Art Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Reviewing some commentary regarding the President's budget has led me to desire an answer for a question. Is it really controversial that a President would propose holding most government spending to rates at or near inflation? Also, is it possible to "cut" money from a program who's operating budget you are actually increasing? These are questions I've never seen satisfactorily answered. While I realize Bush is vastly increasing budgets in defense and Homeland Security, I wonder at how these two questions might be answered. I actually do believe there is a problem with just limiting government spending in the short term on most programs to just the rate of inflation or below. What I'd like to see is an amendment on the federal level similar to what there is in Colorado that dictates government spending there can't rise by more than the rate of inflation plus the rate of population growth. This creates a fixed top end for what the government in Colorado is allowed to spend allowing an actual budget that has a set limit to work within. I've never fully grasped the concept of having an open ended budget. While you'd want to allow the flexibility to expand spending beyond a fixed number in times of war and disaster and the like, I just have a hard time to people crying about budget cuts when the budget has actually increased. I realize they didn't get their wish list, but, isn't it disingenuous to say you were cut when you received an increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Another point about the budget, is that nowhere are they including the price of a war with Iraq(which will happen because Bush will force the issue). So tack on another 200 + billion to the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 FA, As I said, we need to allow, at times of war and crisis, the ability to respond without being constrained by a top end ceiling. I agree that war with Iraq is going to happen, though your characterization is of concern. It won't be Bush that will force the issue. It'll be Saddam that will, right? If Saddam does what Bush says nothing will happen, therefore, the onus is on Saddam to avoid war, as we've said before. Though, a hefty portion of the cost of doing war with Iraq is offset by the increased revenue generated by the business of doing war, so, the $200 billion number is not, very likely, anything other than a figment of one's imagination for the time being. I suspect the Iraq portion of the actual combat will be substantially less (10 billion, which could also be a figment of ones imagination) but, no matter. The necessity of having the ability to make war is necessary within our budgeting I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 This war shouldnt cost us a Godd@#m thing. We should take whatever we need in oil to pay the cost of this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Art, For the most part, I agree there shouldn't be an issue at capping the increase in funding at the rate of inflation. If you're not asking for more, than the same funds that accomplished it the last time should be enough providing the funds included some money for maintenance and replacing old equipment in the first place. There are however instances where that won't work. For example, the decennial census and the economic census means that the Census budget fluxuates wildly. For the decennial census, the Census bureau hires hundreds of thousands of workers to go door to door. However in off years, the census doesn't need them. My biggest complaint with government financing of projects is that how much money an individual project gets is largely dependant on what it spends the year before. As a result, you'll often see project managers spending "extra" money in September so they can have that much money the next year when they need it. There should be a way for project managers to save some of the extra money for next years expenses or return it without having future needed money jeopardized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by Art Also, is it possible to "cut" money from a program who's operating budget you are actually increasing? Yes, if by operating budget one is referring to real $ as opposed to nominal $. Simply, if I got a raise of say 2% while inflation was 4%, I got a 2% pay CUT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 I understand that OPM. In particular though, when the budget increases in a greater percentage than inflation, is it possible to have a "cut". I had seen somewhere that inflation was just a smidge over 2 percent last year but that's not anything I have verified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by Art I understand that OPM. In particular though, when the budget increases in a greater percentage than inflation, is it possible to have a "cut". I had seen somewhere that inflation was just a smidge over 2 percent last year but that's not anything I have verified. Yes, I only wrote up the only premiss I could come up with that I could use to logically come up with a conclusion that somewhat fit your question (although inflation is caused by governement trying to manage demand, so even then...). When your talking about an increase of ones op budget by more than inflation as a cut, I can't even begin to come up with a basis for that argument :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 it is very often the case that wars are financed "off budget". thius happened a lot during the clinton and previous administrations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Art, Well let's try this one. If we are scheduled to have a 10% tax cut next year, (calm down it's only an example) and the congress decides to change it to a 2% tax cut, will some on the right call it a tax increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Art, Well let's try this one. If we are scheduled to have a 10% tax cut next year, (calm down it's only an example) and the congress decides to change it to a 2% tax cut, will some on the right call it a tax increase? