On Monday at the Cahn Auditorium, James Carville argued that you could support President Bush’s foreign policy and disagree with him domestically. A long-time fan of the Ragin’ Cajun, I wanted to give more arguments as to why Northwestern students, especially those worried about the economy a few years out, should oppose Bush’s economic ideas.
No blame for the suffering in New York or Washington (or, for that matter, in Afghanistan this week) should be assigned to Bush. But thanks in large part to his boneheaded tax ideas, our federal budget is currently set on a 10 year trip back to Deficit Hell. It’s worth pointing this out even as the bombs are flying. There is still time to fix the damage and spare us all another $5 trillion debt monstrosity.
In the summer, Bush and Republican leadership rammed a 10 year budget plan through Congress, one with little relation even then to economic reality. The plan requires large, backloaded tax cuts, mostly for the wealthiest 1 percent, in the years 2005 to 2010. Bush promised he could pay for this, even with the imminent retirement of the Baby Boomers, because the economy would stay healthy and federal spending would stay low.
He said we would run large budget surpluses throughout the decade. Recent projections suggest we might start running deficits as soon as fiscal year 2002, due to the economic slowdown and fallout from September 11.
He said federal discretionary spending would grow no more than 4 percent a year. It’s headed for more than 8 percent just from 2001 to 2002.
Moreover, the lower the surpluses we run now, the less debt we can pay down. The less we pay now, the more interest accumulates later in the decade – another hidden cost Bush hasn’t calculated for.
Should Bush have anticipated Sept. 11? Of course not. The problem is, he should not have anticipated anything that far ahead. As many Democrats and economists argued throughout the summer, it was stupid to make such far-reaching tax plans. Nobody knew what the economy would look like 10 years from now. Or what might happen in between. The prudent course is to cut taxes for 2010 when we get to 2008 or 2009.
Unfortunately, once implemented, tax cuts are hard to repeal. No one today wants to criticize Bush much, or advocate anything that might be unfairly depicted as calls for a tax increase. The current consensus is for even more tax cuts, today. (This might be a good thing, properly done. Unlike tax cuts a decade from now, they might stimulate consumer spending). Few politicos want to discuss the depth charges Bush has laid five to 10 years down the pike.
Osama bin Laden may have helped push us into our current fiscal hole, but Bush cheerfully dug the ditch. My plea to NU students: Please don’t repeat the sins of your elders and follow these politicians who blithely promise you endless years of no-cost tax cuts and booming surpluses. The 21st century may have a way of smashing these crystal balls on a yearly basis. And you may be left writing $300 and $600 checks back to Washington, paying for yet another growing deficit. For starters, let’s play it safe and repeal those 2005 to 2010 cuts.
