Deficits, Fruit Flies and the Beltway

[Donutboy 0]

Here's a guy who actually provides some answers!!

Deficits, Fruit Flies and the Beltway

By JOHN KASICH

Published: February 1, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio

My, how the times and priorities have changed in Washington! Back in 2001, when I left Congress as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, the budget was balanced, $453 billion of debt had been paid down, and there were future surpluses amounting to $5.6 trillion that could be used to save and reform Social Security.

These accomplishments were possible because a committed team of public servants made huge political sacrifices for the benefit of their children. It took a government shutdown (showdown) to make it clear to President Bill Clinton that I and others in Congress would stop at nothing less than fiscal responsibility. Less discretionary spending, savings in entitlement programs, lower interest rates and capital gains tax cuts — which provided incentives for economic growth — were the drivers of our success.

We balanced the first budget since man walked on the moon because we were able to beat back the big-government, business-as-usual politicians. The political sacrifices called for in taming government are enormous. The demands to spend more on programs come from inside and outside Washington, and I learned first-hand that when you fight these interests you become an enemy to many.

Unfortunately, our success was short-lived. Since 2001 government spending has grown almost 20 percent, from $1.96 trillion then to the more than $2.3 trillion contained in the budget that President Bush is expected to release to Congress tomorrow. The Congressional Budget Office predicted last week that the deficit would hit a record $477 billion, and yet the spending spree goes on with no apparent end in sight. The surpluses that could have been used to save Social Security are gone, and Medicare continues its move toward bankruptcy.

Some blame President Bush's tax cuts, some blame the war on terrorism, but it all comes down to one simple reason: a lack of political will to curtail the rise and growth of government spending. An example of this is the bloated budget bill. It provides money for a birthday party for Hawaii and the study of fruit flies in France. Who is to blame? Everyone who has participated in the process, which means both Republicans and Democrats.

So I have a few things I would like to say to both sides. To my Republican friends: please don't argue that deficit spending and big government don't matter. They are a claim on future income either through higher taxes, or inflation and higher interest rates. And to my Democratic friends: deficits are not caused by taxes being too low, but by spending being too high. Your solution of raising taxes will lead only to slower economic growth and even more spending in the future. I also have a few suggestions for my former colleagues on what needs to be done:

• Reduce government bureaucracy, shrink the size of the federal work force by 2 percent to 3 percent, and trim overhead expenses like travel and utilities.

• Eliminate corporate subsidies for ethanol and other programs for well-connected businesses.

• Cut ineffective foreign aid programs that put money into the hands of corrupt and inept governments.

• Close unnecessary military bases. Modernize and privatize Pentagon personnel operations where appropriate.

• Curb the skyrocketing growth of health care spending by putting unrestricted and robust Medical Savings Accounts into effect and reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits.

• Scale back the bloated farm program.

• Cut the pork out of the highway bill. Better yet, return the program to the states and let them manage it.

• Auction surplus federal assets to the highest bidder.

These suggestions are obviously not comprehensive, but this is not about numbers, nor is this about deficits or budgets. This is about leadership. And leadership is about example and sacrifice, not cheers and re-election. It's about a quiet voice deep inside reminding you that working for the good of the country often means putting others before yourself and special interest groups. It's about a legacy that can't be seen until tomorrow. Which leads me to wonder: where are tomorrow's leaders, those few good men and women willing to fight with passion and stand on principle to make a difference for the next generation?

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Will wonders never cease? I agree with you, Donutboy(!) I was a big fan of Kasich when he was in the House representing Ohio. His & other member's leadership (e.g. Dick Armey of Texas) were the reason why the budget was not only balanced but on the way to a surplus. Those congresses where he was in charge of Way & Means understood that a budget has two components that can be changed: taxing & spending ... and they concentrated on the novel concept of limiting spending rather than the Democrat's knee-jerk reaction of raising taxes. And despite clinton's best attempt to thwart their efforts, the House Republicans prevailed and put the country's finances on solid ground for the first time in about 25 years.