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by OPM No. My opinion is they would. I've already heard right wing talking heads call delaying the Bush tax cuts a tax increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Jack, What you heard on the right was revoking tax cuts would be a tax increase. You never heard delaying them was. Not a single time. So, your question can only be answered one way. Tax cuts are ALREADY passed into law. They exist. They are tangible. They are on the books as coming. If liberals and Democrats alter the situation to change from the 10 percent (in your example) that is already law to just 2 percent, in fact, it would, in that case, be an 8 percent tax increase. Conversely, if there was no law already passed that said a 10 percent cut was coming, but Republicans wanted a 10 percent cut and Dems would only allow a 2 percenter, that would be a tax cut, if not as big of one as we want. And that's precisely what you see in the budget. You see budget increases that aren't as big as some lobbies want, and therefore they try to sell it as a budget cut. You see the distinction here, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Art, I think the answer to your question is political marketing and when you use this marketing strategy long enough, some will start spouting it as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Ding OPM. It's remarkable what slogan agenda politics do to people. This is why Democrats appeal so to people who don't enjoy putting a lot of thought behind their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Art, How do you know what I've heard or haven't heard? (Oh never mind) To the point if a tax cut is stopped and taxes remains exactly the same I would say it's not a tax increase. It is really the kind of retoric both sides use as we've described. If some program was scheduled to have a 5% increase and the GOP cuts it to 2% the dems will claim a cut. If a planned tax cut is gotten rid of the GOP will claim a tax increase. It's politics. Did you ever notice how those on the right will actually refuse to discuss the fairness of any tax cut, they simple scream "Class Warfare, Class Warfare" What's with these Republicans and there need for war talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Jack.... "How do you know what I've heard or haven't heard? (Oh never mind)" It's simple, Jack. You can't have heard something that doesn't exist. If you claim otherwise, you will be required to verify it with direct quotes, since you are the person under the uninformed impression that it's possible to hear words never spoken. What you have heard is somewhat repetitive speak indicating that a repeal of the tax cut is, essentially, a tax increase. That's what you asked in your first question. What you said to OPM in your second was entirely different. So, I know what you heard based on your own understanding and question. You just happened to alter your question and the second one was incorrectly stated. The first one was not. So, that's how I know. "To the point if a tax cut is stopped and taxes remains exactly the same I would say it's not a tax increase. It is really the kind of retoric both sides use as we've described." Again, Jack, I refuse to believe you don't see the difference. In one case you have people who are asking for a specific number. They get half that number. They then say they had a cut. They were never slated to have the number they asked for. That was their wish list. On the other hand you have already told the public that they are getting a certain number. You've promised it to them and you already passed the law. People have made plans based on it. And then you go back to them and say, "Sorry, you're only getting half." It is impossible not to view that as a cut. It's only, though, impossible because it's already law. It's already part of record. If this had happened during the original tax cut debate and the right asked for 10 and only got 5, then it wouldn't have been. There's a distinct and meaningful difference. And, you do see this because if you don't, then you are sadly unable to think for yourself, and judging from your posts this week, it appears you are able to, so I refuse to think otherwise. So don't prove to me otherwise. "If some program was scheduled to have a 5% increase and the GOP cuts it to 2% the dems will claim a cut. If a planned tax cut is gotten rid of the GOP will claim a tax increase. It's politics." Again, no program was scheduled to have any increase at all. You understand the budget is not set right? You understand that until the budget is SET, no group, or department, or employee or sector is slated to have ANYTHING at all. Once Congress passes a budget, if they THEN go back and slice it, you have a budget cut. You can't cut something you haven't already been given. It's not politics. It's reality. You can't argue anything is scheduled to get ANYTHING until they are actually scheduled to get something. The whole point is when something is scheduled. It's NOT scheduled the moment someone says, "I want this." It's not scheduled until it's passed into law and at any point thereafter, lessening what was granted is a cut. "Did you ever notice how those on the right will actually refuse to discuss the fairness of any tax cut, they simple scream "Class Warfare, Class Warfare" " Citing class warfare is, actually, discussing the fairness of a tax cut. Saying Bill Gates has less of a right to keep his money than you do is class envy and warfare. Saying Dick Cheney, who paid $36 million in federal taxes a couple of years ago, shouldn't be screamed at for any proposal that says he can keep $4 million of it and still pay $32 million. The right is all too willing to discuss the fairness of a tax cut. It just happens that the question itself simply calls into question a person's ethos and that limits the conversation. "What's with these Republicans and there need for war talk? :)" Again, it's not the right talking about war. It's the left talking about no war. The right doesn't have to address the topic because the left keeps talking about it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Art, Talking with you is difficult. I will refrain until I see you've progessed. I don't believe you were looking for an answer from liberals on this topic as your mind is made up and nothing can change it. For the record I've