|
December 16, 2005 | By Nathaniel Ward
Congressional cuts don’t go far enough
Congress is in the midst of a debate on a budget reconciliation bill that could save up to $50 billion over the next five years.
Meanwhile, Washington is spending more and more. For example, President Bush proposed spending $1.5 billion to shore up the levees of New Orleans, on top of the almost $65 billion in new spending already allocated to Katrina relief. The House of Representatives just last week approved another $7 billion in direct aid, and just this morning the Senate passed a package of tax incentives for affected areas.
Congress’ budget cuts don’t even cover the costs of Katrina relief, let alone make a serious dent in long-term spending growth. Congress should act more responsibly.
As I pointed out in Wednesday’s e-mail, Heritage’s Andrew Grossman has compiled a list of spending policies that no conservative could possibly support—and policies no conservative could do without. It’s certainly worth a read given the current spending debate.
The morality of saving taxpayer dollars
More than 100 protesters were arrested outside the Capitol earlier this week during a sit-in against Republican “cuts” to federal programs. They said it was immoral to deprive people of programs they depend on.
So what’s all the fuss about? The House or Representatives has proposed to save roughly $50 billion in the federal budget over the next five years. Most of the savings comes from cuts to the growth in social programs, as Alison Fraser pointed out—so that instead of growing 39 percent in five years, mandatory spending would grow 38 percent. This is no cut, especially when spending on these programs is expected to grow 76 percent by 2015, though it is a modicum of the restraint Congress should be showing
But the protesters were right: morality is a question here. Is it moral to allow spending to increase so dramatically that our children and grandchildren will face taxes roughly double those today?
As I noted earlier in the month, taxes at this level would make it hard for anyone to make ends meet, and the economy would stagnate if not collapse. In fact, this economic collapse would force people to depend more on government just as tax revenues decline—making benefits all the more unaffordable.
So is it moral to increase spending at the expense of the livelihood and freedom of future generations?
Liberals note excess spending, propose more taxes and even more spending
Liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne writes today about Congressional excesses, especially their profligate spending. He complains about “how much Republicans want to spend on defense, farm subsidies, homeland security, roads, bridges, subsidies for energy companies, a flawed drug program for seniors and lots of other stuff.” It’s good to see that we see (mostly) eye-to-eye on this issue.
But he’s dead wrong when it comes to the other side of the equation. He says the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts “don’t pay for themselves” and adds that “the poor have not fared well since the big supply-side tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.” This is wrong.
First, the cuts have “paid for themselves.” Government income is higher now, after the tax cuts, than it was before; tax receipts have grown at a rate of six percent a year. But we have deficits, what gives? Oh yes, Congressional spending is up 33 percent since 2001, rising even faster than federal income. So the problem is not the tax cuts, but Congress playing fast and loose with our country’s future prosperity.
Second, the tax cuts have not hurt the poor, who in fact pay a smaller share of taxes now than before the tax cuts: their share of taxes has dropped from four percent to three-and-a-half percent. In fact, the poorest 50 percent of taxpayers has paid a decreasing share of taxes since the 1980s—when the supply-side cuts Dionne so derides first went into place.
And the tax cuts have benefited the poor in other ways as well: 4.5 million jobs have been created in the last two-and-a-half years, while wealth-generating economic growth has surged ahead.
Dionne proposes no workable solutions. He seems to suggest that taxes are now too low, but raising them does no one any good. He also suggests that the government should be “providing health coverage and child care for struggling Americans” instead of spending on Congress’ current priorities. Of course, this sort of spending, entitlement spending, is already going to bankrupt the country if nothing is done.
Congress gets personal
Some Congressional earmarks are just plain silly. Provisions buried in one bill would have renamed two buildings at the Centers for Disease Control headquarters in Atlanta after sitting senators, Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA).
Some watchful staffers noticed the measures and the House voted on Tuesday to name the buildings for Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa instead. The bill was blocked in the Senate, though.
If you have other suggestions for naming these buildings, send your suggestions to Membership@Heritage.org. But we won’t pass your ideas on to Congress, since they should have better things to do than waste their time renaming office buildings over and over again.
In other news
Fill out the form below to receive this e-mail product and more from MyHeritage.org as soon as it's released.
|
Send to a Friend |
Increase Font Size