- The Washington Times - Monday, September 9, 2002

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and his Democratic warriors continue to attack President Bush for the budget deficit, blaming Mr. Bush's tax cuts for hurting the economy.
The truth, of course, is that the deficit is the result of a temporary slowdown in the U.S. economy, which has reduced tax revenues. They may even be helping the economy in the interim because of a little pump-priming spending.
The federal budget deficit's impact on the economy has been continually debated, and there is still no consensus on whether the deficit has had any economic effect at all. The deficit soared to record triple-digit heights as a result of the 1981-82 recession. However, the Reagan economy roared back in the last half of the 1980s.
During that tax-cutting decade, the stock market climbed sharply, unemployment fell to nearly 5 percent, and tax revenues rose, as did federal spending ballooning from $600 billion a year to more than $1 trillion.
On the other hand, the government enjoyed budget surpluses as we entered last year's recession. So any effect a budget deficit, or the absence of it, may have on the economy is dubious at best.
The Congressional Budget Office reported at the end of August that this year's deficit will be about $157 billion. What caused it? Consider this:
"By the end of the summer, with additional months of data in hand, it appears the economic slowdown has resulted in a revenue falloff of more than $100 billion in 2002," says the Senate Budget Committee's Republican staff in its weekly Budget Bulletin.
"Combining this with the $50 billion effect of economic stimulus legislation enacted in March to address the slowdown (along with the $6 billion effect of the recent 2002 supplemental) explains nearly all off the change in CBO's 2002 budget outlook," the report said.
CBO expects little improvement in next year's deficit, which will be about $145 billion. But as the economy recovers, corporate earnings rise, and the stock market turns bullish, which it eventually will, tax revenues are going to rise. We will have surpluses again, but only if we manage to keep spending under control. That's where the real fight in Congress is going to take place this fall.
It is interesting that Mr. Daschle and his friends talk endlessly about the deficit but rarely utter a discouraging word about the spending that contributes to the deficit. The reason, of course, is that while they presumably hate deficits, they love spending. They are addicted to it. And that's the problem he and his colleagues do not want to face.
"Congress is in the midst of an unprecedented spending binge," Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, wrote in a letter to his colleagues on Aug. 29.
"Since 1998, federal discretionary spending has increased on average by nearly 7 percent every year, growth unseen since the late 1960s," Mr. Gramm said.
"Excluding the emergency spending as a result of September 11, federal spending is increasing almost 4 times as fast as inflation, and 50 percent faster than median family income," he said.
Every appropriations bill has risen at least twice the rate of inflation, and "several have increased as much as 5 or 6 times the inflation rate," he said.
If the appropriations bills over the last five years, excluding the emergency spending to respond to the terrorist attacks, had been tied to the rate of inflation, or even a little above it, we would probably have budget surpluses today.
There is more than enough money in the $2 trillion annual federal budget to defend our country and protect the national welfare and do it in a fiscally responsible way without repealing any of the Bush tax cuts, as several Democratic leaders now propose.
In fact, this is exactly what the House did earlier this year when it passed a fiscal 2003 budget plan that pays for the war against terrorism and doubles the money we spend for homeland defense. And it does so with a moderate 3 percent increase in discretionary spending.
Now, you would think, with all of the complaints Mr Daschle has made about "fiscal responsibility" and the president's budget deficit, that his first priority this year would have been to pass a budget bill to put some restraints on spending.
But nothing remotely resembling a budget has come up in the Senate this year. With so many of his Democratic colleagues calling for budget increases over and above current spending levels, the Democratic majority leader concedes he does not have the votes to pass a budget.
So, the next time you hear Mr. Daschle ranting and raving about Mr. Bush's budget deficit, remember the old trick in the carnival shell game. He hopes we'll keep our eyes fixed on the deficit so we won't notice the irresponsible rise in spending.

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide