Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Wall Street Journal turns on Obama?

Say whaaat??? Whoda thunk that poster-child of left-wing journalism in the United States would take on the Obama Administration and Pelosi Congress to task over runaway deficits?

UPDATE: Yea, my bad... was thinking the New York Times. [wiping egg off face]

"The Pelosi-Obama Deficits" they're calling it. Somebody pinch me, I've got to be dreaming...
AUGUST 26, 2009, 5:12 A.M. ET
The Pelosi-Obama Deficits
Even $9 trillion might be too optimistic on current spending trends

Earlier this year when President Obama was selling his first budget blueprint, he promised to end years of "borrow and spend" budgeting. Yesterday, reality struck.

Mr. Obama's White House and the Congressional Budget Office told us that current U.S. fiscal policy is "borrow and spend" on a hyperlink. The good news is the deficit for 2009 will be "only" $1.58 trillion, about $250 billion lower than expected thanks to less need for TARP funds. But the Obama fiscal plan envisions $9 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade, which is $2 trillion more debt than the White House predicted earlier this year. The 2010 deficit also rises by about as much as the 2009 deficit falls from January, so even the TARP windfall gets spent.

We've never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019—and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is "unsustainable," but even this forecast may be optimistic.

Here's why. Many of the current budget assumptions are laughably implausible. Both the White House and CBO predict that Congress will hold federal spending at the rate of inflation over the next decade. This is the same Democratic Congress that awarded a 47% increase in domestic discretionary spending in 2009 when counting stimulus funds. And the appropriations bills now speeding through Congress for 2010 serve up an 8% increase in domestic spending after inflation.

Another doozy is that Nancy Pelosi and friends are going to allow a one-third or more reduction in liberal priorities like Head Start, food stamps and child nutrition after 2011 when the stimulus expires. CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth.

Federal revenues, which will hit a 40-year low of 14.9% of GDP this year, are expected to rise to 19.6% of GDP by 2014 and then 20.2% by 2019—which the CBO concedes is "high by historical standards." This implies some enormous tax increases.

CBO assumes that some 28 million middle-class tax filers will get hit by the alternative minimum tax, something Democrats say they won't let happen. CBO also assumes that all the Bush tax cuts disappear—not merely those for the rich, but those for lower and middle income families as well. So either the deficit is going to be about $1.3 trillion higher than Washington thinks, or out goes Mr. Obama's campaign promise of not taxing those who make less than $250,000.

A burst of sustained economic growth, which we'd love to see, would substantially boost tax revenues and reduce future debt. But there's nothing in the Obama budget that nurtures or rewards growth or small business. Most of the major policy initiatives, such as the $1 trillion cap-and-trade energy tax, are a drag on growth. Mr. Obama wants to raise capital gains, dividend and income tax rates, which will reduce risk taking, innovation and investment. The House health-care bill would impose an 8% payroll tax on millions of small business owners, which will destroy jobs.

The White House issued a statement yesterday that the President is "very concerned about these out-year deficits." But apparently not so concerned as to stop pushing for a new $1 trillion health-care entitlement that is conveniently not included in these latest budget forecasts.

The real fiscal crisis in Washington is that neither Congress nor the White House are offering any escape from these trillion-dollar deficits. Mr. Obama has not called for automatic and immediate spending cuts. He has not proposed eliminating hundreds of wasteful programs. To the contrary, the White House still hasn't ruled out another fiscal stimulus, as if a $1.6 trillion deficit isn't Keynesian stimulus enough. The Administration's celebrated scrub through the budget this summer identified $17 billion in agency savings. That's what Uncle Sam is borrowing every three days.

Obamanomics has turned into an unprecedented experiment in runaway government with no plan to pay for it, save, perhaps, for a big future toll on the middle class such as a value-added tax. White House budget director Peter Orszag promises that next year's budget will have a "plan to put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path." Hide the children.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
h/t goes to S.R. "Mr. Constitution" via Facebook (Carleton Model Parliament 2007, good times... "Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Bill be ruled unconstitutional as it obligates the Government to spend monies...")

Labels: , ,

3 Comments:

  • At Wed Aug 26, 02:01:00 PM EDT, Blogger Blues Clair said…

    Harpernomics.

    "The governing Conservatives have forecast a record deficit of C$50.2 billion this fiscal year because of slowing revenue, increased claims for unemployment benefits and the costs associated with an auto industry bailout."

    You also seem confused with the Wall Street Journals political leanings.

     
  • At Wed Aug 26, 02:19:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Err, did you get the WSJ confused with the NYT or something? I don't think anyone's ever accused the Journal of being "the poster-child of left-wing journalism". If anything they lean right...

    Good read nonetheless.

     
  • At Wed Aug 26, 02:19:00 PM EDT, Blogger MIkhael said…

    Er... as much as I agree with the contents of the article, calling the WSJ a "poster-child of left-wing journalism" is a bit... well... you know.... not true.


    Now, when the NY Times writes this type of article.... I will be impressed.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home