Ignoring the Real Problem; NY Times Handwaves Away Spending
In an article about how the current financial crisis would affect the two presidential candidates promises, the NY Times demonstrates the real problem without even noticing it.
While first commenting, as I did, that neither candidate could get specific on what promised programs they would not implement or delay as a result of circumstances, the paper immediately jumps in with the absolutely wrong emphasis.
The big issue for each candidate is not spending, per se, but how the crisis will affect their promises on taxes. Mr. Obama has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy, starting next year, to help restore fairness to the tax code and to pay for his spending plans. With the economy tanking, however, it’s hard to imagine how he could prudently do that. He should acknowledge the likelihood of having to postpone a tax increase and explain how that change will affect his plans. Then, he can promise to raise those taxes as soon as the economy allows.
Mr. McCain has an even tougher job. To be straight with voters, he would have to acknowledge that the centerpiece of his economic plan — to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2011 and to add billions of dollars of new tax breaks — is impossible. If he went ahead with those plans, the national debt would explode, undermining the borrowing that the nation must undertake to finance the bailouts.
Sounding like some forlorn caller to the Dave Ramsey show, complaining that they could get out of debt if only they could make more money, the Times looks only to the income side of the ledger. Not content to ignore spending, they specifically rule it out. But as anyone who’s listened to Dave, or to advice from Crown Financial Ministries, or just about any other financial advisor, it is far, far easier to regulate your spending thanit is your income level. Now, the federal government is in a different position than most of us, in that they can simply legislate the amount of money they want to come in, but as these advisors will tell you, if you don’t discipline your spending and set good habits in that regard, no amount of income will be enough. Ever.
Not only does the Times come at this problem incorrectly, it’s ironic that it paints itself into a corner on its proposed solution. Obama can’t raise taxes, but McCain can’t cut them. Guess the Bush tax levels are, as Goldilocks might say, just right?
But seriously folks, let’s not forget who’s backward proposal this is; the New York Times. No one would mistake them for a member of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. This is a liberal answer to the problem, and it is entirely the wrong approach. The conservative answer to this are common sense financial principles.
Notice I’m not naming party names. This is mostly because, while Democrats can spend like a drunken sailor, Republicans have show that they can get about as drunk themselves. If the conservative, common sense solution is to have a ghost of a chance, Republican politicians have to get back to their conservative roots.
And we, as their constituents, have to get out of our entitlement mentality, waiting to see which candidate for whatever office will give us the most stuff. Otherwise, the road to the presidency will be won by the candidate promising to be the most pandering and the least responsible. The best thing about our republic is that it is government "by the people", but sometimes it’s the worst thing about it, too.
Filed under: Doug • Economics & Taxes • Government • Liberal • Media
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
This is mostly because, while Democrats can spend like a drunken sailor, Republicans have show that they can get about as drunk themselves.
And, judging by the last five administrations, Republicans can and have, in fact, OUTSPEND the Dems, at least when we’re looking at the last few Republican and Democrat presidents.
I agree you have a point: We have to reconsider the candidate’s budget promises in view of the latest economy news. But another thing to keep in mind is wise spending vs unwise spending. As I try to point out regularly, we could cut (for instance) $1 billion from infrastructure spending if we wanted to and “save” $1 billion. HOWEVER, if those cuts resulted in us being forced to spend $2 billion eventually, then there was no savings at all. In fact, that spending “cut” would cost twice as much as if we hadn’t made the cut.
(For example, if we cut bridge maintenance and as a result, have another bridge to collapse, that costs a good bit more than the upkeep would have cost – not to mention the potential loss of lives.)
Not all budget cuts are savings. Which is why Obama wisely talks about spending “investments.” We desperately need to cut away the unnecessary in these economic times (NASA, anyone?) and eliminate the waste and increase the efficiency. But sometimes, a cut is no cut at all.
[Admin note: This is the comment as rescued from the spam filter.]
ummm… didn’t I just make a post? Where’d it go?
Anyway, I sort of agreed, saying we do need to (as Obama has pledged to do) look at each program and eliminate unnecessary ones (NASA, anyone?) and eliminate waste in the ones we keep and increase efficiency.
But some cuts are not cuts, but actually result in greater spending. The example of infrastructure is a good one – we might save money by cutting back on bridge inspections and repair, but if a bridge collapses, then there’s a greater cost (not to mention the human cost such a tragedy incurs) eventually.
So cut where we can, but invest where we must.
Yeah, you did post, but somehow it ended up in the spam queue and this one didn’t. Don’t know the mind of Akismet.
And I agree in principal about some investments costing less than fixing them later. My issue is with the mindset that the Times has given voice to; “spending isn’t the issue”. It most certainly is, and, as I noted before, your ideas and Obama’s promises about looking at each program will get lost in the deluge of cries of “don’t cut my government dollars”. The entitlement mentality, unless we can start weaning people off of it, is going to destroy any hopes of living within our means.
And if the Times is any indication, the folks you’re going to vote for are not going to do it, and most of their constituency is fine with that. Republicans at least have a base that wants it; they just have to listen to them.
I don’t buy that the Republicans en masse want any vast cutbacks. They want PROGRAMS THAT THEY DON’T LIKE to be cut, but they’ll mostly fight tooth and nail to maintain and increase the programs they DO like.
It was one of the things that I thought McCain had going in his favor – his willingness to cut spending across the board and really mean it. The problem I have with that is as I’ve indicated – some programs are good and necessary.
You’re absolutely right; most Republicans on Capitol Hill don’t want such cutbacks. They are also entrenched in this entitlement mindset. That’s a big problem.
My point is that if they get back to their core conservativeness, and if their voters will allow that and not throw them out for the next guy with money to throw at them, there’s a far better chance at riding this out and not making the same mistakes in the future. Much better than if Democrats get their big government, nanny state wishes, which are at the core of their liberal policies. The Times editorial is the symptom of that mindset, and they just love Democrats.