Tax cuts would have paid for
Katrina
Online Journal/Washington Post
'Stupid' is right word for this fiscal policy
By E.J. DIONNE
Washington Post columnist
Last update: September 24, 2005
Hurricane Rita is moving inland today, adding to the human and financial
costs of Hurricane Katrina. Yet when it comes to taxes and spending, Washington
acts as if nothing has happened.
True, a group of very conservative Republicans issued a list of program cuts
on Wednesday under the imposing name "Operation Offset." The cuts that the
Republican Study Committee proposed have won their sponsors praise for making
"tough choices." Of course, the sponsors won't actually have to live with these
cuts, because Republican leaders dismissed most of the reductions, especially
in congressional pet projects and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
And it's hard to give the fiscal conservatives too much credit since they
would cut $80 billion from Medicare and $50 billion from Medicaid over five
years, and suggest reductions in school lunches, rent subsidies for the poor
and foreign aid, among other things. The idea seems to be that to help
Katrina's poor and suffering victims, other poor and suffering people will have
to sacrifice.
Nonetheless, permit me to offer a little cheap grace on these conservatives.
At least the "Operation Offset" crowd has produced this list of cuts and forced
their own leaders to disown them. The exchange showed how fundamentally stupid
our budget policies have been over the last five years -- and, yes, I'll defend
that strong word.
Here's a fact getting far too little attention: The cost this year alone of
the Bush tax cuts already enacted in 2001 and 2003 comes to $225 billion. In
other words, the revenue lost because of tax cuts going through this year
without any congressional action would more than pay the costs of Katrina
recovery.
Why describe our government's fiscal policies as "stupid," rather than, say,
"ill-advised" or "misguided"? The softer words of conventional opinion-writing
imply disagreement but suggest an honest coherence in the other side's
view.
But our current budget policies are built not upon honest coherence but on
incoherence or, even worse, a dishonest coherence. The president and members of
Congress always insist they are fiscal conservatives who truly believe in
balanced budgets. Yet their actions bear no relationship to their words, and
labels such as "conservative" have no connection to their policies. Our federal
purse strings are in the hands of fiscal radicals.
|