|
 |
 |
|
Empty budget promises
-
04/07/09 12:45 PM ET
President Obama claims that his budget plan would cut the deficit in half over the next four years. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asserts that the House budget resolution will cut the deficit by two-thirds.
If history is any guide, Obama’s and Pelosi’s predictions will be way off.
Over the last decade, both parties have hailed what their competing budgets will do. None have hit their mark.
In 2005, then-President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress vowed to cut the deficit in half by this year. Three years ago, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said the Republican budget “makes realistic assumptions about emerging challenges, takes real aim at waste and fraud and will cut the deficit in five years.” The deficit then soared.
Two years ago, Democrats touted their budget plan, saying it would lead to a surplus in 2012. To be fair, Bush blocked a lot of what Democrats wanted to accomplish in the 110th Congress. Yet it is telling that budget plans from both sides of the aisle are not grounded in reality.
For example, there are cuts in spending that Obama put in his budget, such as cracking down on farm subsidies, that were considered dead on arrival by congressional Democrats.
Furthermore, Democrats’ plans to have a comprehensive health reform plan that covers most, if not all, of the 47 million uninsured, will be pricey. But the Democrats’ budget says the net cost to the government will be zero, stipulating that unspecified cuts, and perhaps tax increases, will fully pay for the plan. That’s not realistic.
Republicans, meanwhile, can’t say they have taken the high road. Bush didn’t account for war spending in his budgets and used other gimmicks such as assuming Congress would not pass Alternative Minimum Tax legislation, which it does annually to avoid a massive middle-class tax increase.
Part of the problem is that there is so much attention paid to the president’s budget blueprint, and not enough to what actually gets signed into law.
The budget numbers are bleak, and it is time, as Obama has said, to make some difficult choices.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Treasury Department will report a deficit of about $953 billion for the first six months of fiscal 2009, $640 billion more than the deficit recorded through March 2008. The CBO’s estimates on the country’s debt are even more depressing.
Obama recently held a fiscal summit with congressional leaders. But the time for talk is over. Cutting government programs is never easy. Neither is raising taxes. But the budgetary process needs a dose of reality, and soon.
By and large, Congress has not made significant spending cuts since the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Most of the members who voted on that historic bill are no longer serving on Capitol Hill.
That is another reason why getting the deficit under control will take presidential leadership. Otherwise, Obama’s promises on the deficit will be the latest in a string of vows that sounded good but fell way short of their goals.
If history is any guide, Obama’s and Pelosi’s predictions will be way off.
Over the last decade, both parties have hailed what their competing budgets will do. None have hit their mark.
In 2005, then-President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress vowed to cut the deficit in half by this year. Three years ago, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said the Republican budget “makes realistic assumptions about emerging challenges, takes real aim at waste and fraud and will cut the deficit in five years.” The deficit then soared.
Two years ago, Democrats touted their budget plan, saying it would lead to a surplus in 2012. To be fair, Bush blocked a lot of what Democrats wanted to accomplish in the 110th Congress. Yet it is telling that budget plans from both sides of the aisle are not grounded in reality.
For example, there are cuts in spending that Obama put in his budget, such as cracking down on farm subsidies, that were considered dead on arrival by congressional Democrats.
Furthermore, Democrats’ plans to have a comprehensive health reform plan that covers most, if not all, of the 47 million uninsured, will be pricey. But the Democrats’ budget says the net cost to the government will be zero, stipulating that unspecified cuts, and perhaps tax increases, will fully pay for the plan. That’s not realistic.
Republicans, meanwhile, can’t say they have taken the high road. Bush didn’t account for war spending in his budgets and used other gimmicks such as assuming Congress would not pass Alternative Minimum Tax legislation, which it does annually to avoid a massive middle-class tax increase.
Part of the problem is that there is so much attention paid to the president’s budget blueprint, and not enough to what actually gets signed into law.
The budget numbers are bleak, and it is time, as Obama has said, to make some difficult choices.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Treasury Department will report a deficit of about $953 billion for the first six months of fiscal 2009, $640 billion more than the deficit recorded through March 2008. The CBO’s estimates on the country’s debt are even more depressing.
Obama recently held a fiscal summit with congressional leaders. But the time for talk is over. Cutting government programs is never easy. Neither is raising taxes. But the budgetary process needs a dose of reality, and soon.
By and large, Congress has not made significant spending cuts since the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Most of the members who voted on that historic bill are no longer serving on Capitol Hill.
That is another reason why getting the deficit under control will take presidential leadership. Otherwise, Obama’s promises on the deficit will be the latest in a string of vows that sounded good but fell way short of their goals.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
