Originally posted by SDW2001
The fact is that there are some real reasons we are running deficits, most of them very good ones. It is true that tax cuts have lowered revenue in the short term. I argue those cuts were needed to get us out of recession, which they have done. We are also spedning a lot more militarily, which I think is also needed, even without regards to Iraq. We've had additonal expenses for homeland security in the post 9/11 era, etc. There are some very good reasons. We're also spending a LOT domestically. Take education, where the budget has gone up 50% since Bush took office.
For some reason I feel the need to repeat the mantra that ALL
non-defense discretionary spending totals less than the Defense budget. Much
less, if you count the supplemental Iraq appropriations (which are conveniently left off of the official budget, despite totaling more annually than NASA, NIH and NSF funding combined). You could axe everything
outside the DoD, and if wouldn't balance the budget. This is more or less the definition of a "structural" deficit. It's not going away without a substantial increase in revenues or extremely disruptive changes in outlays.
As for tax cuts, the recession was two years ago, right? The tax cuts worked, right? Aren't we in a recovery now? I swear I heard the President say we turned the corner. So shouldn't we be thinking of raising taxes to prepare for the next recession? Oh, I forgot. While we cut taxes during a recession, we instead cut taxes during periods of growth. In the Real World(tm), however, the economy is, was, and will always be cyclical. After a few more recessions, there won't be any taxes left to cut. Then what do you do? This tax-cuts-at-all-costs ideology simply makes no rational sense. None. Just like the rest of Bush's economic "plan" - say, the recession-fighting tax cuts scheduled to take effect in 2009 and expire in 2010.