matters to true fiscal conservatives, most of which who are in the closet nowadays, but increasingly showing their frustration with GOP irrresponsible budgeting.

To me and regular walkin' around folks I know, the best way to put it is how Howard did:

"You can't trust Republicans with your money anymore."

We should drill that line into the heads of all americans every day.  

We can hit with terms like "Clinton Surplus" and by comparing the debt to huge credit card debt.  we can talk about the debt undermining our national security by making us dependent on foreign governments to fund our military.  

if you don't like "birth tax" we can find language that evokes "credit card debt" somehow--"every child is born owing $36,000 on the national credit card"  ideally we could find a way to show the "rich elite" not wanting to pay their "fair share"

Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility.  This hurts them directly with their base.

Take this mantle and RUN with it as democrats...my god...it also takes head on the notion that democrats are tax and spenders....

Democrats, the party of fiscal responsibilty.
Come to us disillusioned republicans.

there's a hole big enough here, not just to drive a Mack truck through, but an issue bigger than most justifications given for revolutions. A class war was just fought, but most people remain oblivious to the implications.

I'm not a big fan of balanced budget talk just for the sake of balanced budgets. The issue of balanced budgets and what W has been doing with the government's finances are two separate issues.

Economic issues are real and touches everyone of our lives...But you can't lead if you don't first understand the issues, or what/who you're up against and the long-term implications.  

We need a communicator (and a medium) to deliver the message.

There's so many ways to take off on a soap box from here... I won't launch from inside a comment... I'll try to touch on this in follow up diaries.

Bush spends like a liberal and cuts taxes like a republican. It's fucking ridiculous and it has to stop before he completely pulls the rug out from under America's fiscal sanity. You can't do both. Now the chimp is making "huge budget cuts", yeah the whole sum of $12 bil across 60 programs IF congress even approves -- which it won't -- and most of the cuts are in social welfare programs.

Bush doesn't give a shit because he's going to be leaving office in 2009, just when these huge deficits are poised to really start hurting. I take it you democrats want to just sit back, hope you win the next election, and then spend those four years trying to wipe Bush's ass like Clinton wiped Reagan's and Bush Sr's?

Fucking grab hold of your balls and stand up for something. Have some political courage for god's sake. No wonder mainstream America made the democrats a minority party. And it's going to stay that way unless you show the people you're willing to fight for something. Learn something from Clinton: take their issues and make them your own. Become the party of fiscal restraint.

If you look at the glass half empty it will always be half empty and never half full. When Bush ran for President, Cheney said the focus of the campaign was to "change the tone".

The Democrats have to say, "buy now pay later". The Democrats have to get in front of cameras and say, "deficits ensure that the Republicans will raise taxes in the future". It's that simple. If you had John Kerry say, "we can either roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy now, or roll the back for everyone later."

Democrats have to make it plain, that budget deficits are not something that will come to bear someday in the future, but that every day we borrow more money, the more we will suffer. They have to argue that they will not consider cutting taxes again until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over.

And you have to remind people again and again, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow.

Birth Debt instead of birth tax.

The "compassionate conservative" is putting all this debt onto the shoulders of the babies they are trying to protect.

Anyone out there run a focus group?

Everything they SAY about the Democrats is actually true about THEM.

THEY are the spendthrifts.  THEY are the ones in love with a bloated Government.  Democrats favor a Government that is large enough and has enough money to actually do it's job.  Republicans favor a out-of-control monstrosity that just wastes tons of cash.

I think we should reframe it in terms of smaller numbers- how big is the average family of four share of the debt?  There are a little less that 300 million people in this country, so 7.4 trillion divided by 300 million is about $25,000 owed by every man, woman and child in the country.  The average family of four's share of the debt is almost $100,000.  That's a number both small enough to be understood, and large enough to be alarming.  "Wait!  That's almost how much we paid for our house!  I owe that again?"  Now the number is understandable.

The $450 billion dollar deficit becomes $1,500 in new debt for every man, woman, and child- or $6,000 for a family of four.  That's how much new debt got added this year.

Actually, the situation is worse if we add in Social Security.  Counting what Social Security owns, that family of four really owes more like $120,000 in total debt ($30,000 per head), and got more like $8,000 new debt this past year ($2,000 per head).  The extra 2 trillion Bush's social security "reform" would add over the next decade is another $6,500 per head, or $26,000 for that family of four.  The $322 billion the goverment spent just paying the interest on the federal deficit is over $4,000 for that family of four.

Now these numbers are numbers people understand  $100,000, $120,000, $8,000, $6,500, $4,000- these are amounts of money we understand.

Besides, the deficit is so huge and such a big problem that we CAN'T not talk about it.  To sidestep an issue like that would result in the same problems that we had with John Kerry's spineless drivel about the war.

People don't vote on issues as much as they vote for candidates.  The country agree with Dem positions more than Rep position, but Kerry couldn't get any traction because people weren't convinced of his leadership.  And people were convinced on his leadership because he rarely spoke strongly about controversial issues.

Yes, any time we're talking about balancing the budget, we're talking about an issue that is historically conservative.  But unlike certain issues, there's no reason why a balance budget is inherently conservative.  We can balance the budget by raising taxes and not going crazy on the spending.  The fact is most social programs aren't really that expensive, especially compared to things like wars, social security rehauls, and massive tax cuts.  

I can't help but think that if a person earns $60,000 per year and spends $80,000 per year, the problem is on the spending side.

If the government taxes workers and receives revenues of $1.8 Trillion, and spends $2.3 Trillion (help me out here; I don't have the precise figures, but I believe these are sufficiently close) then the problem is on the spending side.

As an example, I have a friend who, for many years, operated on a 1.3-to1 ratio of spending to income.  She has a wardrobe that rivals Paris Hilton, which was financed by credit card debt sufficient to make many squeamish.

She is now in Chapter 11.

You can blame W; you can blame Cheney; you can blame the Republican Party to your heart's content.

I place the blame on Washington's addiction to our tax dollars.

Should the Air Force spend $300 million of the national income PER PLANE on the
F-22? The arsenals of potential enemies (China, India, Russia, as well as a good potion of the Middle East) IMHO, make this a worthwhile investment.  Strength has a way of deterring, and it is simply not possible to discount the possibility of wide-ranging changes in political structures of other countries in the future.

I think the W was right in cutting taxes (BTW, I received a small benefit from that reduction, and I am by no means wealthy) and the results are now bearing fruit.

The economy IS growing, as measured by GDP increases.  Employment growth is lagging, and this is largely due to the availability of cheap labor pools in the Third World.  I wish that I had some means of resolving that issue, but that is a post for another time.

The Federal deficit is lower than originally predicted, largely as a result of increased output.  I can't help but believe that the tax cuts have helped in this development.

If Congress, and the White House, wanted to cut the Federal Deficit to zero, then both sides of the aisle would have to cut the budget to make this happen.

I often hear that "The only way to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes!"

I have never understood the logic behind that assertion.  If the government increases the rate at which it confiscates workers' income, then those workers will be able to spend less; this will negatively impact revenues and profits of the businesses that respond to consumer demand with either jobs or job cuts.

Does anyone really think that will increase Federal revenues?

Deficits are a far simpler concept than many would like to admit.  Any money borrowed today will involve two payments: Interest today and principle in the future.  

If the government runs a deficit, then the money must be borrowed from somewhere, interest must be paid on that money, and some day that bond is going to mature.

Furthermore, state budgets have both an operating component and a capital component; the Federal budget, to the best of my knowledge does not operate this way.

The Federal government pays for buildings, roads, bridges, waterways and capital equipment (aircraft, vehicles, etc.) the same way it pays for salaries, benefits, fuel and electricity (among many other expenses).  I am sure the CPAs reading this can provide sufficient commentary on this situation.  Furthermore, I would bet that anyone reading this post does NOT use a 30-year mortgage to pay for their light bulbs or their electric bill; nor can most people pay for a home with current assets.

The Republicans have morphed into the "Borrow-and-spend-with-reckless-abandon" party of fiscal irresponsibility.  The global capital markets should punish them harshly for it, and I suspect they will shortly.

Regrettably, the Democratic Party does not offer any real solutions.  

Single Payer National Health Care?  Ask any Canadian if they like waiting 6-12 months for a procedure that takes 6-12 DAYS in the USA.  As flawed as the health care provision and financing is in this country, I will take it any day over the alternative.

Withdrawal from Iraq?  There were 2.5 million South Vietnamese who were murdered by the Communists after the US withdrawal; I fear that a similar fate could befall the Iraqis should the departure of American troops occur before the Iraqis are able to fend for themselves.  That would be far worse than being perceived as occupiers, even if only its in the eyes of Ted Kennedy.

Raise taxes to reduce the Federal deficit? As I have commented above, reducing Federal revenues is not the answer; cutting spending is.