Spending and deficits
From John Rose
Creston
This letter is in response to, but not necessarily in opposition to, a letter written by Terry Madison, which appeared in the Jan. 11 issue of the Creston News Advertiser. The letter addressed two issues which I would like to respond to.
The first issue concerns the mounting national debt. It must be remembered that spending is only one-half of the reason for deficits. The other factor, is of course, revenue. More than one-third of the debt incurred under the Obama administration is due to shrinking tax revenues coming into the treasury, because of the recession. In addition, one-third of the Obama stimulus package was in the form of tax cuts, which on top of the Bush tax cuts have put the level of federal revenue at the lowest in over 40 years.
Spending is of course a concern, but according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Bush/Obama stimulus spending saved 2.1 million jobs. Mark Zandi, who was John McCain’s economic advisor, has stated that without the Bush/Obama bailouts and stimulus spending, the unemployment rate would be at least double what it is today.
Revenues, however, must be part of the solution, whether they be the result of tax increases, tax reform, economic growth, or any combination of those. If you think of the government as a household, consider what happens to the family budget if food prices, health insurance, gasoline prices and college tuition for two of the children all rise at the same time that one of the wage earners loses their job. Is the family spending too much, or are they not taking in enough income? This is the situation that many families are now facing, and the solution is that they will have to adjust spending, but will also need to find more income, unless they give up their home, health insurance, or college education for their children.
It is a fact that we cannot dent the national debt by spending cuts alone. And while cuts must happen, it must be said that many spending cuts by local, state and federal government have led to increased unemployment, which only serves to increase the deficit because of decreased tax revenue and increased unemployment benefits.
The second issue addressed by the letter concerns funding for Planned Parenthood. While I very much respect anyone’s conviction regarding abortion, I feel that I must point out that if it is true that government funding of Planned Parenthood has increased (which I was not aware of), that it is unlikely that it is due to a decree from the president. Under the Constitution, the president cannot allocate expenditure. Only Congress can do that, and I have not heard of any increase in funding for Planned Parenthood. In fact, it would seem that the House of Representatives would be inclined to do the opposite.
It must also be stated that it is illegal for any government funds to be used for abortion and that only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities are for abortions. Most of Planned Parenthood’s activities are directed at preventing unplanned pregnancies, or for health-care services for those who are pregnant. Much of their funding comes from private donations.
I know that it can be said that all of the money is in the same pot, but my opposition to a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, which cost far more in tax dollars than funding of Planned Parenthood does not mean that I would have been justified in opposing all defense spending.
