The Washington Post doesn’t get it. In an editorial today discussing the the Daschle/Bush weekend speeches they state:
The real allegation, which Mr. Bush did not parry because he cannot, is that the tax cuts have pushed the federal budget from surplus back into deficit, thereby squeezing the government’s ability to beef up military spending and homeland defense while taking care of the nation’s other needs — notably, the long-term shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare and the immediate gaps in health insurance for more than 40 million Americans.
Bush can parry this. Quite easily.
A.) The tax cuts have not taken place and have not caused the recession, much to the consternation of Daschle and WaPo.
B.) The tax cuts are not actually taking monies recieved, and then giving them to people in the same fashion as the ridiculously sized transfer payments we call social security and welfare and farm aid, etc. Instead, a tax cut is reducing the amount of money you will take in the future. Decreasing taxes is not causing a net loss in goverment monies. It is just creating a situation in which there is less future net gain by the government. Some might say that is the same thing, I would disagree.
C.) Daschle et al. love to glibly state that they showed fiscal responsibility during the Clinton years, when they were actually in the minority and it was a Republican House and Senate that passed those bills (which, sorry vast right-wingers- were not actually fiscally responsible- they were ENORMOUS growths in the budget every year, something you ‘fiscal conservatives’ should be exceptionally embarassed about).
D.) If the government can not afford to pay for ‘the nation’s other needs ,’ it seems to me they should spend less in non-critical areas. When I have a budget shortfall in my personal life, I do not have the option of going to my boss and forcing him to pay me more. I spend less.