IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT I WANT TO YOU AREN'T SERIOUS (via Robert Schwartz):

Fiscal Phonies (Robert J. Samuelson, November 2, 2005, Washington Post)

The scramble by congressional Republicans and White House officials to show they're serious about dealing with the budget recalls the classic 1951 novel "The Catcher in the Rye," whose main character, Holden Caulfield, denounces almost everyone as a "phony." Well, on the budget, most Republicans are phonies. So are most Democrats. The resulting "debates" are less about controlling the budget than about trying to embarrass the other side.

Anyone who's serious about curbing federal spending and budget deficits could fashion a plan that would do both without eliminating one penny of existing government benefits or raising any existing tax. Here's how:

First, you'd repeal the Medicare drug benefit, scheduled to take effect in 2006. For the next five years (2006-2010), the savings would total about $300 billion, estimates the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Preserving an existing drug benefit for low-income recipients might reduce savings by 5 percent.

Second, you'd repeal a tax cut scheduled for 2006 that would benefit mainly people in the top brackets (taxable incomes exceeding $182,800 and $326,450 for couples in 2005). These groups have already received big tax cuts; the new reductions involve repealing limits on deductions and personal exemptions. The 2006-2010 savings: about $30 billion, estimates the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.

Third, you'd eliminate all "earmarks" in the recent highway bill. These are projects targeted by congressmen and senators for their own districts. The highway bill contained $24 billion in earmarks, says Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group.

Not counting lower interest payments on less federal debt, this package would probably save more than $300 billion from 2006 to 2010 -- still not enough to eliminate prospective deficits.

Sad to note that Mr. Samuelson engages in precisely what he's accussing others of, cherry picking the stuff he'd personally favor cutting, like prescription drug coverage which 80% of Americans support. Why wouldn't every serious budget cutter instead propose phasing out all Agriculture spending., whivch would not only save something like $500 billion over 5 years but give us the high ground in trade talks and be a tremendous boon to less developed nations

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2005 7:01 AM