On Government Spending

Do you remember when there were projected government surpluses as far as the eye could see? Oh, before I get into this, no comments about how Bush screwed that up. It wasn't just him and I don't want to get in a debate about it *cough* Alan.

Anyway, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was talking about spending the projected surpluses at a press conference. About how lawmakers needed to be responsible with how they spent the money. They would have to determine the most effective programs to support with the money. And I sat their thinking, "Great, how are we going to cut back all these programs when times turn tough. Oh, that's right. We won't." At the time, I was in favor of using the majority of the money to pay off the national debt. Then some reporter asked if then Gov. Bush was correct that taxes should be cut, and Sen. Lieberman said that tax cuts are spending and would be analyzed accordingly. That really tweaked my biscuits.

Tax cuts aren't spending. They decrease revenue, which is a decrease in the credit column, not the debit column. One has to assume that all income belongs first and foremost to the government for his statement to make sense. And oh boy does that piss me off. However, unlike conservative talk radio blowhards, I try to be understanding about these types of things.

Senators, including Sen. Lieberman, are lawyers. Math is hard for them. Politicians are primarily concerned with the government doing more for the people who voted them into office that they can point to and take direct credit for. Tax cuts mean that less can be done for the people who voted them into office that the politicians can point to and take direct credit for. Therefore, from their perspective, it is the exact same thing as spending the money on something else. Accounting details are unimportant.