Six for 06

According to a Washington Post article, stomach House Democrats are laying out a “legislative agenda” as part of their “midterm election push.” Of course, hemophilia that is not unusual–it is Congress’ job to make laws, disease after all, and any party that wants to control the House should have an agenda.

The treatment the plan receives in the article is interesting on two counts. First, the plan itself is quite ambitious and, to my mind, slightly flawed but overall a good idea. Second, the balance imperative rears its ugly head in some impressive ways.

To summarize the plan, let me quote from the article:

The plan would allocate billions of dollars to build up the military, subsidize student loans and bolster port security. It would raise the minimum wage, make college tuition payments tax-deductible, repeal oil-company tax breaks and expand incentives for personal savings accounts, among many other provisions.

The program would prohibit the House from approving new spending or tax measures that widen the budget deficit. It would do that by restoring budget rules requiring that all future spending increases and tax cuts be offset by equivalent tax hikes or spending cuts.

This is certainly bold. My favorite part is the restoration of rules that require new spending to be offset by cuts. Anyone who has run a household budget knows that you can’t start spending more money on something unless you spend less on something else. This provision alone makes the whole plan worth it.

As for the other parts of the plan, one would need to see more specifics to know for sure, but the general priorities seem good. Increasing military and security spending seems to be a necessity of the moment. Increasing the minimum wage and helping kids pay for college are good, reliable, progressive moves. I don’t like the support for personal savings accounts (assuming they’re talking about the ones Republicans propose to supplement Social Security or the ones for replacing health insurance; I’m all in favor of banks offering savings accounts) because I don’t think that it makes sense to shift risk to individuals.

All in all, a bold plan. I would like to turn now to the treatment the plan receives in the article. For example, the article states that “Republicans and budget experts doubt that Democrats could do both [enact their plan and keep the deficit under control] simultaneously.” First, the contruction implies that Republicans and budget experts are on the same page, thus implying that Republicans’ criticisms are not politically motivated. Who are these budget experts, and why do they doubt that Democrats could enact their plan? The article is silent.

The piece contains an amazing example of he-said she-said journalism:

This week, President Bush blistered Democratic policies and argued that voters would be better off if they kept Republicans in charge of Congress. He charged in a series of speeches that the Democrats would undermine America’s fight against terrorism and would raise taxes if they won congressional majorities on Nov. 7.

Democratic leaders dispute the accusation and have been talking up Six for ’06.

President Bush makes an accusation. The Democrats disagree. The article says nothing more, but there is much more that should be said. For example, why would increasing military and port security spending “undermine America’s fight against terrorism?” That makes no sense to me. As for raising taxes, it is true that the Democratic plan leaves that possibility open, but only to offset increased spending.

In fact, one incredible omission occurs throughout the article: any mention of the current state of the budget deficit, or of the budget management practiced by the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. I think that information would be relevant in a story about Democrats offering an alternative plan. Yet the article never mentions anything about the budget situation as it stands now.

As a matter of fact, it stands directly in the toilet. The U.S. Treasury website provides information about the debt. As the Clinton presidency was drawing to a close (9/30/2000), the deficit was:

$5,674,178,209,886.86

The deficit is now:

$8,562,455,433,495.19

Of course, for fairness I should mention that the deficit did increase during Clinton’s eight years, from $4,064,620,655,521.66 to the above figure, or an increase of $1,609,557,554,365.20, or 39.6%.

Under Bush, the deficit has increased by $2,888,277,223,608.33, or 50.9%.

Keep that in mind as I present my favorite unintentionally ironic part of the article:

“It’s schizophrenia in ’06 is what it is,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), a member of the Budget Committee. “You cannot balance the budget by vastly increasing spending.”

Indeed.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. Harry Crumb
    Posted November 7, 2006 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    The plan is indeed bold, and a predictably over-ambitious election year talking point. And even though I agree that some things sound good (new spending offset by cuts, making college tuition payments tax deductible, and support for personal savings account) most of the plan is a typically flawed plan put out by the Democrats.

    First, raising the minimum wage has proven to be a flawed policy. By raising the minimum wage, you don’t increase employers’ revenue thereby allowing them to pay more to their employees; you simply force employers to cut labor expenses (jobs). What function does raising the minimum wage serve other than allowing one party to demagogue about looking out for the little guy? Why not simply raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour if raising the minimum wage is a good thing? It is a bad policy and immoral intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens and the market.

    I will never understand why anyone would not support private savings accounts instead of the horrible social security program. First, social security is nothing more than a promise by politicians (politicians who promise a lot of things to a lot of people) to take care of you when you retire. Most people don’t realize that they do not have any property right to the money that they set aside for social security. My social security money that I have been paying out of my salary is being used to pay for current retiree benefits (why this is not considered a Ponzi scheme, I will never know) and is not set aside with my name on it. And, because we currently have more payers than retirees, we have a surplus (although as the baby boomer generation hits retirement age that will not be the case anymore). What happens to that surplus you ask? It is completely spent every year by politicians, who then place an IOU into the cookie jar, promising that some other politician will pay it back years down the road when it is time for me to retire. Right now there is no “trust fund” or “lock box” with all of this surplus money in it, there is nothing but an empty cookie jar filled with IOUs signed by politicians. And we all know how good politicians are at keeping their promise. I have seen my grandfather’s military retirement benefits changed and cut time and again by politicians who find it a politically expedient way to get money. Have we gotten to the point in our society that we feel completely comfortable giving away our freedom in exchange for some security? Nevertheless, if the government feels that it must intrude into its citizens lives to ensure that they are prepared for retirement, why not set aside the money they take into personalized accounts to ensure that each person, regardless of what any politicians says, owns that money. It would also ensure that the government cannot spend it and put in an IOU in its place. I, for one, do not trust politicians with my money, period. Those who do not support private accounts give up their freedom to make their own decisions in exchange for government nanny-ism. I will never understand this.

  • Pages

  • Categories

  • Older Posts