Riegel authored a post yesterday that suggested that government simply needs to spend less and the Good Doc chimed in with agreement, labeling those who disagree "whack jobs." I then challenged Riegel to identify which spending he would cut to balance the budget and all I hear are crickets. It is deadly silent on the right whenever that question is asked.
"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!" is the populist cry. However, it is not a thoughtful or well informed opinion. Most people that make the claim are not remotely familiar with the budget, which explains the dead air. A few facts:
1. If you immediately eliminated Social Security and Medicare, you would still have a deficit.
2. If you immediately eliminated Social Security and Medicare, you would reduce the GDP by over 7% before accounting for the multiplier effect. That merely reflects the dollars "saved" by the government. It would be reasonable to take that number to >12% when factoring in the cascading effects of such an act.
3. The USA has the lowest government revenue as a percentage of GDP of any western industrialized country.
4. Each time we enacted supply side tax cuts since 1981, revenues as a percentage of GDP have dropped.
So - I am all ears. I challenge all of our right wing bloggers to identify what spending they would cut and how long that would take to balance the budget (and then pay down the debt). I will kindly ask that you never again suggest that the budget can be balanced absent tax increases - unless you specify such a proposal. Further, lets never hear the lie that tax cuts raise revenue again. With a few isolated exceptions, that simply is not the case. Just ask Reagan and Bush, who delivered $10T of debt through such policies.
Obama's budget has a lot of red ink. He inherited a $1.3T deficit that was rapidly growing. When one inherits an economy in free fall, with a growing $1.3 deficit, what would you expect? Did you think he would shrink the deficit in the middle of a great recession? Shall we act like Hoover and starve the economy or perhaps, should we deficit spend, as needed, to get the train back on the tracks?
You all have been challenged. Lets see what you got.
5 comments:
I did answer your question, before you asked it!
From the Robb article post just a few below yours:
Certainly the Republicans during the Bush years were fiscally irresponsible. But within historical bounds. The deficits in Obama's budget are beyond historical bounds and are his alone. Even with Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues in 2007 were at the average as a percentage of GDP, 18.5 percent, going back to 1960. The deficit was just 1.2 percent of GDP, historically on the low side. Accumulated federal debt was 36 percent of GDP.
also from the article
Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020. In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base.
After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020.
If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008. Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.
We should:
Raise the retirment age.
Increase patient financial responsibility for Medicare
Tort Reform
HSA's
Eliminate or severly cut several departments such as Education, Arts, EPA.
Eliminate Earmarks.
You are right however, we will not get out of this mess by cutting spending alone. We need broad based tax cuts to spur investment and JOBS!
You didn't answer the question, my typical Republican. Look at the budget and tell me where would you cut.
Also - I am offering you the same advice you gave Eric - skip the cut and paste and put some original thoughts in you blog. A list of Fox News talking points simply won't do.
The problem is, you do not have a clue about the budget. You are left to regurgitate Robert Robb, a rather feeble position. How much would you cut from the budget and how long would it take to balance it? OMG - you may actually have to look at the budget before you address the subject!
Jim G: I'm not hearing any Republican politicians say; raise the retirement age, or increase patient responsibility. As a confirmed life long independent, I'd be interested in voting for one. Tort Reform, you bet; HSA's, too little too late; fix Education, not abolish please. Cut Arts? We'll if we're broke, we're broke. Just can't afford it.
While you're saving money, please take a look at our 700+ foreign bases and installations: Over 40 of which have a capital cost of $1.5 billion each. Don't get me wrong, I want defense. I've just noticed that our allies aren't chipping in their share.
Post a Comment