Samuelson on the Budget

The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson has a pretty good article on the growing budget, and both Republican and Democrat candidates' unwillingness to address specific areas of savings (or cuts). He's right on about Social Security and Medicare spending, and the pubic's unwillingness to..well..frankly to care. Read here.

Two quick gripes:

1) "Since 1961, the federal government has run deficits in all but five years. Only the surplus of 1969 stemmed from deliberate policy: a 10 percent income surtax reluctantly passed by Congress in 1968. The others (1998-2001) mostly reflected good fortune: the end of the Cold War, resulting in a 40 percent drop in defense spending as a share of the economy, and an unexpected surge in taxes from the economic boom. Neither was a policy act of the Clinton administration or the then Republican Congress."

Good fortune? Unexpected surge in tax revenue? Or....aggressive anti-Soviet policies and pro growth economic policies throughout the 1980's. Yeah...that sounds about right.

2) "Democrats have spent seven years denouncing Bush's tax cuts but are willing to repeal only the cuts benefiting those with incomes above $250,000. When Republicans created the Medicare drug benefit (2007 cost: $41 billion), it was simply added to existing benefits."

The Medicare drug benefit and the tax cuts are not one in the same, as Samuelson treats them. Part D is a revenue loser. The tax cuts are a revenue raiser. Because of sound tax policy, the deficit shrank from $412 billion in 2004 to $248 billion in 2006 (See OMB charts).