Where's the fiscal outrage? Bloated budget grows 150 BILLION!

Good for you, bama, seriously. I am outraged by the spending as well. This is also the reason my conservative father has said he will note vote for GWB in 04.

Me, I write my useless letters to my useless congresspeople.

I hope some candidate can convince you of his or her fiscal responsibility, be that person a libertarian or otherwise.

 

Right on, bamaslammer. Couldn't have said it better.

I'm not necessarily for a smaller government, but you've gotta be responsible. The more debt we rack up, the more our kids have to pay back. Not cool.

 

i've said this a thousand times, the size of the federal budget relative to GDP declined until GWB took office, then it got bigger again. There's only one party to blame for that.

Also, don't underestimated the MASSIVE costs of the Iraq adventure. One week in Iraq costs the equivalent of Senator Hatch's precription drug plan...for the next 10 years, with change left over.

 

Wow, I didn't realize the numbers were that outta whack. What people forget is that we will HAVE TO PAY THESE DEBTS BACK. With interest. Anybody with a credit card knows that. These bills won't just go away.

The more debt we rack up, the more we have to spend to pay it down and, obviously, the less we can spend on health care, defense, etc. This is just plain stupid.

And what do we have to show for our deficits? Better health care? Better schools? A stronger economy? Nope, an occupation of a country that doesn't want us there.

The responsibility lies squarely with Republicans on this budgetary nightmare -- when you control the House, the Senate and the White House, you take responsibility for the good AND bad.

 

Just wait until you see what happens when the Russians finally wise up and start selling their oil for Euros rather than dollars. That should happen, oh, about when the UK switches over to the Euro from the Pound. Fun times ahead!

And yeah, BS, I'll get in line with others who have been critical of you in the past and say nice post.

 

Yeah it's a good post. I've also in the past pointed out a fairly painless way to cut down on govt. spending.

Start paying off the debt. 14% of our government budget goes toward paying off the intrest on that debt. It will naturally rise as the debt rises, which it's doing under Bush.

To imagine that if there was no doubt that would mean the government would be spending 14% less of your tax dollars, and we would lose zero programs in the process. No school funding would be cut, no medicare cuts, no cuts in veteran benefits, not cuts in anything, but still a 14% savings.

 

Great points. Almost 2/3 of our tax dollars go to paying interest on our debt (not the debt -- just the interest) and to the military. TWO-THIRDS! And before you start screaming "Terrorists! War!" consider this:

The United States spends more on defense than the next 20 countries COMBINED.

Think about that. We alone shoulder the burden for international security. Spread the costs around -- quit giving these other countries a free ride! If the U.S. would allow the U.N. to play a larger role in world affairs, we could safely cut our military expenses, slash taxes, improve international relations, decrease our debt, and increase spending on beneficial domestic programs like infrastructure, health care and education. More money and services for less taxes.

THAT is fiscal responsibility.

 

This is one of the big reason I was sooooo pissed about the dividends Bush paid to his rich cronies. They are adding to the debt year after year and as they do it, they further commit us to interest payments that do not help us to do ANYTHING.

This is like taking a payday loan out. Once you have it out, it can be very difficult to get out of paying the huge interest payments month after month.

I would be more than happy to forego my "tax cut" and then some if the result was paying off the debt over the next 20 years, after which an automatic 14% tax cut kicked in. THAT would be a substantial tax cut that most Americans would feel in their wallets.

 

The outrage shouldn't just be about increased spending. Here is another example of what Congress does to "hide" tax cuts from the public "radar screen", while giving their corporate friends something to look forward to... rubbing their hands in anticipation:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 9, 2003
ECONOMIC VIEW
Lawmakers Push Costs of Tax Cuts Out of Sight
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Washington

PERHAPS it is time for Congress to pass a Truth-in-Advertising Act for tax cuts.

Both the House and Senate are pushing ahead with bills that would overhaul corporate tax laws, offering new tax breaks to everybody from rust-belt manufacturing companies and Texas oil drillers to multinational conglomerates like Procter & Gamble.

There are many reasons why Congress needs to make changes. For one thing, the World Trade Organization has ruled that a certain American tax break for exporters is an illegal trade subsidy and that the European Union is within its rights to retaliate with up to $4 billion a year in new tariffs on American products.

In trying to replace the old export subsidy with something new, Democrats and Republicans alike tend to couch the debate in broad terms. A bipartisan group in the Senate wants to focus on tax breaks for domestic manufacturers in the hope of creating (or at least saving) American factory jobs.

Republicans are seeking more sweeping reductions that include new relief for American multinationals operating overseas. Representative Bill Thomas, a Republican of California and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is promoting his bill under the dual banners of "jobs" and "competitiveness."

But there is another issue that has received far less attention: proponents of both bills are using budgetary sleight-of-hand to make the tax cuts and their impact on the burgeoning federal deficit look smaller than they really are.

The Thomas bill, which cleared the Ways and Means Committee in late October, is supposed to cost the Treasury about $60 billion over the next 10 years. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan Congressional office that estimates the cost of tax proposals, the bill would create $128 billion worth of new tax breaks. It would offset about $68 billion of that cost by phasing out the old tax subsidy for exports, tightening rules against tax shelters and imposing fees for things like customs duties.

But several of the biggest tax breaks will not take full effect until eight or nine years from now, which means that the full costs barely begin to show up inside the standard 10-year estimates produced by Congressional scorekeepers.

This backloading is particularly heavy in the House bill. One big provision, a favorite of multinational companies like Procter & Gamble and Cisco Systems Inc., would make it easier for multinationals to defer American taxes on profits that cross national borders within the European Union. The provision would cost the Treasury $10.5 billion over 10 years, but almost all of it takes effect after 2009. In 2013 alone, the cost would reach $3 billion and keep climbing after that.

A provision that changes the way multinationals allocate interest expenses would cost $11.8 billion, but $2.8 billion of that would come in 2013. A provision to reduce taxes on foreign royalties for American movies would cost $597 billion over 10 years, but almost all of that would happen after 2008.

HOUSE lawmakers also reduced the apparent cost of their bill by including "sunset" provisions that end particular tax breaks after several years. A provision that extends a tax break for small companies and is supposed to cost $10 billion over 10 years. But that assumes the tax break will expire after 2007. Congress has a history of extending supposedly temporary tax breaks.

According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington research organization, more than half the revenue losses in Mr. Thomas's bill take place in the last three years of the 10-year forecast.

The issue is not just about shifting costs from one year to the next. It's about pushing the costs out of view by keeping them outside the standard forecasting window. Although the cost estimate looks ahead 10 years, most of the tax cuts go on indefinitely.

"The 10-year cost estimate is thus a poor indicator of the package's true impact over the long term,'' wrote Joel Friedman, a tax economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet it is the longer term that the federal government faces huge fiscal difficulties as baby boomers start collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, poses similar issues. Although it is "revenue neutral'' over 10 years, Congressional scorekeepers estimate it would lose $4 billion in 2013 and continue to do so thereafter.

These and other time shifts do wonders for the appearance of tax bills at a time when the federal government is facing a $500 billion budget deficit next year. But for those who care to look out over the rainbow, the view is more disquieting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/yourmoney/09view.html?pagewanted=print&position=



My kids can look forward to paying for these unspeakable deficits the rest of their lives. Along with higher interest rates, a weaker dollar, and reduced essential services from the Federal government. Oh, and higher state and local taxes to attempt to make up for it. And lets not forget less money for defense and veterans benefits. Or taking care of our crumbling National Park system. Or more things than I feel like typing. For what? To pay back their contributors. Bully for Congress.

Groovy.