Uchitelle in 03/21 NYT: Managing Deficits through Spending

[swag]

Oh, those precious tax-cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/business/yourmoney/21view.html

Excerpts:

But the House bill makes one basic switch: where the old law attacked measures that would lead to a "net deficit increase,'' the new one attacks measures that lead to "an increase in direct spending.''

Put another way, the prime concern is not a balanced budget. It is growth in government spending. Unlike the "pay as you go'' rules of the 1990's, Congress would not have to offset the costs of new tax cuts.

The distinction is central in the battle over the current President Bush's economic agenda, because tax cuts are likely to be the biggest new contributor by far to federal budget deficits over the next decade.

Mr. Bush's top economic priority is to extend permanently most of the tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003, along with other expiring provisions like the tax credit for research and development. The cost of extending the tax breaks would be about $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

. . .

IF Mr. Bush and Republican Congressional leaders prevail, the burden of reducing the federal budget deficit will fall primarily on domestic discretionary programs - housing vouchers for low-income families and public housing, grants to local police and fire departments and block grants for child care assistance.

Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group, contends that the House Budget Committee's blueprint would cut domestic discretionary spending by $120 billion below the levels needed to keep up with inflation. If true, those would amount to very deep cuts through 2009. But domestic discretionary programs account for only about 17 percent of the federal budget. Even if Mr. Bush gets everything he wants, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that federal spending would climb to $2.7 trillion in 2009 from $2.3 trillion in 2004.

All of which makes one wonder: Do Republicans have a secret plan to keep the government big?