May 13, 2013
David G. Savage:
Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross :
Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same?
With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May:
Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.:
How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
Jewish World Review
August 5, 2011 / 5 Menachem-Av, 5771
Grass Trimmed, but Landscaping Postponed
Uncle Sam now owes more on his credit cards than he makes in a year. The national debt passed the total U.S. GDP this week. Mull that over for a bit.
Now mull this over: Until the budget deal this week, the federal government borrowed 40 cents for every dollar it spent.
And the budget deal didn't do very much to change that. It "cut" $2 trillion over 10 years, which means Uncle Sam will overspend slightly less. If we hold to the deal -- and who among us doubts that Congress won't keep its word? -- spending will "only" increase by $1.8 trillion over 10 years. That's because in the topsy-turvy, laugh-clown-laugh world of so-called baseline budgeting, we've been talking about trimming the rate of increase. Think of Uncle Sam walking in a wind tunnel leading to insolvency. The cuts increased the headwind he has to walk into, but they don't do anything like force him to turn around.
More importantly, there are no structural reforms. It's the difference between trimming the grass and re-landscaping the lawn.
Now, the one great advantage the forces of the status quo have had in the budget debates over the last year is that they like the current system. Recall that the Democrats' preferred position was a "clean" debt-ceiling hike (no spending cuts at all), and President Obama's original budget called for increasing the deficit and extending the status quo until he was re-elected, if not into retirement.
In May, when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked what her plan was to fix Medicare, she responded, "We have a plan, it's called Medicare."
And whenever someone proposed serious reforms to the current system -- i.e., actual landscaping -- the Pelosi crowd responded that the reforms wouldn't solve the problem. And since they don't go far enough, why do anything at all?
Rep. Paul Ryan came up with one such plan. It was once called "The Path to Prosperity" but is now known as the only budget that has actually passed a congressional vote.
Anyway, the response from Democrats and liberal policy wonks was ridicule. It doesn't solve the problem! It actually increases the debt over the next 10 years! It ends Medicare as we know it! Republicans are hypocrites! Oh, and: Bush!
They sounded like slacker teenagers sitting on the couch mocking your inadequate techniques for putting out the fire in your living room. "Get back to me when you have a real plan to put out the fire, Dad."
So, look, if the intelligent and sophisticated position is that your budget numbers don't have to add up, can't we do a lot better than this? Over the last 10 years the federal government doubled in size, in terms of spending. Doubled. Do you feel like you're getting twice the value out of government you got 10 years ago? Is it really so absurd to suggest that we didn't live in a state of government-deficient anarchy in the year 2001? I mean, it wasn't quite Thunderdome, was it?
Opponents of radical changes to the tax code -- say, the Fair Tax, or a flat tax, or VAT system, or some other variation -- whine that such schemes wouldn't raise enough revenue. It seems to me there are two reasonable responses to this. First, no one really knows if that's true. A truly radical change to the tax system that doesn't punish work or savings just might generate massive growth (or at least a lot more growth than the non-growth we have now). A lot more growth, even with lower tax rates, would generate a lot more revenue. Certainly the one thing we've all learned from the last few years is that no expert is infallible, and the ones who've defended the status quo are very fallible.
Second, the current system is doing a pretty terrible job already. Seems to me that if it's OK to take in $1 for every $1.40 you spend, that leaves a pretty big margin of error for us to try out a better system, right? I mean, surely we can bankrupt ourselves less expensively?
While I don't think you can throw seniors currently dependent on the system under the bus, it's time to think big. Really big. But that requires leadership that amounts to more than talking "Yes We Can!" while walking "No We Can't!"
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
To comment on JWR contributor Jonah Goldberg's column
include "/home/jwreview/public_html/t-ssi/jwr_squaread_300x250.php"; ?>
Jonah Goldberg Archives
© 2006 TMS
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
Ask Doctor K