How to Solve the Budget Deficit Crisis Without Really Trying

April 7, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (20)

Most of the fiscal debate sparked by Rep. Paul Ryan’s unveiling his budget proposal Tuesday--with his grave warning that dealing with the deficit is a “moral imperative”--has omitted a couple of key facts about the budget imbalance. To wit that Congress could solve the crisis by doing nothing at all and that current GOP doctrine aims to make the crisis much worse.

[See political cartoons about the budget and the deficit.]

The notion that Congress can bring the budget under control by sitting on its hands may seem incredible. But that’s not my conclusion; it’s the judgment of the Congressional Budget Office, about as reliable a fiscal scorekeeper as you’ll find.

As I noted in my column this week, the CBO:

projects the budget deficit will be $1.5 trillion this year, or 9.8 percent of gross domestic product. In order to achieve budget stability and sustainability, according to economists, that figure should be around 3 percent of GDP. But here's the good news: The CBO projects that the deficit will "drop markedly over the next few years as a share of output and average 3.1 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021." We're saved! And it gets better: "Those projections . . . are based on the assumption that tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law."

In other words if the laws already on the books are allowed to run their course, the deficit will become sustainable and manageable of its own accord. But of course there’s a hitch: The laws in question include things like the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is scheduled to hit the middle class, and a scheduled cut in Medicare payments. Each year bipartisan majorities adjust the AMT and pass a “doc-fix” to push back the Medicare cuts.

But the budgetary behemoth that goes farthest in preventing the deficit from naturally shrinking to manageable size is the set of tax cuts passed under President Bush and temporarily extended in December, which the GOP seeks to make permanent. Doing so would add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit. [Check out editorial cartoons about the GOP.]

One can certainly argue the economic merits of letting some or all of the Bush tax cuts expire versus extending them. But to say that dealing with the budget crisis is a “moral imperative” while pushing policies that worsen it is fatuous--or worse. Republicans bray about the $787 billion in stimulus spending as being an unjustifiable budget buster while they simultaneously advocate for a $4 trillion hole in the deficit. Doing so is not the sign of serious concern over the deficit, simply ideological fixation on spending.

My bloleague Anson Kaye noted earlier, the GOP gives every appearance of using concern about the fiscal situation to grind some ideological axes. But it’s in fact worse than that: They are trying to worsen the budget imbalance in an effort to achieve those ideological ends.

Tags:
Congress,
politics,
George W. Bush,
Paul Ryan,
deficit and national debt,
taxes,
federal budget,
economic stimulus,
federal taxes,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (20)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I can’t understand why we don’t do the basics. We need to tax all Internet sales. Why do my insanely rich relatives still get social security? Why is my friend collecting unemployment for what seems like years when her husband makes 200k a year? My cousin works for the government and can name 3 different people she works with making over 100k a year and work about 2 hours a day. No wonder we are in such bad shape!

Luke Moyer of PA 10:59PM July 19, 2011

Republicans talk tough, but they always ignore that big elephant standing in the corner, defense spending. You can't even pretend to be serious about cutting spending until you get it under control. And how do you do that? The military industrial complex has our congessmen bought and sold. I know that this is another inconvenient trut the republicans want to ignore. It's funny how they like to ignore whatever it is ghey don't want to hear or see at the moment.

Excuse me, but of CO 1:12PM April 17, 2011

I can always count on some pundit or politician to invoke either the CBO or the OMB when it fits their agenda. Can Mr. Schlesinger name any CBO forecasts that were true five, ten or twenty years after the fact? Besides, the CBO has certain parameters that it must meet to make these projections. And not everything is actually on the budget - how do you handle that?

The real bottom line is that the federal government spends way too much - you can't just tax your way out of it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs are slowing eating more and more of our tax dollars precisely because no one could see the massive growth in the populations they were designed to serve. So go ahead and quote the CBO all you want...it's just a guess...

Hal Meeks of NC 9:51PM April 14, 2011

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

Calling Terrorism What It Is

Refusing to call terrorism by its name helps no one.

Latest Videos

advertisement