budget thread

[darius]

"The budget is the right place to present the entirety of the president's policies, so all of his proposals are reflected in there." - Josh Bolten, White House Budget Director, commenting on $1B in revenue from ANWR drilling in the 2006 budget.

Except, there aren't any line items for Iraq/Afghanistan beyond the $80B requested for 2005, nor the president's supposed social security proposal.

What's up with that?

darius

[scrapinpeg]

Because it's for 2005? What's been requested was requested, and the Social Security thing wouldn't take effect this year.

[mrbiggs]

We need to, in my opinion:

1. Raise taxes
2. Lower the national debt
3. Not go to any more wars
4. Change social security, but not privatize it

[keith]

best thing about the budget?

The flat tax advocates demanding the repeal of the AMT (which is a flat tax).

[jeff]

Hey, Keith - nice touch.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by darius

there aren't any line items for Iraq/Afghanistan beyond the $80B requested for 2005, nor the president's supposed social security proposal.

What's up with that?

Yes, it is a puzzlement. Or at least the military aspect is; Social Security is an "off-budget" item and has been for a long time.

[telkanuru]

2+2=5 if you work for the government.

Whatever happened to the right and the republicans being frugal with the taxpayer's money?

Re: tax cuts, it rather ticks me off that the people who vote for tax cuts (ie, those in the 'Red States') are by and large the largest recipiants of the tax dollars from the so-called 'Blue States'. To quote from West Wing, if you don't want it "Can we have it back, please?"

[darius]

Whatever happened to the right and the republicans being frugal with the taxpayer's money?

They're still around, but from what I've seen, the most vocal GOP small-governmenters are also isolationist psychos. (*cough* Pat Buchanan)

I also read that the 2006 budget doesn't include the cost of making Bush's tax cuts permanent, which he is definitely touting on his agenda.

Also, a $40 million increase in abstinence-only education. Good thing it works. $40M would buy a lot of textbooks, no?

darius

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by darius

They're still around, but from what I've seen, the most vocal GOP small-governmenters are also isolationist psychos. (*cough* Pat Buchanan)

The dems are starting to push a lowered deficit spending agenda. I think it's mostly to put a thorn in the Repubs side though...

Originally Posted by darius

Also, a $40 million increase in abstinence-only education. Good thing it works. $40M would buy a lot of textbooks, no?

This just sickens me. Actually the increase is $110 million dollars (from $74mil to $186 mil). It includes $50 mil for State Grants.

Apparently the Prez has a problem with the steadily decreasing pregnancy and abortion rates that we have been experiencing for the last 10 years. Now we can go back to a state of denial and not arm kids with the info they actually need. Nothing wrong with teaching them not to have sex. Nothing wrong with teaching them to wait until they are married. There is something seriously wrong with actually expecting them to follow your advice.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by darius

I also read that the 2006 budget doesn't include the cost of making Bush's tax cuts permanent

Huh?

Tax cuts don't cost anything. Spending costs.

There is no cost in making the tax cuts permanent (apart from the paperwork involved). There would be a cost in spending more treasure than the taxes generate.


Maybe you meant that the budget estimates revenues based on a presumption that the Bush tax cuts will go away, that they won't remain permanent? I'm not sure that's right.

[keith]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Maybe you meant that the budget estimates revenues based on a presumption that the Bush tax cuts will go away, that they won't remain permanent? I'm not sure that's right.

The 'official' estimates are all based on the legislation as it stands - not as it may or should be

So both the bush tax cuts, the 'repeal' of the marriage penalty and a host of other legislation with sunset provisions is treated as it is written; it expires when the legislation says it will expire.

Most tax items these days seem to come with sunset provisions as it allows legislators to claim that the changes do not affect the long term health of the budget. Clearly they all have the famous Keynes quote tattooed on their buttocks.

[jeff]

"cost of a tax cut" is standard operational jargon for "reduction of budgetable available funds due to the tax cut" - it doesn't really have (or have to have) a political slant. If you cut taxes by a billion next year, it "cost" the budget for that FY a billion dollars. It's just standard expression that gets used all the time.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

"cost of a tax cut" is standard operational jargon for "reduction of budgetable available funds due to the tax cut" - it doesn't really have (or have to have) a political slant. If you cut taxes by a billion next year, it "cost" the budget for that FY a billion dollars. It's just standard expression that gets used all the time.

Typical leftist claptrap everyone knows that cutting taxes raises revenue

[jBirch]

Keith,

I know that was meant to be sarcastic but there is actually speculation that cutting taxes raises revenue on the theory that more money in the peoples' pocket = more spending = more economic profits = more jobs = higher taxable population = more revenue.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Keith,

I know that was meant to be sarcastic but there is actually speculation that cutting taxes raises revenue on the theory that more money in the peoples' pocket = more spending = more economic profits = more jobs = higher taxable population = more revenue.

yes indeed;

assuming that people don't use the money to pay down debt.

assuming that the money is used for consumption of domestic production (no buying a BMW with the refund check).

Of course the best way to ensure that these things happen is to increase the 'money in pocket' of those most likely to spend on the benificial aspects - poor people - so yet another arguement for a civilized progressive taxation regime (still )

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by keith

The 'official' estimates are all based on the legislation as it stands - not as it may or should be

So both the bush tax cuts, the 'repeal' of the marriage penalty and a host of other legislation with sunset provisions is treated as it is written; it expires when the legislation says it will expire.

Most tax items these days seem to come with sunset provisions as it allows legislators to claim that the changes do not affect the long term health of the budget. Clearly they all have the famous Keynes quote tattooed on their buttocks.

Ah. I just learned something. Thanks for clarifying!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Whatever happened to the right and the republicans being frugal with the taxpayer's money?

Happened to it? It never really had any reality. Like so much in the world of politics, it was always a concept more talked about than believed. The reality is that the right ( ie the leadership of it ) just wants to devote the public funds to different sorts of boondoggles than the left does...though perhaps in slightly less extravagant amounts.

Re: tax cuts, it rather ticks me off that the people who vote for tax cuts (ie, those in the 'Red States') are by and large the largest recipiants of the tax dollars from the so-called 'Blue States'. To quote from West Wing, if you don't want it "Can we have it back, please?"

Who gets to vote for tax cuts, other than indirectly by voting avowed tax-cutters into public office?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by keith

assuming that people don't use the money to pay down debt.

People pay down debt, that results in revenue to the debtors...who pay more taxes on it.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

Typical leftist claptrap everyone knows that cutting taxes raises revenue

BTW, there is also speculation that raising taxes increases revenue because the government buys stuff which is made by the private sector which increases their profits which increases tax income.

Both sides sound kinda bull to me though. Raising taxes doesn't do anything long term, neither does lowering them. In fact, the only way to really effect tax revenues, IMHO, is through exports or invasion. Everything else is just incest.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

"cost of a tax cut" is standard operational jargon for "reduction of budgetable available funds due to the tax cut" - it doesn't really have (or have to have) a political slant. If you cut taxes by a billion next year, it "cost" the budget for that FY a billion dollars. It's just standard expression that gets used all the time.

A lie repeated often enough will eventually become accepted as truth. How would you classify a reduction of budgetable available funds due to an economic slowdown?