Tag Archives: spending

Deficits as Cudgel?

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Seib says that’s what the Progressive-Democrats in Congress fear the Republicans will use them for.

Democrats worry that Republicans will simply use the rising deficits they are creating as an excuse to cut government spending on domestic programs important to Democrats—in the vernacular, that the tax bill will “starve the beast” of the federal government of the money it needs to keep spending at current levels.

I certainly hope those deficits will be used as the reason for cutting government spending.  The Federal government spends way too much of our money, and it does so without regard for whose money it is and without regard for the amount of revenue that taxes bring in—deficit spending is enthusiastically pursued regardless of tax rates or revenues.

Federal spending needs to be cut back drastically, not just on domestic programs important to Progressive-Democrats, but on all domestic programs (other than defense, which already is so low that our military cannot reliably win a war against a regional power like Russia, much less a rapidly expanding one like the People’s Republic of China.  We’ve even had to abandon our Cold War mission of being able to fight and win two separate wars simultaneously).  A good start would be a 10% across the board cut on all extant programs, and then begin cutting seriously from there.

And yes, that includes privatizing Social Security and Medicare and block granting Medicaid transfer payments to the States without strings—they know better than the Feds how to spend those funds State-domestically, anyway.  After conversion, the Feds then should reduce those Year Zero block grants by [10%] per year after that until there are no more Federal Medicaid transfers.

An additional step for Federal spending curtailment is to consolidate all current Federal transfers into a single block grant for each State and then reducing the size of that grant along the schedule above.  In this way, States like New York, California, and the rest of the dozen or so States that send more of their citizens’ tax money to the Federal government than they get back could keep all of their citizens’ money and spend it within their State in accordance with those citizens’ imperatives.  Surely even Progressive-Democrats could get behind a program that lets their constituents keep their money local—that’s more for the local Progressive-Democrats to spend.

Net recipient States would be able to keep all of their citizens’ tax money, also, reducing the alleged “need” for Federal transfers.

Additional cost saving: the middle-man bureaucracies, with their inherent costs, would be eliminated, too.

The only deviation from eliminating such knee-jerk routine transfers should be in times of declared State or regional emergency.

Higher Education Improvement

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has a summary of the House’s The Promoting Real Opportunity, Success and Prosperity Through Education Reform (PROSPER) Act, to be proposed this week.  It’s aimed at

filling that gap [in college graduates’ skills, with 6 million jobs left begging] by both deregulating parts of the sector and laying the conditions for shorter, faster pathways to the workforce. The act focuses on ensuring students don’t just enroll in school, but actually graduate with skills that the labor market is seeking.

Highlights include these:

  • revamp of the $1.34 trillion federal student loan program
    • graduate students and parents of undergraduates would have overall caps on tuition and living expense loans, instead of borrowing whatever schools charge.
    • end loan-forgiveness programs for public-service employees
    • eliminate a program that ties monthly payments to income levels for private-sector workers.
  • community colleges would get more funding to team with the private sector and create or expand apprenticeships and learn and earn programs
  • for-profit college sector would be on equal footing with nonprofit schools regarding limits on federal aid and measurements of graduate success: overall, competency-based education
  • functional repeal of the gainful employment regulation, which ties access to federal student aid to whether career programs lead to decent-paying jobs. Government will no longer be the decider of what jobs are suitable; the graduate and employer will.
  • increased accountability of schools by improving the quality of information available to prospective students
  • “historically black” and developing Hispanic schools would have to provably graduate or transfer at least 25% of their students in order to get funding from the pile otherwise earmarked for these schools
  • require schools to pay back some portion of federal loans if the student didn’t rather than leaving the schools strictly as loan generators that get the proceeds from the loans without regard to suitability or outcome.

All in all, this could represent a major improvement to our higher community college/college/university education system, especially in its core: graduates’ employability and the costs incurred (and by whom) in achieving that employability.

Naturally, the colleges and universities, whose funding oxen are going to get gored, will squawk.  Ignore them, and move past the dinosaurs and vested interests.

A State Runs a Budget Deficit

Posted on by
Reply

Louisiana, run by Progressive-Democrats since Bobby Jindall was term-limited out of office, is facing a $1.5 billion deficit as “temporary” tax increases implemented earlier begin to expire.  Jay Dardenne, the center-left Republican Commissioner of Administration, Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards’ chief budget officer, says that “devastating” spending cuts would be necessary absent a renewal of the tax increases or enactment of other tax increases.

Devastating: among those are additional reductions in higher education. This is misleading from a State official whose State already objects to school choice and to successful voucher schools in the K-12 range—because they take money away from badly failing public schools.  Except they don’t.  The State funds the public schools on a per-student basis, but when a student leaves for a voucher school, he takes less than his full allotment of funds with him, leaving the “losing” public school fiscally net better off.

It’s misleading, too, because higher education has an inflated tuition and fee structure supported by all that government funding (the Feds are contributors to this inflation with their own money transfers to the higher ed institutions), leaving those students fiscally net worse off.

Other areas facing spending reductions are tear-jerker “child-welfare” programs and “other” state agencies.  Never mind that these facilities waste the funds allocated with their high bureaucratic overhead and middle-man frictions.  And in the case of welfare (not just child), through uncertain enforcement.

No, the only ones truly facing serious spending reductions are the lobbyists and the Progressive-Democrats’ (and too many Republicans’) cronies.

It’s past time for a $1.5 billion reduction in State spending.  Louisiana needs to leave the money in the citizens’ hands, and it needs to stop competing with the private sector in providing goods and services and in acquiring resources for its own (unnecessary) functioning.

Tax Deductions

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans disagree among each other about the deductibility on Federal personal tax returns of property and sales taxes levied by States, with most of the objections coming from Republicans whose constituents are in high-tax States (which is to say, primarily Progressive-Democrat-led States like New York and California).  I’ve written elsewhere about the nature of that beef.

In my infinite wisdom, I offer a couple of alternatives for compromise.

One is to allow Federal income taxpayers to deduct either their State’s property tax or its sales tax, but not both.  Another is to allow the deductibility of both, but only part of the taxes—say 50%—not all of them.

In either case, after a year or two for transition/adjustment by both the taxpayer and the State of which he’s a citizen, eliminate altogether the deductibility of State taxes on individual Federal income tax returns.

The NLMSM touts the deductibility as Federal government redistributions, but the plain fact is those redistributions are of the monies paid by citizens of other States laundered through the Federal government.

I repeat my chorus: there’s no reason the citizens of Texas or Illinois should pay for the spending decisions of New York or California.  It’s true enough that all the States are in the Union together, and we’re all bound to help each other.  But that’s a two-way street: no State should be creating itself a burden on the other 49 by being irresponsible in its spending and taxing and then demanding those others make it whole from its foolishness.

False Premise

Posted on by
Reply

Budget mavens, politicians, and the NLMSM have one regarding our national tax code.  The Senate is considering a budget that sets an outer bound on the size of Federal tax cuts.

A budget with a tax plan that is revenue-neutral would effectively pay for itself, meaning any reduction in tax rates would be offset by reducing breaks or other revenue-raising measures.

No.  “Revenue neutral” must also consider what’s done with the revenue collected.  Revenue neutrality can be achieved, also, with sufficient spending cuts so that revenue collected meets or exceeds spending outflows.

Additionally, there is an underlying assumption that is carefully ignored by the politicians, budget mavens, and the NLMSM.  That is that the Federal government needs the revenue collected.  None of these worthies deign establish that need.