Posted on 09/11/2001 12:17:45 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Good news in the shrinking surplus
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Recently, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office released some sobering news to the drunks in the United States Congress. The projected surpluses, which have produced new rounds of binge spending among elected representatives who get their highs from the money of hard working taxpayers coming into the treasury, are shrinking. This is good news, not bad news, for those who recognize that the federal government is too large and want to put those out-of-control big spenders in Congress "on the wagon."
The Bush tax cut did not break the bank as the Democrats have claimed. The new projections already include the $46 billion that is being returned to taxpayers. The projection from the OMB estimates the surplus for 2001 will be $158 billion, down from $281 billion. About $157 billion of the surplus comes from Social Security payroll taxes, which President George W. Bush has vowed not to touch. The CBO estimate is much tighter, predicting $9 billion in Social Security funds will be needed to reach balance.
Since the 2001 fiscal year ends on September 30, there is very little that Bush can do with the budget he inherited from Bill Clinton and the Republican-led Congress. If the OMB is right, that still leaves Congress with an extra one billion dollars to spend, which is only considered small change in Washington, D.C. However, if the CBO is right, a little belt-tightening will be needed in the 2002 budget in order to redeem the $9 billion that must be borrowed from Social Security this year in order to square things with the American people. This is a good thing.
When Congress decides to spend an extra billion on a program or project, that billion becomes the floor for that particular item in the next fiscal year. Should Congress get a dose of reality and decide not to spend the extra billion the following year, advocates scream bloody murder and call it a "cut." In fact, if Congress doesn't spend the billion with an overly generous sum factored in for inflation, they call it a cut. Every billion Congress adds to the budget will grow to $12.5 billion in 10 years.
In 1997, Congress passed a new budget outline with statutory caps that were designed to limit spending and balance the budget. Then the stock market began to boom and those record surpluses began to appear. It was just too much temptation. From 1993 to 1997 discretionary spending actually declined 2.2 percent when adjusted for inflation. However, from the time those surpluses began to appear, Congress began bingeing and increased discretionary spending by a whopping 24.1 percent.
On the way out of town last fall, it was party time. Congress voted to blow past the previous year's cap by $52 billion, or $26 billion over the inflation adjustment.
Some Republicans are calling for an across-the-board spending cut in next year's budget. However, if Congress is serious about keeping its mitts off those Social Security funds and wants more money for defense and education in the 2002 budget, which are considered priorities, there are plenty of places to begin trimming.
In FY 2001 alone, Congress added some $68.5 billion in new spending – a sum far greater than the puny little tax cut. In fact, there was a 46 percent increase in pork-barrel projects alone. Pork, as defined by Citizens Against Government Waste, is anything:
- Not specifically authorized.
- Not competitively awarded.
- Not requested by the president.
- Greatly exceeds the president's budget request or the previous year's funding.
- Not the subject of congressional hearings.
- Serves only a local or special interest.
- Requested by only one chamber of Congress.
Each year CAGW publishes a "Pig Book" containing these pork-barrel items. Here are my picks to get the axe from the 2001 budget:
- $25 million for the International Fund for Ireland. Since 1986, our representatives have dumped $371 million into this project, which is supposed to be spent on "those projects that hold the greatest potential for job creation and equal opportunity for the Irish people." In the past, these projects have included building a replica of a Canadian ship called the Jeanie Johnston, which once ferried famine victims across the Atlantic, and a national water-sports center to be used for coaching top-level athletes.
- $5.8 million for wood utilization research in Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon and Tennessee. Since 1985, $62 million has been sapped from taxpayers for this project – despite the fact that the government is making it more difficult to harvest trees and the price of wood has gone through the roof.
- $4.2 million for shrimp aquaculture research. Since 1985, we've spent $49 million for this research, part of which goes to the landlocked state of Arizona.
- $500 million for peanut allergy reduction research in Alabama.
- $250 thousand for Vidalia onion research in Georgia.
- There is $500 thousand for swine waste management in North Carolina.
- $300 thousand for manure management in South Carolina. (Some think this could be better spent inside the beltway.)
There are plenty of programs that are subject to the normal appropriation process that ought to go as well:
- We could save $300 million and change by eliminating the Legal Services Corporation. It began in 1974, as a small program to give the poor access to the justice system. It has grown into a giant boondoggle, which gives advantage to left-wing political groups that use the legal system to advance the rights of prison inmates and the welfare state.
- We could redeem another $250 million by eliminating the so-called family-planning funds from the Title X program.
- Another $230 million would be saved if we terminated the Advance Technology Program and let the big corporations fund their own research.
- And let's not forget the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), which provides loans and insurance to companies investing in risky developing countries, or the Market Promotion Program that underwrites the cost of advertising products abroad for companies like McDonalds, Pillsbury and Sunkist. All together, these corporate welfare projects add up to a total of $65 billion a year.
That is just a start. I'm sure you can come up with a list of your own. Just ask yourself, "Should we take money from the funds coming into Social Security in order to pay McDonalds' overseas advertising budget?" Then go on down the list.
See how easy this is!
For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.
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.