Tag Archives: spending

On Trump’s Budget Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has submitted his budget proposal for the next year to Congress, and on its surface, it does little to address the current large budget deficit and its attendant borrowing on top of the current national debt. It does, though, seriously plus up defense spending, with its request for $1.5 trillion for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

There are a couple of ways to think about that. One is to deal with the threat to our economy, and so to our national security, of that burgeoning debt resulting from the continuing large deficit by raising taxes (as Progressive-Democratic Party politicians demand to do, especially on those Americans of whom they so vociferously disapprove) or by cutting spending (as budget hawks in the Republican Party demand to do).

Raising taxes, though, hurts all of us, not just those Evil Rich. Taking money away from the folks who make it and put it to gainful use reduces private economy investment and innovation—things us citizens do far better than even the most well-meaning government ever can—and that drop negatively impacts business competitiveness, expansion, and jobs, each of which hurts all Americans who are not part of the Evil Rich cohort.

Cutting government spending, on the other hand, always is a very good way to help our economy since it takes government competition for resources and more direct inputs to production out of the competition among businesses for those same factors, which puts downward pressure on prices that both businesses and consumers face. The cuts do, though, reallocate lots of jobs away from politicians’ districts and toward more efficient locations for the work, with efficiency defined by the businesses themselves rather than government politicians.

The other way to think about the budget with its deficit and attendant borrowing is articulated quite clearly by Trump:

We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.

Indeed. We can’t protect our economy and its health, much less reduce deficits and borrowings, if we can’t defend our nation and instead have our futures dictated to us by our enemies—as the People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping has committed himself to doing.

The answer writes itself, as anyone to the right of the Progressive-Democratic Party can see: plus up our defense spending, cut Federal spending everywhere else, and either cut taxes further or at least leave them alone.

One More Step

Posted on by
Reply

Thomas Savidge, of the American Institute for Economic Research, in his letter in Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, wrote about Washington State’s addiction to spending and its use of increasing taxes—even when they’re unconstitutional under the State’s own constitution—to feed the addiction. He offered a solution to the addiction from Washington’s own history:

Governor Gary Locke (D) in 2002 introduced the “Priorities of Government” strategy of ranking programs based on public value and essential government functions. This approach closed a $2.1 billion budget gap, just under $4 billion in current dollars, without raising taxes.

That, however, was an incomplete solution, for all that it “closed” that budget gap one time while pairing tax increases only with the lowest priority spending.

The complete solution, short of a State constitutional amendment to make more permanent the process, would have been to identify the revenue known to appear for the relevant fiscal year, then to run down the list of priorities, funding each one in turn until the expected revenues have been consumed, and then cut off further spending rather than raise taxes to cover the remainder.

But spending discipline is inconceivable to Progressive-Democrats, as it is today to too many Timid Republicans in DC.

An Alternative Move

Posted on by
Reply

Vice President JD Vance (R), in his new capacity as leader of President Donald Trump’s (R) newly formed anti-fraud facility, has paused transfer of some $260 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota until that State begins to do a better job of accounting for how it spends those American taxpayer dollars. Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat governor, Tim Walz, promptly claimed that Vance’s move was nothing more than a

campaign of retribution. Trump is weaponizing the entirety of the federal government to punish blue states like Minnesota. These cuts will be devastating for veterans, families with young kids, folks with disabilities, and working people across our state.

There is a valid concern buried under Walz’ manufactured hysteria—the loss of financial support for the groups of Americans he named. As Vance noted,

Vance…recalled his own experience growing up depending on government programs and said the money should be there for people and children who need it. “It’s disgraceful that fraudsters out there are taking advantage of programs like Medicaid[.]”

There is an alternative solution to a blanket cutoff, however temporary. Who the individuals are in those groups about whom Walz so piously pretends to care is known to the Federal government. Those $260 million should be sent directly to those individuals, entirely bypassing the State and the third parties Walz’ administration uses to distribute and funnel the money.

The shift would go a long way toward reducing the corruption in the State’s Medicaid facility by bypassing it entirely. Remaining fraud would be limited to the Federal government’s distribution facility, and that, as a one-time affair, would be minimal. The Trump I administration’s distribution of a one-time followed by a smaller one-time distribution of Wuhan Virus shutdown funds to American taxpayers shows the way.

“aren’t subject to Congressional appropriations”

Posted on by
Reply

In the house editorial, The Wall Street Journal editors wrote about the burgeoning tax revenues accruing to the Federal government over the first third of the present fiscal year, the reduction in spending in several government departments and agencies, and the burgeoning spending on welfare entitlement programs.

Then they added this risible claim:

…continuing boom in the giant retirement and healthcare entitlements that aren’t subject to Congressional appropriations.

The editors might want to review their junior high Civics class notes. Here’s our Constitution’s requirement for Federal spending:

Art I, Sect 9: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

All spending is subject to Congressional appropriations, and that includes “retirement and healthcare entitlements.” There are no caveats in that Section’s clause, no “except for programs inconvenient to alter or eliminate.”

Cutting spending on entitlements may be politically difficult but that’s not what the editors claimed. If the editors can’t find their notes, they need to listen better to their junior high interns when those kids brief them in preparation for expounding on government spending.

Wrong Distinction

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new challenge, allegedly, for grocers and their junk food sales; although their problem is whether, and if so how much and where, they should stock junk food on their shelves. This is suggested by the headline:

Is a Cookie a Type of Candy? Supermarkets Have a New Food-Stamp Conundrum

This is a trivial question, though, one that awaits only a government definition of what foods are eligible for food stamps. The larger, and the far more serious problem is posed by this claim, buried in the middle of the article:

Critics said that limiting grocery options ignores the real causes of poor diets, such as low incomes, high food prices and access to healthy food. Studies, they said, show little difference between what SNAP recipients buy and the purchases of non-SNAP households.

Say the critics are correct, and food stamp food eligibilities don’t address those root causes. Say, further, that those studies are accurate in their conclusions.

Those criticisms are wholly irrelevant. The fact remains, and it remains unaddressed, as well, that there is no reason for the rest of us to pay with our tax dollars for the poor diet choices those eating on our dime—those food stamp programs—make. If they want those junk foods, let them pay for them on their own dime, just as the purchasers in non-SNAP households do.

How dare we presume so, some might bleat. It’s a simple dare. We’re the ones paying and with our money. We’re the ones who should be determining how our tax dollars are spent.

It’s that straightforward, and it should be that simple.