Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Black Budget: Republicans Love Tax Cuts, But Love Spending Even More.
National Review ^ | 10/16/2017 | Kevin Williamson

Posted on 10/16/2017 9:40:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Diane Black’s political problem — conservatives’ political problem — is America’s political problem: Tax cuts are popular, and spending cuts are not.

Representative Black (R., Tenn.) has been chairman of the House Budget Committee for about a year, and she’s enjoyed the experience so much that she’s . . . trying to get the hell out of Washington, hoping to head to Nashville as Tennessee’s next governor. (She declined to comment on the gubernatorial race.) It is difficult to blame her for not wanting to cling to that gavel: Running the House Budget Committee is kind of a stupid job.

Not that it’s an unimportant job — far from it: In fact, it is a critically important post. A few years ago, I was invited to speak to a group of Republicans on the House Budget Committee, and I told them as plainly as I could that the decisions made by their panel and its Senate counterpart over the next several years would very likely mean the difference between a relatively manageable national fiscal crisis at some point in the future and an uncontrollable national fiscal catastrophe with worldwide consequences. I also told them that I was not entirely confident that they’d make the right choices. I wasn’t invited back.

Getting fiscal policy right is — should be — a top-tier priority. But the congressional budget committees are, strangely enough, a frustrating base of operations for doing that.

The problem for fiscal hawks on the budget committees is that the budget covers only about one-third of all federal spending, the “discretionary” outlays, which are subject to the appropriations process. The other two-thirds of the budget is so-called mandatory spending: Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements, farm programs, interest on the debt, etc. Entitlements are called entitlements because, under the law, recipients are legally entitled to certain benefits as determined by statute. Congressional budget writers cannot simply knock 5 percent off of Social Security in the next year’s budget — if you want to change what’s spent on an entitlement, you have to change the law, not just the budget.

Representative Black, whose work on this year’s budget resolution has been rightly praised, is offering up some $200 billion in cuts to mandatory spending. That’s not a lot, but it isn’t nothing, either. The cost-saving measures include a lot of Republican chestnuts, for example putting a time limit and work requirements (“work” being rather loosely defined) on food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependents. It would enact money-saving reforms to the Social Security disability program and eliminate the cost of enforcing the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law by gutting the law. It would increase military spending, putting an additional budget-balancing burden on the domestic side.

The House plan purports to balance the budget in ten years, a claim that is, let’s say, aspirational. If ten years from now the budget is balanced, no one will be better pleased than I, or more surprised.

The House budget also includes “reconciliation instructions” for deficit-neutral tax reform. Translated from the Washingtonian, that means that if the budget is enacted not through regular legislative order but through the reconciliation process — which it almost certainly will be — then any tax reform that makes it into the final deal has to be designed in such a way that it does not add to the deficit.

The Senate has other plans. The upper chamber wants to enact massive tax cuts that would add $1.5 trillion — note the “T” — to the deficit. And Senate Budget Committee chairman Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) is doing his best Doctor Evil impersonation, offering mandatory spending cuts of one . . . billion . . . dollars, i.e. about twelve hours’ worth of Medicare spending. The House budget is all about reducing mandatory spending; the Senate budget is all about tax cuts — it’s the spoonful of sugar without the medicine.

“We have a floor of $203 billion,” Black says. “We would like to do more. We didn’t just throw a number out there; we worked with the committees of jurisdiction to find what they’re comfortable with. But if we could do this year after year and use reconciliation to actually reform programs that haven’t been looked at in 40 years, then we can save.”

Black is expecting a pretty good brawl. “The Senate budget is going to be . . . different from ours,” she says. “There’s going to be a battle over deficit reduction. We’ll defend what we did in our bill.”

Black is open to the Senate’s argument for goosing the economy through supply-side sugar-high tax cuts but insists “there’s got to be some constraint on the other end.” Her advice is the sort of thing that used to be bipartisan conventional wisdom but is now the stuff of fiscal radicalism: “Don’t spend more than you take in.”

The best-case scenario would be giving the Senate its $1.5 trillion in tax cuts matched by $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. The worst-case scenario would be passing that sweet tax cut without even nodding at the House’s $200 billion in mandatory-spending cuts. What’s actually going to happen is impossible to say, especially with the loose cannon in the White House in the mix.

