Wednesday, February 18, 2004
By the Numbers
An interesting little fact about how much federal spending has increased in the last thirty years:
Do you think it's worth it? What could you do with 5 thousand dollars? I wouldn't have to take out college loans if I had 5 thousand more dollars (of course, I don't pay that much in taxes, so the only way I could get that money would be if a system of wealth distribution was in place).
Most of the money is going towards homeland security in the new budget, as Deroy Murdock writes, with domestic spending barely increasing:
It seems that most of the criticism that is being leveled at President Bush is that he is not cutting more programs to keep the total budget in line. This seems like a perfect opportunity to push for less pork, since it is extremely difficult for one to argue for more spending in the current climate.
Oh, and remember the Alternative Minimum Tax? No one wants to fix it now because doing so would bust the budget even more:
We need a Solon(remember how he set Athenian government straight and unburdened debt slaves?), but will someone step up?
John Derbyshire on Spending on National Review Online: "Total federal outlays in 2002 were $2,010,975,000,000. In the year I first came to this country, 1973, they were $245,700,000,000, which adjusts up to $862,100,000,000 in 2002 dollars. So (and I am sticking with 2002 dollars throughout here) the 2002 feddle gummint spent about $1.15 trillion more than in 1973. To put it another way, the poor old U.S.A. in 1973 must have been a bleak place, with all those $1.15 trillion worth of federal needs unmet! Five and a half thousand dollars per 1973 citizen! "
Do you think it's worth it? What could you do with 5 thousand dollars? I wouldn't have to take out college loans if I had 5 thousand more dollars (of course, I don't pay that much in taxes, so the only way I could get that money would be if a system of wealth distribution was in place).
Most of the money is going towards homeland security in the new budget, as Deroy Murdock writes, with domestic spending barely increasing:
Remarkably, domestic discretionary spending inches ahead only 0.5 percent after barreling forward an inflation-adjusted average of 5 percent each of the last three years. Better yet, 65 federal programs are slated for elimination. While these deletions trim just $4.9 billion, they point expenditures the right way: down. As one White House aide told me, these "are programs in search of work rather than programs that finish their work and go out of business."
It seems that most of the criticism that is being leveled at President Bush is that he is not cutting more programs to keep the total budget in line. This seems like a perfect opportunity to push for less pork, since it is extremely difficult for one to argue for more spending in the current climate.
Oh, and remember the Alternative Minimum Tax? No one wants to fix it now because doing so would bust the budget even more:
It should be fixed, but I really doubt it will. It's one of those difficult decisions like fixing social security that no politician will make because it spends too much political capital and leaves no group completely satisfied.
Absent such major savings initiatives, Democrats and Republicans alike will consume tax dollars and crowd out necessary reforms such as personal Social Security accounts and permanent status for President Bush's tax cuts. By 2014, some 23 million Americans (up from 2 million today), can expect to suffer the costly and complex Alternative Minimum Tax. Overheated spending has pushed this problem's solution off the stove.
"Two to three years ago, lots of folks were saying we would shortly fix AMT," NTU's John Berthoud recalls. "Nobody's saying that now."
We need a Solon(remember how he set Athenian government straight and unburdened debt slaves?), but will someone step up?
Comments:
Post a Comment
