THE TIMES, IN DEFENSE OF BAD BUDGETING :

Tax Cuts, Again (NY Times, August 31, 2002)

[T]he overriding problem with more tax cuts is the cost. The proposals Mr. Bush is looking at are expensive. This week the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the recession, combined with increased spending and the cost of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, had vaporized all but $1 trillion of the 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus projected less than two years ago. It would be unconscionable for Mr. Bush to propose any tax cuts without explaining how they will be paid for over the long term. A case can be made for some tax-cutting now, but only if the huge tax cuts scheduled to take effect several years from now for the wealthiest Americans are repealed.

Why is a budget that projects the government taking one trillion dollars more than it needs from the American taxpayers any better than one that projects the government taking one trillion less than it needs? Aren't both simply bad budgets? In fact, given that we had a rising economy while we ran deficits but plunged into recession as soon as we started running surpluses, isn't it time to consider the possibility that the surplus is part of the problem? Mustn't there be some deleterious effect on the economy when government takes more of our hard-earned money than even it can spend, when, in effect, government removes the vital free market mechanism of allowing taxpayers to determine how to spend those dollars? Who cares if we give tax breaks to left-handed eggplant growers in Wyoming; just give the money back to the people, any people. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 31, 2002 9:12 AM