We Could Cut Spending

The American Thinker ^ | July 02, 2009 | Andrew Foy and Brenton Stransky

[Scanian]

In the June 30th WSJ Editorial entitled, "We'll Need to Raise Taxes Soon," Roger Altman, former deputy secretary of the Treasury in the first Clinton administration acknowledges the grim reality of the current fiscal situation. He argues that the current level of spending can't be maintained without pushing the deficit to an intolerable level and therefore the administration must raise taxes. Unfortunately, this solution would have far-reaching economic consequences. The other solution to address the current fiscal crisis, which Mr. Altman fails to acknowledge, that would have a positive economic effect, is to decrease government spending.

Mr. Altman explains that the deficit outlook has worsened because of "the burst of spending in recent years and the growing likelihood of a weak economic recovery. The latter would mean considerably lower federal revenues, the compiling of more interest on our growing debt, and thus higher deficits." (snip)

Cogan et al. and the CBO have already predicted that the stimulus bill and the President's budget will have negative economic consequences. Mr. Altman cites new data from Goldman Sachs and International Monetary Fund, which forecasts an annual growth rate of 2% for 2010-2011 and contrasts this with the President's Council of Economic Advisors who is still forecasting a traditional recovery of 3.2% for 2010 and 4% for 2011.

Mr. Altman suggests that "Mr. Obama and his economic advisers understand this deficit outlook and undoubtedly view it as unsustainable." He further states, "The problem is the deficit's sheer size, which goes way beyond potential savings from cuts in discretionary spending or defense."

[JohnD9207]

Obama, Reid, Pelosi cut spending?????? Right? What a pant load.

Will anyone notice, I asked 20 confirmed Obama supporters how they felt about Crap and Raid, 1 understood and agreed and 19 said, What???? Clueless mindbots.

[wastoute]

The key word is "unsustainable". Unsustainable is just that. The gummint is broke and broken. Zero and his minions have two options: 1) Break it further (and put it out of it's misery) 2) fix it (smaller gummint, lower taxes). Either way we win. That is "change I can believe in". If Zero continues down the first path things could get messy.

Μολὼν λάβε

[ClearCase_guy]

Rich people have to suck it up. Rich people suffer -- but who cares? More taxes! More!

It never seems to occur to the government that maybe poor, non-productive people have an equal (or greater) obligation to suck it up and consume fewer services. I see absolutely no obligation for society to provide most of the services that the government currently provides.

[Vaduz]

Mr. Obama and his economic advisers are clueless idiots.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

It never seems to occur to the government that maybe poor, non-productive people have an equal (or greater) obligation to suck it up and consume fewer services. I see absolutely no obligation for society to provide most of the services that the government currently provides.

Well of course not! It's because rich people aren't "paying their fair share". They can afford to give more, they won't need it. They're just fat-cats who took too much earlier, so now they should give back. It's just a 3% increase in income tax on the top 5% that's needed to cover all our deficits!

Haven't you been listening to the pronouncements from our Obamassiah?

/sarc