"But while politicians on both sides have strong feelings about the deficit, most have precious little to say about the spending that is responsible for the problem.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called the tax plan a “a step backwards for fiscal responsibility,” citing what it called “gimmicks” and a $1.5-trillion revenue cut to the federal government."
GOP refusal to deal with spending will haunt tax overhaul
"On Thursday, Americans got their first look at the president’s long-anticipated tax plan with the release of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.”
Not surprisingly, most Democrats have pledged to oppose the plan, finding fault with everything from the reduction in corporate rates to the idea that changes to the mortgage interest deduction might disproportionately impact large urban areas.
Much of the debate in the coming weeks is likely to take the form of partisan posturing, but at its core lie fundamentally different views on what tax policy should aim to accomplish.
"One area where there isn’t a fundamental difference of opinion is over whether we should care about how the plan will impact deficits and debt.
Some Republicans have balked at the idea of adding to the deficit, and Democrats have recently rediscovered their long-lost fiscally conservative wing after a near-doubling of the national debt on their watch.
But while politicians on both sides have strong feelings about the deficit, most have precious little to say about the spending that is responsible for the problem.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called the tax plan a “a step backwards for fiscal responsibility,” citing what it called “gimmicks” and a $1.5-trillion revenue cut to the federal government.
Of course, the administration and the plan’s supporters in Congress insist that the changes to the tax code will spur more than enough economic growth to raise revenues and make up for the deficit hole. But if history is our guide, economic growth alone is unlikely to be enough to calm the worries of fiscal conservatives like me.
These issues should surprise no one — especially after the $1.5-trillion budget Congress recently passed as a starting point to kickstart “reconciliation” and pass the tax package. But they are troubling to those of us who see that the lasting legacy of the Trump presidency is risking becoming one of spiraling debt.
The $20-trillion debt and soon-to-be trillion-dollar annual deficits did not arise out of nowhere, and they are not a result of too little revenue, which is currently near its long-term average.
Majorities on both sides of the aisle prefer to ignore the inconvenient truth that the federal government spends too much and, to date, has no real plan for reining things in before major programs become insolvent and the economy faces strain or even crisis.
Congressional leaders have twisted themselves in knots over the last few weeks trying to find enough “pay-fors” for the tax plan, and it remains to be seen whether the liability that remains is enough to sink the package entirely. But things need not be so dire if Republicans were willing to do the things they claim to support on the stump."
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called the tax plan a “a step backwards for fiscal responsibility,” citing what it called “gimmicks” and a $1.5-trillion revenue cut to the federal government."
GOP refusal to deal with spending will haunt tax overhaul
"On Thursday, Americans got their first look at the president’s long-anticipated tax plan with the release of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.”
Not surprisingly, most Democrats have pledged to oppose the plan, finding fault with everything from the reduction in corporate rates to the idea that changes to the mortgage interest deduction might disproportionately impact large urban areas.
Much of the debate in the coming weeks is likely to take the form of partisan posturing, but at its core lie fundamentally different views on what tax policy should aim to accomplish.
"One area where there isn’t a fundamental difference of opinion is over whether we should care about how the plan will impact deficits and debt.
Some Republicans have balked at the idea of adding to the deficit, and Democrats have recently rediscovered their long-lost fiscally conservative wing after a near-doubling of the national debt on their watch.
But while politicians on both sides have strong feelings about the deficit, most have precious little to say about the spending that is responsible for the problem.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has called the tax plan a “a step backwards for fiscal responsibility,” citing what it called “gimmicks” and a $1.5-trillion revenue cut to the federal government.
Of course, the administration and the plan’s supporters in Congress insist that the changes to the tax code will spur more than enough economic growth to raise revenues and make up for the deficit hole. But if history is our guide, economic growth alone is unlikely to be enough to calm the worries of fiscal conservatives like me.
These issues should surprise no one — especially after the $1.5-trillion budget Congress recently passed as a starting point to kickstart “reconciliation” and pass the tax package. But they are troubling to those of us who see that the lasting legacy of the Trump presidency is risking becoming one of spiraling debt.
The $20-trillion debt and soon-to-be trillion-dollar annual deficits did not arise out of nowhere, and they are not a result of too little revenue, which is currently near its long-term average.
Majorities on both sides of the aisle prefer to ignore the inconvenient truth that the federal government spends too much and, to date, has no real plan for reining things in before major programs become insolvent and the economy faces strain or even crisis.
Congressional leaders have twisted themselves in knots over the last few weeks trying to find enough “pay-fors” for the tax plan, and it remains to be seen whether the liability that remains is enough to sink the package entirely. But things need not be so dire if Republicans were willing to do the things they claim to support on the stump."
