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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (25790)	1/23/2004 4:59:13 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

For weeks, administration officials have promised to hold discretionary spending increases in 2005 to no more than 4 percent. Yesterday's 1 percent pledge strengthened their promise to conservatives. With inflation just under 2 percent, a 1 percent budget increase would represent, at best, level funding for most domestic agencies and a cut for some. I don't think folks understand what this means. Discretionary spending is an increasingly smaller part of the budget. Once you get past debt servicing and entitlements, there's not much left under the umbrella of discretionary spending. That term is so misleading. People think of discretionary spending as whether or not to get a Tivo or a standing rib roast. Discretionary spending is more like the government version of fixing the hole in the roof and buying vegetables. Given that discretionary spending isn't the majority of the Federal budget, given that we've further decreased what can be cut by exempting homeland security, the goliath of Federal agencies, we're already down to four percent or one percent of the Federal version of chump change. Then, on top of that, the discretionary part of the budget is filled with pork, which comes to the agencies in the form of earmarks, which means that they have to be fully funded before money can be spent on anything else. It's like having to take off the top of your food budget the funds to pay for dying your grass so that all the neighborhood lawns are color coordinated. Then you get to buy vegetables with what's left. If the government decides it wants to neglect roads and meat inspections and drug vetting and all the other stuff that is done in the discretionary part of the budget, then it should do so directly. Putting general spending caps on discretionary spending distorts priorities. And earmarks do so egregiously.