The currrent congress has one more opportunity to demonstrate they know how to hold the line on spending. Sadly, the House no longer has people like Kasich & Armey serving there. And I just found out on Friday that my representative of the last 12 years, Jennifer Dunn, is retiring after this term. :unsure:

[Tiger Al 0]

OK, loggerhead, here's the part I don't understand; If republicans are so fiscally responsible (you said that "if not for the House republicans...") then where did you guys go wrong??? I mean, look, you control EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT so the excuses just don't hold water anymore. Not that they ever did, but, now you have no one else to blame. There's no Democratic controlled House. There's no Democratic controlled Senate. There's no Democratic President. All I've heard since I was old enough to remember is that the problem with our country was that Democrats were in charge and all we do is steal money. So, what has your party done? On the face, yes, they've returned the money we "stole" to its' rightful owners in a sense, but have now turned around and stolen money from somebody in the future because this huge deficit will have to be paid for at some point in time, won't it? Or, does it just vanish?

[TrueBlue72 0]

What is the world coming to????? Donutboy posts something that I agree with, wholeheartedly!!!! Call a doctor..... help.... ROFL

[Donutboy 0]

What is the world coming to?????  Donutboy posts something that I agree with, wholeheartedly!!!!  Call a doctor..... help....  ROFL

If you agree with it, as you say, why are you supporting Bush this fall????

[Donutboy 0]

OK, loggerhead, here's the part I don't understand; If republicans are so fiscally responsible (you said that "if not for the House republicans...") then where did you guys go wrong??? I mean, look, you control EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT so the excuses just don't hold water anymore. Not that they ever did, but, now you have no one else to blame. There's no Democratic controlled House. There's no Democratic controlled Senate. There's no Democratic President. All I've heard since I was old enough to remember is that the problem with our country was that Democrats were in charge and all we do is steal money. So, what has your party done? On the face, yes, they've returned the money we "stole" to its' rightful owners in a sense, but have now turned around and stolen money from somebody in the future because this huge deficit will have to be paid for at some point in time, won't it? Or, does it just vanish?

It's called a diversionary tactic. Another diversionary tactic is to blame the Democrats for promoting a welfare state or that Republicans believe in a man earning what he gets. Here's a good one for you? Which states would you think support the Republicans? States that pay more in taxes than they receive back from the government or the "welfare states" that receive more federal money than they pay in? Here's a page of maps. Pay especially close attention to the last map!! If you're considered one of the "welfare states", you're much more likely to vote Republican!!

makethemaccountable.com

Most people who vote Republican say they want less government and not to pay for the welfare of others.  What's actually happening is that those of us who live in the states that tend to vote Democratic are subsidizing those who live in states that vote Republican.

[Tigermike 3,711]

What is the world coming to?????  Donutboy posts something that I agree with, wholeheartedly!!!!  Call a doctor..... help....   ROFL

If you agree with it, as you say, why are you supporting Bush this fall????

If you agree with it, as you say, why are you supporting Bush this fall????

There is absolutely NO ONE on the other side who could or would do better!

You seem to overlook what Mr. KASICH said:

Some blame President Bush's tax cuts, some blame the war on terrorism, but it all comes down to one simple reason: a lack of political will to curtail the rise and growth of government spending. An example of this is the bloated budget bill. It provides money for a birthday party for Hawaii and the study of fruit flies in France. Who is to blame? Everyone who has participated in the process, which means both Republicans and Democrats.

You all want to blame it ALL on President Bush, to quote Pat Dye, that dog don't hunt!

[Tiger Al 0]

What is the world coming to?????  Donutboy posts something that I agree with, wholeheartedly!!!!  Call a doctor..... help....   ROFL

If you agree with it, as you say, why are you supporting Bush this fall????

If you agree with it, as you say, why are you supporting Bush this fall????

There is absolutely NO ONE on the other side who could or would do better!

You seem to overlook what Mr. KASICH said:

Some blame President Bush's tax cuts, some blame the war on terrorism, but it all comes down to one simple reason: a lack of political will to curtail the rise and growth of government spending. An example of this is the bloated budget bill. It provides money for a birthday party for Hawaii and the study of fruit flies in France. Who is to blame? Everyone who has participated in the process, which means both Republicans and Democrats.

You all want to blame it ALL on President Bush, to quote Pat Dye, that dog don't hunt!

