In other words, it’s not a revenue (read: tax increase) problem. It’s a spending problem.
As we first pointed out in April:
2007 Federal Budget: $2.73 trillion.
Note: This was the last all Republican budget – the House, Senate and White House were at the time all run by the Rs.
2011 Federal Budget: $3.82 trillion.
Note: 2011 is an estimated total. Because the Democrats that were at the time running the House, Senate and White House didn’t write a budget – because they were afraid to go on the record with how much they actually wanted to spend in advance of the 2010 election.
Meaning – it could have been WORSE.
That is a $1.09 TRILLION increase – in just the last four years. A 29% increase – in just the last four years.
So when the Democrat members of the Super Committee propose $1.3 trillion in new taxes - they are woefully missing the point, and the true solution.
And that solution is: Stop Spending. In fact, dramatic cuts are in order.
Stop looking for/counting on new sources of government money – especially silly when they are one-time-only in nature (like, say, spectrum auctions. Which are a great idea spectrum-wise – but are a terrible idea deficit/debt-wise).
It is not a lack of government money problem.
The federal deficit this year was/is $1.5 trillion – which means the government collected $2.3 trillion. That is plenty. More than too much, actually.
So to the Super Committee – and everyone else in Washington:
Stop looking for more coin. And just cut spending now.
as soon as this super committee was conceived i was wary–i’m afraid this will not end well
boehner and the rest of the republican negotiators reminded me of albert brooks in ‘defending your life’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DufE-dcQ70k
The fact that the reminder even needs to be made is staggering.
The Republican platform could have a single plank: return spending to 2007 levels.
That alone would be enough to win all branches and save the republic.
And since you will never hear a Republican say it…it makes you wonder what THEIR goal really is
The federal budget was below $2 trillion in FY 2000, about 14% of GDP. We ran a “surplus” then (yeah, I know….) and nobody would argue that we were suffering economically.
We can get there again and we absolutely must. And spare me that government bureaucrats will lose their jobs. In 1945-47 we transistioned to a post-war economy including dismantling entire government agencies that were no longer needed in peacetime. The economy barely hiccupped.
You’re confusing matters and which is a common mistake. The “surplus” realized in 2000 was that generated in a single fiscal year, i.e. government spent less than the taxes/fees it collected. In other words, government did not run a deficit in FY2000. Because of this the federal debt (aggregated yearly surpluses/deficits) at the time ($5.6 trillion) was reduced only marginally.
Actually, the debt didn’t increase at all despite the “surplus.” From the government website:
Date
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 (increase of $30 billion)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 (increase of about $17.9 billion)
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 (increase of $133 billion)
The Senate’s failure to pass a budget in over 900 days is a feature, not a bug. The last budget they passed included an additional $800 billion in “stimulus” spending. By failing to pass another budget, they’ve relied on continuing resolutions to keep the government functioning. Continuing resolutions maintain the current level of spending, so that supposedly one-time “stimulus” spending is now part of the baseline. If you want to cut trillions from the budget over the next 10 years, start by cutting the spending back to 2007 levels. People weren’t dying in the streets in 2007. We’ll survive at the reduced spending level.
Once again O has eaten repubs for lunch. 28 million new food stamp recipients will vote left. Now student vote bought and paid for. Nature wacko vote Is a lock. Inflation will screw the same people screwed by ultra-low interest rates. The givemes always get cola’s.