But, while DeMint and other Senate fiscal conservatives argue that so-dubbed “pork barrel spending” wastes taxpayer dollars and facilitates fishy political back-scratching, other Republicans say that a ban would do little to curb government spending and would put more control into the hands of government agencies rather than lawmakers who best understand their constituents.
While the critiques from Senators McConnell and Inhofe as to the DeMint proposal accomplishing next to nothing are correct, this is about all we get from the Republican Party.
While one might argue that Alan Simpson was getting serious about reducing the deficit, Kevin Drum finds this claim laughable as well:
And their tax proposal? As part of a deficit reduction plan they want to cut taxes on the rich and make the federal tax system more regressive? That's not serious either. Bottom line: this document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small. There's nothing wrong with that if you're a conservative think tank and that's what you're dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit.
1 comment:
What is truly outrageous is centering the discussion of government shrinkage around the Social Security system that employs only a tiny number of government employees and few if any contractors. The lies are huge on this one. Income tax cuts and income tax increases have nothing to do with the Social Security systems and the ability of that system to repay a loan that gets us over the demographic hump is pretty solid. The success of the Social Security system has to do with better wages. Better wages have to do with MORE, and not less social insurance and policies that correct the skewed return to productivity.
Post a Comment