Of Deficits and Smokescreens

News Item: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush sent Congress a $2.23 trillion spending plan Monday that would accelerate tax cuts to bolster the weak economy, overhaul some of the
government's biggest social programs and shower billions of additional dollars on defense and homeland security. Even though hundreds of other government programs would be squeezed, the president projects the deficit will still hit record highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 2004. Over the next five years, deficits would total $1.08 trillion."

In the words of Dubya's ideological hero, "There he goes again."

Bush is bound and determined to cut taxes -- well, at least taxes on dividends that mostly benefit the already rich -- and increase spending on defense and security. The result will be deficits for years.

Ah, if I could only get away with managing my household and business funds this way. But then, the Prez doesn't have the most sterling history as a business owner to draw from. True, he's made a fortune. But delete the name factor from the equation, and he'd be a failed businessman like so many others. As Molly Ivins said, he was born on third base, but thought he hit a triple.

But that's another story.

The tax cut scheme has been criticized by nearly every reputable "think tank" as well as both Democrats and several key and visible Republicans. Even Bush's former treasury secretary slammed the cuts, which cost him his job.

We've said it before -- if you want to jump start the economy, put money in the pockets of folks who need it and will spend it (fulfilling the need for products, which increase demand, which leads to creating jobs). As one observer suggested, you can't fertilize a tree from the top down.

One hidden result in all of this may be the advancement of a back door "conservative" agenda. Conservatives loathe the variety of social programs and regulations that have been started over the past few decades. The thought of government being a safety net for those less fortunate souls grates their nerves. But they've been relatively powerless to roll back social programs for fear of voter backlash.

Until now. If there are deficits, spending has to be cut somewhere. Surely not defense and security. What remains are social programs, which will be under-funded.

So, if you can't do away with these nasty programs, then don't fund them. They may be on the books -- and there's no record of a legislator voting against a popular program -- but their teeth are taken away, and the programs essentially wither.

As for the smokescreen? Exhibit A: "White House spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed the deficits on 'a recession, which began in early 2000.' The nation's arbiter of economic downturns, the National Bureau of Economic Research, has said the recession started in March 2001." Give the Prez's mouthpiece credit -- he keeps a straight face during briefings.

Finally, this little note from the budget cover letter: ``One conclusion is inescapable: The federal government must restrain the growth in any spending not directly associated with the physical security of the nation.''

But with deficits and gutting social programs, will there be anything left worth protecting?

© Copyright 2003 Keith Jameson. Last update: 2/3/2003; 12:05:11 PM.