Since Barack Obama took office, the discretionary spending by the federal government has increased by 84%. This is whollay apart from the massive stimulus bill that was rushed though by the Obamacrats to reward their favorite constituencies and -- almost as an afterthought -- stimuluate the economy. All of this spending has led to an enormous growth of the federal deficit. In Obama's first year, the deficit was about four times the size of the deficit during Bush's last year. Obama's second year will have a deficit just as large. Spending at this level cannot be sustained. One of two things has to happen: either there needs to be a big increase in revenue or a big decrease in spending (or some combination of the two).
Obama has made clear that he is voting for raising taxes to raise more revenue. Indeed, we hear that the principal reason to allow the tax increase to take place with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is that "we cannot afford it." But in a budget atmosphere where the federal deficit is in the neighbothood of 1.5 trillion dollars, the tax increases for the "{rich" that Obama wants will only bring in about 70 billion dollars or less than 5% of the deficit. Something more is clearly needed. In a rather humorous move, Obama is now in favor of freezing spending at current levels for about 14% of the budget. It is amazing that Obama could first raise spending by 84% and then talk about freezing it to show that he is a frugal custodian of the national purse.
Many on the Republican side have been talking about reducing discretionary spending to the levels of 2008. That would be a cut of about 40% from current levels. While this sounds draconian, it is nothing more than ending the crazy spending spree of the Democrats and Obama. Even this will not be enough to close the budget gap, however. More is needed.
Strangely, raising taxes is not the answer. Right now, the government must do everything it can to keep the economy growing. In a choice between sucking more revenue out of the economy in the form of taxes or leaving taxes where they are so that there is a bigger deficit, the choice is clear. The economy cannot stand any further blows at this point. We need to prevent any tax increases from taking place.
So the question then presents itself. Are there candidates for office out there who would actually cut spending dramatically and stop taxes from rising? Clearly, the answer is not the Democrats. These are the folks who just raised spending by 84% and have nothing to show for it. Now, many are running as fiscal conservatives, but to use the old cliche, the proof is in the pudding. The folks made an enormous mess simply because they were not fiscal conservatives. there is no way that they have suddenly transformed themselves now. Indeed, these are people who will do Nancy Pelosi's bidding just as soon as they get re-elected. What about the Republicans? Clearly, they were not careful with the treasury in the years under Bush when the deficits rose. Of course, the Republicans are social drinkers compared to the Democrats alcoholics in this regard.
The existence of the Tea Party is perhaps the best news for the economy at the moment. For once, there is an organized and vocal constituency for fiscal responsibility. The Republicans who get elected have seen what happened to their colleagues who forgot who sent them to Washington. This alone should keep the Republicans on the proper path.
In November, each American must vote for the candidates who will do the best to restore sanity to our budgetary process. We cannot continue to allow Congress to saddle our children with debt that will stretch out forever. After November, the people must continue to make their voices heard. Nothing moves an elected official more than a bit of fear about his or her chances of being re-elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment