Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Government Spending’

Some people thought I was being unfair when I referred to the budget deal as a kiss-your-sister agreement.

But as more information is revealed, it looks like the GOP got the short end of the stick – largely because they were afraid of a government shutdown (even though I explained Republicans actually did very well during and following the 1995 fight with Clinton).

National Review has retracted its kind words about the deal, writing that:

There’s realism and then there’s cynicism. This deal — oversold and dependent on classic Washington budget trickery — comes too close to the latter. John Boehner has repeatedly said he’s going to reject “business as usual,” but that’s what he’s offered his caucus. It’s one thing for Tea Party Republicans to vote for a cut that falls short of what they’d get if the controlled all of Washington; it’s another thing for them, after making so much of bringing transparency and honesty to the Beltway, to vote for a deal sold partly on false pretenses.

And Philip Klein, writing for the Washington Examiner, says:

…a new Congressional Budget Office report showing that the deal that purported to slash spending by $38.5 billion for the remainder of the year, really only reduces outlays by a fraction of that amount, and only cuts this year’s deficit by a mere $352 million. If the $38.5 billion was chump change in the context of $14 trillion debt, I wouldn’t even know what to call $352 million. Bread crumbs, maybe?

The moral of the story is that Republicans need to make a fundamental decision. Are they serious about protecting taxpayers and America, or are they in the business of blowing smoke while getting a cut of the corruption in Washington? I explained yesterday that GOPers in Washington are governed by noble and base impulses. The budget deal was an example where the devil on one shoulder had more influence than the angel on the other shoulder.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Responding to widespread criticism of his AWOL status on the budget fight, President Obama today unveiled a fiscal plan. It already is being criticized for its class warfare approach to tax policy, but the most disturbing feature may be a provision that punishes the American people with higher taxes if politicians overspend.

Called a “debt failsafe trigger,” Obama’s scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much. According to the talking points distributed by the White House, the automatic tax increase would take effect “if, by 2014, the projected ratio of debt-to-GDP is not stabilized and declining toward the end of the decade.”

Let’s ponder what this means. If politicians in Washington spend too much and cause more red ink, which happens on a routine basis, Obama wants a provision that automatically would raise taxes on the American people.

In other words, they play and we pay. The last thing we need is a perverse incentive for even more reckless spending from Washington.

Read Full Post »

Thanks to demographics and ill-conceived entitlement programs, America is on a path to becoming a bankrupt European-style welfare state. We know how to fix this problem, but whether we make the necessary reforms depends on the heart and soul of the GOP.

Are Republicans a bunch of hard-right Tea Party types, salivating at the thought of reversing the welfare state and ushering a new ear of limited government?

Or are GOPers a bunch of political hacks who have decided the cesspool of Washington is really a hot tub and merely pretend to be fiscally conservative to appease the conservative base?

The answer is yes and yes.

More specifically, almost all politicians are some combination of these two descriptions.  It’s almost like they have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other.

They usually have some underlying principles, and they would like to do the right thing and make America a better place.

Yet they also want to get reelected and accumulate power, and this lures them into casting votes that they know are bad for the country.

Sometimes the devil has the most influence. During the Bush years, for instance, most Republicans on Capitol Hill went along with Bush’s bad proposals, such as the no-bureaucrat-left-behind education bill, the prescription drug entitlement, the corrupt farm bills, the pork-filled transportation bills, and the TARP bailout. The lawmakers will admit, especially in private, that those were bad votes, but they “went along to get along.”

Yet every so often the angel gets control. All Republicans, including the ones who were in office and doing the wrong thing during the Bush years, presumably are going to vote for Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget later this week, which would limit the growth of federal spending and fundamentally reform Medicare and Medicaid. And they’ll cast that vote even though they’ll get demagogued in 2012.

So what decides whether the angel or devil is in charge? I may not have learned much in my 25 years in Washington, but I think a key factor is that politicians are often willing to take political risks and do the right thing if they think there’s actually a chance of implementing good policy.

In other words, there is a chance of saving America. I think Republicans can be convinced to charge the machine gun nests of big government. But we need to create the right set of circumstances – and that means persuading them that the long-run policy benefits will offset the short-run political risks.

Read Full Post »

If you are an average American, today is a great day. According to the Tax Foundation, you have finally worked long enough and earned enough money to satisfy the annual tax demands of federal, state, and local governments.

This means you now get to keep any additional income you earn.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn’t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years.

Read Full Post »

There were reports about 10 days ago that the crowd in Washington reached a budget deal, for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, with $33 billion of cuts. That number was disappointingly low. I wrote at the time that if this was a kiss-your-sister deal, we didn’t have any siblings that looked like Claudia Schiffer.

I knew it was unrealistic to expect the full $61 billion, but I explained that $45 billion was a realistic target.

We now have a new agreement, which supposedly is final, and the amount of budget cuts has climbed to $38 billion. So our sister is getting prettier, but she still isn’t close to being a supermodel. Here are the highlights (or lowlights) from the New York Times story.

Congressional leaders and President Obama headed off a shutdown of the government with less than two hours to spare Friday night under a tentative budget deal that would cut $38 billion from federal spending this year. …the budget measure would not include provisions sought by Republicans to limit environmental regulations and to restrict financing for Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide abortions.

As with all deals (such as last December’s agreement extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts), there are good and bad provisions. The good news is:

o President Obama, before the current fiscal year began last October 1, wanted a $40 billion increase for these “discretionary” programs. Cutting $38 billion may not be a big number, but it is a step in the right direction. And it is the first time fiscal policy has moved in the right direction in at least 10 years.

o There will be no funding for additional IRS agents. This is a nice victory. Implementing Obamacare would require as many as 16,000 new tax bureaucrats to harass the American people, so at least that process will be stalled.

o A school choice program for Washington, DC, has been restored, thus reversing President Obama’s disgusting decision to kill the program and sacrifice poor black children to advance the greedy interests of the teacher unions.

