A Deficit of Seriousness (Pols Spending Sprees Bring No Shame or Political Costs)

Newsweek May 16 issue ^ | 05/14/2005 | Robert J. Samuelson

[drt1]

No one in Washington—Republican or Democrat—is trying to balance the budget. Gone is shame about overspending or undertaxing. Every two years, the congressional budget Office publishes a fact-filled report entitled "Budget Options." This year's version is 343 pages, and flipping through it, you get a quick tour of the federal government's far-flung activities.

The Army Corps of Engineers spends about $800 million annually to maintain and improve the inland waterways, the Office of National Drug Control Policy buys about $100 million in anti-drug ads and the Department of Transportation provides about $100 million in subsidies for "essential" air service to small communities. The CBO surveys the federal landscape and, without taking any position, offers about 250 possible spending cuts or tax increases for those interested in balancing the budget. Among them:

Stop making grants to states to promote "safe and drug-free schools"—a $1.6 billion savings over the years from 2006 to 2010; Raise the top two income-tax rates (now 33 percent and 35 percent) by 1 percentage point each—$17 billion higher revenues over the five years; Impose user fees on meat and poultry producers to cover the costs of federal food-safety inspections—$3.8 billion in extra revenues from 2006 to 2010.

[drt1]

Unfortunately, he's mostly right. IMO we aren't taxed too little - The Gov't wastes too much and is involved in levels of economically inefficient Socialism that make a balanced budget an impossibility. I see no end in sight as long as voters reward Pols who bring home the Pork and as long as there is no Poltical price to waste, corruption and plain old mismanagement.

[Perdogg]

The problem is the gov't can shift items on and off budget and that there is really no way that the gov't can accurately determine what it actually spends.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Raise the top two income-tax rates (now 33 percent and 35 percent) by 1 percentage point each—$17 billion higher revenues over the five years

*cough* Bu##sh!t *cough*

If that's the case, why don't we just jack the rate up to 50%, and that will erase the deficit, right CBO?

[WOSG]

If that's the case, why don't we just jack the rate up to 50%, and that will erase the deficit, right CBO?"

Dont give the Liberals any ideas.

Kudlow has noted the supply-side tax cuts are working - tax revenues are 'higher than expected', since growth is doing well...

The deficit problem is over-spending. Keep spending increases to 0%.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Kudlow has noted the supply-side tax cuts are working

Don't they always? Heck, even the folks who design PC empirebuilding games tend to model the economy in such a way that you prosper in the long run by keeping taxes low.

[drt1]

That is the point isn't it? Everyone knows that roughly 30% plus of Gov't expenditures are waste, fraud and abuse yet instead of seriously attacking these bloated programs they mention it and go right on by to the old 'Revenue Increases' = Higher Taxes.

If the real costs of taxes were truly counted (Fed, State, Local, Excise, Inheritance, User Fess, etc, etc, etc) I strongly suspect the US would be a high tax country, contrary to what our leaders keep telling us. Typical Gov't reaction to any budget crunch.

[R.W.Ratikal]

The reason neither party is trying to curtail spending is that most Americans have shown a disinterest in what politicians do. The government in Washington has realized that aside from a few, no one cares about the budget, the deficit or the national debtor. Among the masses there is no outcry.

In addition, Americans are numb to tax increases. How high can taxes go before there is a taxpayer revolt? Taxes increase in some way every day, sometimes double and triple taxes are assessed, and the sheep graze on.

Ask yourself, if you were put in charge of vast amounts of money, virtually accountable to no one, with no one paying any attention to how much you spend, and with unlimited resources coming in every day, would you be inclined to be prudent and cut your spending?