heard Tucker Carlson, Bob Novak and Sean Hannity call every version of what I've said a tax increase on one occasion or another. Also if you answer every counter point with "class warfare, class warfare" I would argue you are not really discussing anything. I look forward to discussions in the future that are less confrontational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Jack..... "Talking with you is difficult." Understood. Information that is unquestionably true is difficult to counter with information that is unquestionably false . "I will refrain until I see you've progessed. I don't believe you were looking for an answer from liberals on this topic as your mind is made up and nothing can change it." You are right. I wasn't looking for someone to explain to me how a proposed budget increase is called a proposed budget cut. I had kind of hoped no one would bother attempting to classify the simplicity of this misleading statement as true. I had hoped liberals wouldn't stray there, but, rather, sit back, and say, "Hmm, that is a good point. A proposed budget increase can't be a budget cut at all." You did come close to this by saying, "It's just rhetoric." And that's fine. That's why I asked if it wasn't disingenuous to say you received a budget cut when you received a budget increase. You can answer that with a yes too. "For the record I've heard Tucker Carlson, Bob Novak and Sean Hannity call every version of what I've said a tax increase on one occasion or another. " No you haven't. If you say it again, you'll be asked to prove it . You have heard them say Democrats who want to repeal the tax break are proposing a tax increase. You've never heard anyone say anyone who wants to "delay" the tax cut is proposing a tax increase, because, of two reasons. First, no one wants to delay a tax cut because it's the effects of the later years that has people upset in the first place. And secondly, because the law was already passed that delays the tax cut and that counted as a win for the right. "Also if you answer every counter point with "class warfare, class warfare" I would argue you are not really discussing anything." Also, if you question every tax cut idea with the "fairness" question, I would argue you aren't really discussing anything. It's simple. Since you aren't trying to discuss anything you shouldn't be concerned when someone doesn't seem to want to discuss nothing in return . For the record, I speak about taxes all the time and it is possible until this thread I have never made a class warfare argument, so, it's possible -- though I may be wrong there -- that you may not be paying attention to our willingness to speak . "I look forward to discussions in the future that are less confrontational." Non-confrontational, with me? Hardly . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Art you need to eplain spending like you do to a teenage daughter. Daughter is a frequent mall rat and dad gives her money and a lil extra each trip. She has been able to see a pattern of $10,$20,$30 and $40. Her latest trip to the mall she receives $45 she is able to still shop but in her eyes she sees this as a spending cut, until Dad shows her it is actually a spending increase. Mike the water's weekly check was $200 but thanks to the raise its $220. After an adjustment so Bill the bus busboy can get his fair share, Mike's check is now $204. Now is this the liberals version of a taxcut or our version of a tax increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Art, I know I will regret this but let me try one more time, to assist you with your logic. "Again, no program was scheduled to have any increase at all. You understand the budget is not set right? You understand that until the budget is SET, no group, or department, or employee or sector is slated to have ANYTHING at all. Once Congress passes a budget, if they THEN go back and slice it, you have a budget cut. You can't cut something you haven't already been given. It's not politics. It's reality. " This might be the most naive thing I've ever heard you say. (I know I will be asked to prove it ) Budgets are never one year events. There are short and long term plans in place. No organization can run in your little one year world. Yes the final budget is approved each year by congress based on the projections from previous years and adjustments deemed necessary. "No you haven't. If you say it again, you'll be asked to prove it . You have heard them say Democrats who want to repeal the tax break are proposing a tax increase. You've never heard anyone say anyone who wants to "delay" the tax cut is proposing a tax increase, because, of two reasons. First, no one wants to delay a tax cut because it's the effects of the later years that has people upset in the first place. And secondly, because the law was already passed that delays the tax cut and that counted as a win for the right. " This statement really irritates me to no end. Besides from being incorrect this statement is just plain rude. You can't know what all of these talking heads have said in the middle of heated debates. For the record a five year delay of a tax cut is really a 5 year repel. As for "no one wants to delay a tax cut" you are wrong. The democrats have proposed a delay in the top end of the Bush tax plan. "Understood. Information that is unquestionably true is difficult to counter with information that is unquestionably false ." I guess the smiling face makes this statement less haughty, but it does sum up your opinion of your position. If one side of an arguement thinks he is in total possession of the truth it doesn't leave much room for an open discussion of any issue does it? Back to the original point of the thread. Getting lost in terms that politicians use to describe something they are against, either coming from the left or right is a clear waste of time. Thinking that one sides does it more than the other is lunacy. If it costs an agency 6% more to provide the same services it did the previous year and the budget only gives them 4% than your dam right it's a cut. I bet if we delayed the Bush tax cut 100 years you would say it was a tax increase. (I know prove it! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.