Santorum on Deficits
In keeping with our examination of Senator Santorum's record, lets look at how he has helped to increase the deficit. The good news is that this bill has not been passed yet, but it lets you know where Rick's head is.
Economic Growth and Government Efficiency Act of 1999 (S.410)
Submitted to the 106th CONGRESS, 1st Session
"To provide for offsetting tax cuts whenever there is an elimination of a discretionary spending program."
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106CHyeaX)
The bill was sponsored by Sen Brownback of Kansas and Rick was one of twelve cosponsors. The gist of the bill is that the government can never reduce its deficit. If any discretionary spending program is cut, then you have to cut taxes by a corresponding amount. It does not address whether spending rises in other discretionary areas - which makes this a one-way ticket to higher deficits. They try to avoid saying that it would increase the deficit by adding the following section:
Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f) PROGRAM ELIMINATION- Revenue decreases offset as provided in section 252(f)(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not be treated as increasing the deficit for purposes of this Act.'. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.410:)
So, you see, since they add a definitin that these cuts do not add to the deficit - they don't. Pretty slick trick, Rick. But in reality, it won't work that way. You can say the red ink is mauve, but the deficits will still be there and growing.
So what, you say, the federal government should be bankrupt so then it can't meddle in our lives. The problem with that thinking is that the large deficit scares away foreign investors, who right now are the ones financing our economy. Paul Krugman and other economists can provider better explanations of the impact of the federal deficit on the economy.
The biggest deficit that should concern us all is the one atop Santorum's shoulders.
Economic Growth and Government Efficiency Act of 1999 (S.410)
Submitted to the 106th CONGRESS, 1st Session
"To provide for offsetting tax cuts whenever there is an elimination of a discretionary spending program."
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106CHyeaX)
The bill was sponsored by Sen Brownback of Kansas and Rick was one of twelve cosponsors. The gist of the bill is that the government can never reduce its deficit. If any discretionary spending program is cut, then you have to cut taxes by a corresponding amount. It does not address whether spending rises in other discretionary areas - which makes this a one-way ticket to higher deficits. They try to avoid saying that it would increase the deficit by adding the following section:
Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f) PROGRAM ELIMINATION- Revenue decreases offset as provided in section 252(f)(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not be treated as increasing the deficit for purposes of this Act.'. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.410:)
So, you see, since they add a definitin that these cuts do not add to the deficit - they don't. Pretty slick trick, Rick. But in reality, it won't work that way. You can say the red ink is mauve, but the deficits will still be there and growing.
So what, you say, the federal government should be bankrupt so then it can't meddle in our lives. The problem with that thinking is that the large deficit scares away foreign investors, who right now are the ones financing our economy. Paul Krugman and other economists can provider better explanations of the impact of the federal deficit on the economy.
The biggest deficit that should concern us all is the one atop Santorum's shoulders.
posted by wagdog @ 5:19 PM
<< Home