Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4696)	8/18/2002 2:35:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Fighting the Wrong Budget War Lead Editorial The New York Times 8/18/02 Like some of America's biggest corporations, the United States government has been forced to revise its ledger recently. The results, which show that the 10-year $5.6 trillion surplus foreseen two years ago has mostly disappeared, has propelled President Bush into a budgetary conversion. He is suddenly a scourge of wasteful federal spending. Indeed, he refused last week to spend a minuscule $5 billion appropriated by Congress for a grab bag of "emergency" items, angering lawmakers from both parties. "If Congress will not show spending restraint, I will enforce spending restraint," he said yesterday. Mr. Bush is not wrong to be concerned about Congressional wastefulness or the long-term budgetary outlook. But he is wrong about priorities. Federal spending under Mr. Bush has risen at record rates because of pressing and legitimate military and domestic security needs, as well as other priorities like education and health. Along the way, Congress adopted the attitude that a billion here and there for other favorite items would never be noticed. Mr. Bush went along. He has not vetoed a single spending bill since becoming president. He also signed a ridiculously expensive farm bill; farmers are the swing vote in several close Senate races. Mr. Bush's new austerity is acknowledged by aides to be mostly symbolic. But their attitude seems to be that he has to draw the line somewhere. The $5 billion package that Mr. Bush has killed, with what was effectively a pocket veto, is not, however, an opportune place to draw it. It contains money for home defenses, military spending, foreign aid, AIDS treatment and programs for victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. For the president, picking this fight on the current-year budget has become important because he and his budget director, Mitchell Daniels — referred to by Mr. Bush as Blade — are gearing up for yet another fight on next year's budget when Congress returns after Labor Day. The White House argues that the action this week will strengthen its hand for the next round. These battles will be resolved in due course. The sums are not vast or consequential for the economy. The underlying strangeness of the fight is that Mr. Bush does not want to talk about the main reason for looming deficits: the tax cuts of last year. The administration's own budget numbers make clear that nearly 40 percent of the disappearing surplus is a result of the multiyear tax cut, with the remainder evaporating because of the economic downturn, increased spending and some accounting changes. While campaigning in South Dakota last week, Mr. Bush attributed his economic problems to what he said was a recession inherited from President Bill Clinton and to the terrorist attacks and the corporate scandals of this year. Conveniently forgotten was Mr. Bush's confident prediction in 2001, when he first proposed his tax cut, that the country could "proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." It is that statement that has turned out to be false prophecy. Realistically speaking, there will not be a reconsideration of the tax cuts any time soon. The votes are not there to make the change. But history shows that Congresses and presidents are willing to raise taxes to close deficits in the face of war or as part of a grand bargain that involves austerity on the spending side. Both Bill Clinton and Mr. Bush's father embraced such deals. Mr. Bush's decision to pick fights with Congress on the margins of federal spending is unlikely to have any impact on the budget or on the economy. Only when he wrestles with root causes will he begin to approach a solution. nytimes.com