It’s hard to even think, better yet write, about the Republicans’ approach to crafting a “budget.” But TNR’s Noam Scheiber had a good observation yesterday about the process that I wanted to pass along.
Scheiber noticed this graph in a Washington Post article:
The House budget resolution orders $13 billion in entitlement-spending cuts, significantly more than the Senate was unable to pass. But with $150 billion in tax cuts also included, the House budget would leave the government $235 billion in the red by 2009. Deficits between 2005 and 2009 would total $1.4 trillion, $17 billion lower than Bush’s proposal, on which House Republicans vowed to improve.
Of course, to you and me, $17 billion is not exactly pocket change. Considering the trillions of dollars of debt the Republicans are racking up, however, Scheiber noted that the irresponsible White House budget and the irresponsible GOP House budget are both equally ridiculous.
So, let’s see if I have this right: Under Bush’s proposal, the cumulative deficit between 2005 and 2009 would be $1.4 trillion. And under the ultra-austere House Republican proposal, the cumulative deficit between 2005 and 2009 would be … $1.4 trillion. Man, those guys really do breathe fire.
In fact, it’s hard to genuinely appreciate just how negligent the Republicans are in showing any kind of responsibility in the budget process. Sure, there are a few moderates in the Senate who are balking at the idea of new tax cuts and bigger deficits, but they are but small islands of wisdom in a sea of insanity.
The Post article that Scheiber quoted was, in a twisted way, hilarious. The headline read, “More Spending, New Tax Cuts Backed.” You read that right. In a time of the most massive deficits in the history of the world, spiraling debt, and a long-term fiscal future that closely resembles a train wreck, Republicans want to spend more money while collecting less revenue.
Surging federal deficits have dominated the debate over the 2005 budget winding through Congress. But in the span of five hours last week, the Senate added $7 billion for the Pentagon, boosted spending on veterans health care, forest management and medical research, and stripped out a relatively modest $3.4 billion cut in entitlement spending over five years.
Then, yesterday, the House Budget Committee adopted a budget plan that takes a tough line on spending, but more than offsets those spending cuts with $150 billion in additional tax cuts over the next five years.
Of course, there’s plenty of tough talk about cutting back on government spending from most Republicans, who insist that there’s a real need for sacrifice — except from the wealthy Americans who are enjoying their overly-generous tax cuts.
As the New York Times noted yesterday:
Not all money grows on trees — only tax-cut dollars do. That’s the message being delivered by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives this week. The House is vowing to clamp down on those mushrooming federal deficits. It is considering new spending caps and requirements that any increase in spending be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. What makes the move more comical than serious is that House leaders opposed extending the same principle to the revenue side of the government’s ledger. In other words, the cost of President Bush’s tax cuts needn’t be offset by anything.
This approach to budgeting is tempting, we realize, but do not try this at home. Imagine subjecting yourself to a household budget that monitored only your family’s spending, without taking into account any fluctuations in your income. You could cut back on your work hours without allowing any impact on your lifestyle — assuming that you, too, could run huge deficits.
President Bush’s tax cuts have recklessly shrunk the federal government’s revenues in a time of war. Federal tax receipts now amount to an estimated 15.7 percent share of national output, the lowest share since 1950. That’s down from 20.9 percent in 2000. Meanwhile, federal spending continues to amount to about 20 percent of national output. Most of that goes to defense and fixed expenses, like debt payments and entitlements. There isn’t much discretionary spending to cut.
Remind me, how long until the election?