View Single Post
  #2  
Old 07-16-2003, 02:17 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,298
Default Re: About that \"insignificant\" deficit

I certainly didn't say the deficit was insignificant, just that it's hyped. Did you read the Wall Street Journal editorial today about the budget deficit? Basically it stated that same things that I wrote in my post only revenues are going to be worse than expected. In the editorial they attributed 53% of the current deficit to revenue declines (I didn't check the math myself). Also they pointed out, correctly, that defense spending as % of GDP has increased quite a bit from the Clinton administration lows. The editorial pointed out that even Howard Dean has acknowledged that defense spending had to increase after 9/11. It's certainly worthy of debate as to what percentage of the budget should go to Defense spending. On the other topics forum I pointed out that Medicare and Medicaid spending is out of control. Here are the three reasons why the Clinton administration was able to have a surplus when considering the total federal budget:

1. Record revenues due to many factors including record low levels of unemployment, high corporate profits, and high capital gains from a big stock market rally.

2. A significant decrease in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The Wall Street Journal editorial I referred to pointed out that this level of defense spending had not been seen since before 1940.

3. A constant growth rate in Medicare and Medicaid spending. During the Clinton administration Medicare and Medicaid growth was held more or less constant due IMO to the Clinton administration's get tough policy on Medicare and Medicaid fraud as well as pressure on providers to keep their charges inline.

Medicare and Medicaid spending has resumed it's accelerated growth rate under the Bush administration. Again referring to the Wall Street Journal editorial, it stated that increasing taxes will not balance the budget but I think that's open to debate although I agree with what was stated in the editorial. The facts are these:

1. Government revenues have declined significantly since 2000.

2. Government outlays have increased every year for the last 40.

3. You can't balance the budget when revenues are declining and outlays are increasing.

What programs do you want to cut and by how much? IMO you can't get government spending under control without some sort of Medicare and Medicaid reform as a start.
Reply With Quote