Tigermike, looking at this as objectively as possible, you guys controlled the House and the Senate when Clinton (the one who had to be reigned in, remember?) was president. In 2000, when you...won...the presidency, both houses became even more republican AND you now had a president, too. Bush seems to be the wild card here, isn't he? Controlling Congress AND the presidency I'd expect to see a MASSIVE reduction in the budget because y'all are the ones with the big business sense and yet it grew!?! What gives?

[Tigermike 3,711]

I'd expect to see a MASSIVE reduction in the budget because y'all are the ones with the big business sense and yet it grew!?! What gives?

Remember 9 - 11? Remember the war on terrorism?

[Tiger Al 0]

I'd expect to see a MASSIVE reduction in the budget because y'all are the ones with the big business sense and yet it grew!?! What gives?

Remember 9 - 11? Remember the war on terrorism?

Remember the HUGE tax cuts and the growth in spending? 9/11 and terrorism only account for part. We're talking upwards of one trillion dollars, Mike.

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

OK, loggerhead, here's the part I don't understand; If republicans are so fiscally responsible (you said that "if not for the House republicans...") then where did you guys go wrong??? I mean, look, you control EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT so the excuses just don't hold water anymore. Not that they ever did, but, now you have no one else to blame. There's no Democratic controlled House. There's no Democratic controlled Senate. There's no Democratic President. All I've heard since I was old enough to remember is that the problem with our country was that Democrats were in charge and all we do is steal money. So, what has your party done? On the face, yes, they've returned the money we "stole" to its' rightful owners in a sense, but have now turned around and stolen money from somebody in the future because this huge deficit will have to be paid for at some point in time, won't it? Or, does it just vanish?

First of all, I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm beholden to no political party. I'm an independent conservative and I vote in every election, even the primaries. I've adopted the attitude of: if you want my vote, then you have to speak my (conservative) language.

I'm not happy with the current congress & their inability to hold the line on discretionary spending no matter how insignificant it is to the entire pie. I've made this point on this board before: Link. 9/11/01 changed everything. Aside from the hit the airline industry took as a result and the ripple effect on related businesses, you don't federalize all the airport baggage inspectors in the country & start up a new Homeland Security cabinet level department without incurring some big-time unanticipated costs. Throw in military actions in two countries combined with a recession economy and yeah, ... a huge budget deficit might result. Duh.

Secondly, what I said about Democrats' & Republicans' approaches to trimming the deficit is true. Here is the Congressional Budget Office's numbers from 1962 through 2003: CBO Budget Data. The record shows that except for 1969, every Democrat-controlled Congress in that timespan has run a budget deficit. Think about why so many people refer to them as the "Tax & Spend Democrats." It ain't because it's such a catchy phrase. It's historical fact. Now, contrast what the Republicans did with the budget when they took control of the Congress in 1995. It took them 4 years to go from a deficit to a surplus -- all the while with a sorry excuse for a dead-weight boat anchor in the Chief Exec's office slowing them down. And then they continued with 4 straight budget surpluses. I mean, it's truly remarkable. The current Congress only started the budget deficits again post 9/11/01. That's not intended to be an excuse for their recent pork-fest in the last budget. I still want to see some fiscal restraint there.

And yes, AL. You're absolutley right about the budget deficit will eventually have to be turned around (again) toward either a balanced budget or a surplus territory. Given the historical record though, ... which party do you honestly see

actually accomplishing that?

[Tiger Al 0]

Aside from the hit the airline industry took as a result and the ripple effect on related businesses, you don't federalize all the airport baggage inspectors in the country & start up a new Homeland Security cabinet level department without incurring some big-time unanticipated costs.

Then you don't give away money that is needed to cover those unanticipated costs, do you? Bush's tax refunds began after 9/11. If 9/11 changed everything then you tell people, "Sorry. We were giving this money back because we didn't need it but, guess what, NOW we do."

If I've got $10,000 in the bank and am meeting all of my financial obligations and decide that I want to go get a $7,000 home theatre system, that's fine. But, if I continue to pursue that home theatre system even after I've lost my job and can't find another one until I replace my car's broken transmission then that makes me a FOOL!