Conservatives who were too partisan to talk honestly about the lock box concept put forward by Gore now use the fact that Bush raided the Social Security Trust Fund as a reason we really do have a crisis. At least acknowledge that this is an issue. Or, perhaps, acknowledge that both the Bush Tax Cut and the Medicare drug prescription bill dwarf the expected cost of the “social security crisis.” In other words, let’s acknowledge, at a minimum, the full range of issues affecting Social Security finances. We can have a debate about whether the tax cuts are necessary or fair, or whether the Medicare drug benefit is good or bad, but if we’re truly facing a crisis, we should have an honest discussion.
Luskin, on the other hand, manages to write a piece saying how the deficit is really why it’s a crisis without actually talking about ways to alleviate that particular pain. What happens if the deficit is reduced? How about if we successfully deal with the insurgency in Iraq and things settle down? In other words, how can you write an article projecting out 15-75 years without making the case to end budget deficits? Then I ask, what is the administration doing about that?
January 11th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
This administration will due nothing about the deficits, unless Congress forces their hands.
Once again, a balanced budget amendment has been filed. It will do very little with the current administration and although I can see the argument of making exceptions for declared war, it still would defeat the purpose of a balanced budget.
This issue almost passed in the mid 1990s and would have forced the issue with the current administration. To pass now and go into effect, as early as 2008 but probably closer to 2010 would start to force the hands of the next administration,as well as those that follow, to find an equilibrium between taxes and spending.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/budget.amendment.ap/
So, although, without the amendment it makes it near impossible to project out 15-75 years and take into account future deficits. With the current language proposed, it is hard but not as hard because how and when will you ever be able to account for declared war in the next 15-75 years.
It sounds like a simple solution and in some respects it is; but for many areas of concern this amendment can become a detriment. If the administration is 100% fueled by tax relief, spending will be cut. If the administration is fueled by 100% spending on every program under the sun, then taxes will be increased.
So what to do? The only way a tax oriented or spend oriented administration achieves thier goals is when they control the white house, house and senate. But normally (and we will see if it happens in 2006 like in 1994) the people make the adjustment at the ballot box for that type of dominance.
On the surface this bill, if it truly is like the others, would be a good start to progress. If this bill gets gutted and/or tagged with amendments (like “in times of recession”) and language changes, it will be an empty promise or an unfunded mandate.
January 11th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
I’m sorry, I am an old link…. I was told by someone who sent me an email that the balanced budget ammenment was being filed again this week…. I thought this link they attached was it. Soory for my stupidity.
Hopefully, it will be filed again this week and it will go somewhere.
January 12th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
No… I agree, the war funding is in a sup package.
What I am trying to suggest and alleviate is senseless spending where the government goes into direct deficit spending and raises the debt cieling.
I also see the misconceptions and the gross abuses that can happen with a balanced budget amendment. My concern would be drastic cuts one way or the other to an overall departmet (ie: education spending, human services, etc…). An interesting discussion I had with a friend a long time ago (in the late 1990s) that addressed this issue injected a compromise that would be fair and equitable to all departments equally.
Basically, what was suggested was an comprehensive % cut. Meaning if FY 04 budget was balanced, completed and signed, the FY 05 budget would begin at level funding all departments. If projected expenditures were to exceed projected revenue, any cuts would have to be equally across the board except for recurring spending such as medicaid and social security. Increases for any and all programs would not be subjected to the same scrutiny (but, in many respects should).
Simply stated: a 1% cut to education would generate a 1% cut in the defense department and 1% at HHS etc… meaning, it would be an equitable system to protect all systems and departments from unilateral gutting.
In the mean time, Legislators would then be able to discuss methods of revenue increases to meet the needs of all programs included in the federal budget.
Some people I have had this conversation says this is overly simplistic of complicated variables. Others are just honest and say that consensus would never be reached to agree to such a standard. Others don’t believe Medicaid and Social Security should be included… but part of reforming the system would probably entail an honest discussion about not gutting it in times of economic downturn.
I don’t have the right answer to protect the deficits from continually growing at the rate they are. But, I do believe that a balanced budget amendment that is fair (not just an open mandate to destroy programs) and comprehensive is a good start to making sure the government starts working within our means.
January 12th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
That you should say at the beggining…
No, war funding is not part of the budget…