Now let’s look at the less desirable parts of the agreement.

o Total spending jumped by almost $2 trillion during the Bush-Obama spending binge, so a $38 billion cut is almost too small to mention.

o Left-wing organizations such as Planned Parenthood will continue to feed at the public trough, something that should be objectionable to everyone, regardless of your views on abortion.

o Obamacare is not repealed (not that I ever thought that was possible) and there is no restriction on the EPA’s unilateral assertion that is has regulatory power to implement radical Kyoto-style global warming policies.

I will have more comments this week about what happens next. Suffice to say that this was just one battle in a long war.

The 2012 budget resolution, for instance, will be a key test of fiscal responsibility, but in this case the debate will be about $trillions rather than $billions. The debt limit vote will an opportunity for some much-needed reform of the budget process. And it is quite likely that there will be another potential shutdown fight when it is time to put together appropriations bills for the 2012 fiscal year, which starts October 1.

Read Full Post »

Michael Gerson is upset that the GOP budget would trim some money from the foreign aid budget. In his Washington Post column, he regurgitates Obama Administration talking points, claiming that less foreign aid will kill tens of thousands of poor children in Africa.

USAID estimates that reductions proposed in the 2011 House Republican budget would prevent 3 million malaria treatments. …this means about 1.5 million people in need of treatment would not receive it. About 3 percent of untreated malaria infections progress to severe malaria — affecting 45,000 children. Of those children, 60 to 73 percent will not survive, yielding 27,000 to 30,000 deaths. …global health programs are not analogous to many other categories of federal spending, such as job training programs or support for public television. A child either receives malaria treatment or does not. The resulting risk of death is quantifiable. The outcome of returning to 2008 spending levels, as Republicans propose, is predictable. …One can be a budget cutter and still take exception to cuts at the expense of the most vulnerable people on earth. …Cuts for global health programs should be of special concern to those of us who consider ourselves pro-life. No pro-life member of Congress could support welfare savings by paying for abortions.

Gerson’s moral preening is a bit tedious. He’s a guy who presumably is part of top 2 percent of income earners in America. And I bet his family’s overall level of consumption must be in the top 1 percent worldwide. Yet he wants to take money from the rest of us, with our lower living standards, so he can feel morally superior.

Having met Gerson a couple of times, I don’t doubt his sincerity, and I’m guessing he probably gives a lot of money to charity. Moreover, I doubt he personally benefits from more spending in these areas (i.e., he’s not an overpaid bureaucrat, a consultant with a fat contract from USAID, or anything like that).

But I still have a hard time taking him seriously because he thinks the coercive power of government should be used to spend money in ways that he finds desirable – even if that means that people with much lower levels of income and wealth are picking up the tab for something that Gerson wants.

My Cato colleague, Roger Pilon, had a column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal examining the broader issue of whether federal spending is an appropriate way of fulfilling charitable impulses. As Roger notes, it’s not charity when you make other people pay for things that you think are important.

‘What Would Jesus Cut?” So read the headline of a full-page ad published in Politico last month by Sojourners, the progressive evangelical Christian group. Urging readers to sign a petition asking Congress “to oppose any budget proposal that increases military spending while cutting domestic and international programs that benefit the poor, especially children,” it was the opening salvo of a campaign to recast the budget battle as a morality play.

Not to be outdone, Catholics for Choice took to Politico on Tuesday to run “An Open Letter from Catholic State Legislators to Our Colleagues in the US Congress.” The letter condemned “policies that unfairly target the least among us,” echoing a blogger at the National Catholic Reporter who averred last month that the federal budget is, after all, “a moral document.”

…The budget battle is thus replete with moral implications far more basic than Sojourners and Catholics for Choice seem to imagine. They ask, implicitly, how “we” should spend “our” money, as though we were one big family quarreling over our collective assets. We’re not. We’re a constitutional republic, populated by discrete individuals, each with our own interests. Their question socializes us and our wherewithal. The Framers’ Constitution freed us to make our own individual choices.

The irony is that Jesus, properly understood, saw this clearly—both when he asked us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, and when he spoke of the Good Samaritan. The ads’ signers imagine that the Good Samaritan parable instructs us to attend to the afflicted through the coercive government programs of the modern welfare state. It does not. The Good Samaritan is virtuous not because he helps the fallen through the force of law but because he does so voluntarily, which he can do only if he has the right to freely choose the good, or not.

Americans are a generous people. They will help the less fortunate if left free to do so. What they resent is being forced to do good—and in ways that are not only inefficient but impose massive debts upon their children. That’s not the way free people help the young and less fortunate.

Read Full Post »

Just days after the introduction of a very good plan by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, leaders from the Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives have introduced an even better plan.

In a previous post, I compared spending levels from the Obama budget and the Ryan budget and showed that the burden of federal spending would rise much faster if the White House plan was adopted.

If the goal is to restrain government, the RSC blueprint is the best of all worlds. As the chart illustrates, government only grows by an average of 1.7 percent annually with that plan, compared to an average of 2.8 percent growth under Ryan’s good budget and 4.7 percent average growth with Obama’s head-in-the-sand proposal.

According to the numbers released by the Republican Study Committee, the burden of federal spending would fall to about 18 percent of GDP after 10 years if the RSC plan is implemented.

While that’s a great improvement compared to today, the federal government would still consume as much of the economy as it did when Bill Clinton left office.

Last but not least, for those who are focused on fiscal balance rather than the size of government, this is the only plan that produces a balanced budget. Indeed, red ink disappears in just eight years.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: