Spending bills must originate in the House, per our Constitution. These Democratic Senators are merely engaging in futile political masturbation.
Posted on 03/24/2002 10:07:38 AM PST by The Old Hoosier
Senate Plan Will Sunset Tax Cuts, Freeze Defense Spending
Democrats Will Spend Social Security Surplus
By David Freddoso
Like St. Augustine, who asked God to give him chastity—but not yet—Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.) plans to move away from spending the entire Social Security surplus to increase domestic spending—but only starting next year.
After criticizing President Bush for planning to spend the entire Social Security surplus in his budget, Conrad and fellow Senate Democrats are proposing exactly the same thing.
The plan that emerged from the Democrat-controlled Senate Budget Committee on March 20 claims to pay down more debt and spend slightly less Social Security money by fiscal 2005. But that’s only because it would hold defense spending to the rate of inflation beginning that year. The plan also insists that last year’s tax cuts must expire in 2010 and cannot be extended.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government will bring in $2.1 trillion next year, of which over $1.3 trillion is from income and other taxes, and $748 billion is from Social Security and Medicare taxes. After $480 billion in Social Security payments have been made, the CBO estimates that there will be a $176-billion surplus in Social Security and other government trust funds—which "officially" do not count as part of the federal budget.
President Bush’s original budget plan for Fiscal 2003 would have spent all of the revenue, plus the Social Security surplus, and then borrowed $121 billion for deficit spending. But because Congress pared down his $77-billion stimulus package to $43 billion this month, the proposed Bush deficit would actually be $87 billion—after spending the entire Social Security surplus.
Although a group of conservative Republicans, led by Rep. John Shaddegg (R.-Ariz.), wanted to cancel the stimulus package altogether to balance the budget, the Republican-controlled House plan will run up an $80-billion deficit next year—after spending the entire Social Security surplus.
The Senate Democrats’ proposal leads to a $92-billion deficit next year. This, again, is after spending the entire Social Security surplus.
"Despite the criticism those Senate leaders made against the President on the very same charge, they do it themselves," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Conrad argued that even though his budget spends all Social Security revenue next year, it would slightly reduce the percentage of the Social Security surplus to be spent in fiscal 2005. "No more putting our hand into this honey pot," he said in a committee hearing after unveiling the budget.
Shortchanging Defense But this will be done, Conrad’s budget documents show, only by putting his hand into another honey pot—the future defense budget. Despite the ongoing war on terrorism, Conrad’s budget would freeze defense spending at the rate of inflation after 2005. It uses the rest of the money Bush requested for the military—some $269 billion between 2005 and 2012—to cover domestic spending and achieve its projected decrease in Social Security surplus spending. Conrad, who accused Bush of using the war on terror to justify unnecessary defense spending (see Human Events, March 11, page 1, "Democrats Reverse Field on Defense"), added to his budget a non-binding resolution that President Bush should not increase the pay of servicemen without also increasing the pay of civilian government employees. But Conrad’s budgetary sleight of hand is meaningless, since the savings Conrad hopes to gain all come from future budgetary austerity. Future budget projections are almost never heeded by future Congresses, explained Tom Schatz, president of the non-profit activist group Citizens Against Government Waste. "They don’t have to pay any attention to it," said Schatz. "And that’s even more true if the majority changes." Conrad’s budget includes a provision to force next year’s Senate to come up with a five-year plan that decreases spending of the Social Security surplus—a "disingenuous" tactic, said one GOP Senate leadership aide. "Republicans are wondering if this is an acknowledgement that Senate Republicans will have the majority next year," the aide said. "[Conrad] may have a very short time as Senate budget chairman. Therefore he doesn’t want to do the heavy work this year—he wants to let us to clean up the mess next year." Budget Committee member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) called Conrad’s budget tactics a "bait-and-switch." "They’re going to be spending Social Security money, and they’re going to try to hide it," he told Human Events. "It’s going to give us an opportunity and a forum to tell the rest of the world that what the Democrats have been complaining about for the last year, they’re going to be a party to." Conrad’s plan claims it would leave 50% of the Social Security surplus untapped between now and 2012, but that claim is possible only because Conrad’s budget projections assume that last year’s tax relief package will expire in 2010—at which point Americans will return to paying higher income taxes, Fleischer told reporters. "If you’re a married couple, it would re-impose a marriage penalty on you," Fleischer said of the Democratic plan. Bush’s budget would make the tax cuts permanent.
Spending bills must originate in the House, per our Constitution. These Democratic Senators are merely engaging in futile political masturbation.
Democrats Will Spend Social Security Surplus. . . and I'll bet the sun rose in the East this morning, too . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.