What’s under way here is a contest of three distinct Republican visions: In the House, Diane Black is offering up an old-fashioned bottom-line Republicanism, reform this year, next year, the year after, and beyond; in the Senate, they’re hoping that a massive tax cut will resuscitate the Growth Faerie, who will sprinkle upon Washington the magic dust in which hard decisions are wondrously dissolved; and the White House is offering up President Trump’s usual incoherent content-free populism, a combination of gimmicky showmanship and wishful thinking.

Which way the Republican party goes on the budget will say a great deal about the way the Republican party is going in general.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 115th; gop; republicans; spending; taxcuts; trumptaxcuts

1 posted on 10/16/2017 9:40:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, they certainly do.


2 posted on 10/16/2017 9:42:14 AM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What they love most of all, as do the Democrats, is power.


3 posted on 10/16/2017 9:43:21 AM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Some Possibilities:

1) Increase Taxes, Increase Spending

2) Increase Taxes, Decrease Spending

3) Decrease Taxes, Increase Spending

4) Decrease Taxes, Decrease Spending

I choose the fourth option.

Republicans seem to prefer the third option while Democrats prefer the first option (ALWAYS).

Anybody here seen option #2 above implemented at all?


4 posted on 10/16/2017 9:47:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As clearly demonstrated by the Billion dollar bailouts in Obamacare replacement plans.. And a Trillion dollars of shovel ready jobs with fancy signs. Aka.. Union bailout bill. They will shovel money into particular states and call it stimulus.. sounds swampy to me.
Just like the nor Cal dam failure because Stimulus is only given to rat areas.


5 posted on 10/16/2017 9:49:10 AM PDT by momincombatboots (White Stetsons up.. let's save our country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not impressed by deficit debates: eliminate deficits by... just borrowing more money!
That’s been DC’s solution for years.

“Paying” for tax cuts with borrowing is slightly better than paying for subsidies with borrowing. Assuming stimulus is desired.


6 posted on 10/16/2017 9:53:08 AM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
deficit-neutral tax reform

No such thing. Tax revenues skyrocket when the economy is going gangbusters. The best way to get the economy going is with tax rate cuts. Tax cuts begat large revenue increases.

7 posted on 10/16/2017 9:56:10 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Put your money in the right place and it works for you.

Put it in the wrong place...and you wind up with socialism.

8 posted on 10/16/2017 9:56:12 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Tax cuts stimulate the economy and INCREASE revenues.


9 posted on 10/16/2017 9:57:19 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I would cut the spending first, then the taxes.


10 posted on 10/16/2017 9:57:23 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: central_va

RE: Tax cuts stimulate the economy and INCREASE revenues.

The only problem with that is when revenues increase, SPENDING INCREASES EVEN MORE.

I’d like to see spending go down or stay the same even when revenues increase. Hell will freeze over if I see this happen.


11 posted on 10/16/2017 10:15:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The author misses an important point here. Massive deficits will never be a problem as long as the U.S. Treasury can sell bonds at minuscule interest rates. I’m surprised anyone is willing to lend Uncle Sam money at these rates.


12 posted on 10/16/2017 10:17:17 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Tell them to stand!" -- President Trump, 9/23/2017)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Anybody here seen option #2 above implemented at all?

Funny thing is that option #2 might be the best option for getting us out of debt, although I'd never advocate for raising taxes, either.
13 posted on 10/16/2017 10:24:50 AM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Spending cuts are more important than tax cuts. Making the government more efficient is the most important budget issue of them all. It helps in so many ways:

It lowers corruption.

It increases very skilled workers back into the regular economy.

It lowers the debt.

It increases the economy.

It lowers taxes.

It increases productivity.

And it lowers interest rates.


14 posted on 10/16/2017 11:01:16 AM PDT by poinq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

The whole idea of deficit spending is to pass the buck to the politicians who will come after you, so you won’t have to find the hard solutions, or take the blame.

So long as that is an option, cowardly politicians will always choose it rather than taking the tougher road.


15 posted on 10/16/2017 11:06:43 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Don’t link revenue and spending or we will never get a tax cut.


16 posted on 10/16/2017 11:17:51 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson