In Tuesday’s debate, President Obama said if we as a nation take
deficit reduction seriously, it would have to combine “tough
spending cuts” with making sure “the wealthy do a little bit
more.”
Ignoring the fact that the President’s most recent budget
proposal
makes few such “tough cuts,” an interesting new factoid on
government spending in America shows raising taxes on the wealthy
to shrink the deficit is not only inefficient, but simply won’t do
the job.
Earlier this week, the think tank Just Facts showed in
a chart that total government spending is consuming more of our
economy than in the history of the country, including during World
War II. Liberals like Paul Krugman, of course, simply laugh off
concerns about this spending and its correspnding debt. According
to them, our debt dropped significantly after World War II, so why
should we worry about the long-term effects of today’s debt? Those
liberals, of course, ignore the fact that today’s fiscal problems
are very different from the fiscal situation faced right after
World War II — namely, that we won’t have the same worldwide
economic dominance, and we will have huge entitlement
obligations that weren’t present in the 1940s.
While more tax revenue is part of the solution to balance the
budget quickly (though we could also do it through aggressive
budget cuts), it should not come from raising taxes. Instead, it
should come from increased economic growth and/or simplification of
the tax code. As a January IRS study showed, nearly one-seventh of
taxes were lost to noncompliance in 2006, showing yet again that
our tax system is too complicated and
requires simplification.
But the real problem is spending. Very soon — heck, this should
have happened years ago — the following steps must be taken to
begin the process of reducing spending both immediately and in the
long-term:
First, get rid of the low-hanging fruit, including $25 billion a
year spent on
unused federal property, $17 billion
spent on agricultural subsidies, over $20 billion
spent on energy subsidies, and
$100 billion in corporate welfare, respectively.
Second, look at ways to eliminate as much fraud, waste, abuse,
and duplication as possible. At least
ten percent of the federal budget is wasted on this every year.
While most politicians talk about fraud and waste but never do
anything about it due to the complexity of the federal bureaucracy,
it would be a fairly simple process to implement changes to grant
processes and general oversight to save several tens of billions of
dollars annually. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), for example, has
introduced legislation that would diminish a substantial portion of
the improper payments made every year, in the Improper Payments
Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2011.
Third, diminish defense spending through efficiencies (the
Government Accountability Office considers the Department of
Defense ripe for fraud and other waste) and reformation of the
defense contracting system. We should also begin reducing our
military footprint in Europe, as well as leave Iraq and Afghanistan
entirely.
Fourth, reform all social welfare programs, from food stamps to
Medicaid to Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and
Medicare should be made solvent for the next century, and food
stamps, Medicaid, and other non-retirement social programs should
be changed so people are incentivized to get off the programs, and
so they only help the very poor and destitute. These changes should
obviously be phased in, but that phasing should start ASAP.
Fifth and finally, begin consolidating and/or chopping whole
programs and bureaucracies, starting with the Department of
Education, Head Start, and DARE.
Regardless of who wins the Presidential race in November, or
which party holds each chamber of Congress next year, the deficit
and debt are going to be the top issues facing Washington in 2013
and beyond. It is imperative that both are dealt with as soon as
possible, and given the level of spending and debt in this country,
it is clear that class warfare plans on taxes won’t work, and they
aren’t even a very good method to address these massive national
challenges.
mike 3/505| 10.19.12 @ 4:26PM
A little "back of the envelope" math, shows that eliminating all funding for "non enumerated," ie unconstitutional programs, would actually bring the budget into balance...even while exempting social security and Medicare from the process.
fmm| 10.19.12 @ 6:21PM
To expect anyone to address the budgetary issues is ridiculous. The democrats live for deficits to buy their supporters. The republicans don't have the guts to reduce deficits. When the dems controlled congress the repubs had a program called "You Cut" where normal citizens could vote on selected programs to cut. This program disappeared when the repubs took over congress. Can't trust anyone in todays political regimes.
Pecos Pete| 10.20.12 @ 7:54AM
The deficit/debt target is so large that it will be impossible for a Republican Congress, and hopefully a Republican president, to ignore. The Tea Party will have enough of a voice in Congress to create waves that the RINOs can't ignore.
The democrat party would ignore and expand. Harry Reid is the single most destructive congressional voice. As Senate Majority Leader he can and will side track common sense legislation. We need a majority Republican Senate to force Harry Reid to a minority position where he can not control Senate legislation.
Either start fixing the deficit/debt or we will have a disaster. Start on November 7 and never quit.
"It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary." - Winston Churchill
Fiscal| 10.20.12 @ 8:56AM
This article shows the real problem! Not only is it factually wrong, but it shows the writer and the Tea Party actually don't understand either the budget or the proposals by BOTH candidates.
Let's use rough numbers here to make the point. First, approximately 40% of the federal budget is unfunded -- i.e., borrowed. About 55% of the budget is entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- and is growing primarily because people are living longer and because there are no limits to all of the medical breakthroughs and drugs being created. About half of all Medicare is in a person's last year of life. About 20% of the budget is military -- and Romney wants to increase this. About 12% is interest on the debt and we're already paying the lowest amount of interest on that. If interest on treasuries rises, this could easily double. There's not much left for everything else and most of you seem to think that the "everything else" part of the budget is much larger than it is.
The truth is that Romney wants to keep corporate welfare intact and will lower revenues by lowering tax rates. Romney's budget will explode the deficit even greater than Obama's. Obama, on the other hand, has no real plan and is letting inertia take its course.
We need to cut both military AND entitlements. We need to RATION Medicare even if it kills more grandmas. We need to raise the ages for SS and Medicare. These are the real hard decisions and nobody seems to want to make them.
mike 3/505| 10.20.12 @ 11:10AM
Medicaid is not an entitlement. It is medical charity and thus has no funding base outside the general fund...And going back to the back of the envelope...eleiminating all unconstitutional programs/departments, like department of education, Medicaid, pell grants & federal welfare programs, would immediately balance the budget.