| Folks:
I really like Robert Samuelson, who writes for the Post.
He spares no one. On
February 12th, not long after the White House released its
budget for FY
2004, he wrote about the budget charade. I’ve been
watching this process
since 1965, and he’s right. And this is one of those
issues that’s not about
left or right, Democrat or Republican. A plague on both their
houses. Here are some relevant quotes: “To its critics,
President Bush's proposed 2004 budget is a monstrosity. They
have a point. Bush's policy is: Cut taxes and raise spending.
It wasn't
enough to fulfill his campaign promise to cut individual
tax rates. Now he
wants more tax cuts: elimination of the double taxation of
corporate
dividends; a radical overhaul of tax-free savings accounts.
If these new tax
cuts are good ideas, Bush might justify them by proposing
offsetting spending
reductions. Perish the thought.”
"Can we then trust the Democrats? Not exactly. Their
true policy is: Raise
spending and ultimately raise taxes -- a lot. Democratic
proposals for a
Medicare drug benefit have been about twice as expensive
as Bush's, up to
about $800 billion over a decade; and they too cover only
part of the
elderly's costs. On health, education and child care, Democrats
would
generally outspend Bush.
Between Bush and his critics, there is a shared lack of candor
made possible
by budget-speak. Its hallmark is to divert all budget debate
into a
discussion of surpluses and deficits. This distracts from
what ought to be
the central issues. How much should government spend? For
what? Do we now get
our money's worth? And -- most important -- how can we prepare
for the
crushing costs of the baby boom's retirement?”
Let me repeat that last:
“
This distracts from what ought to be the central issues.
How much should
government spend? For what? Do we now get our money's worth?
And -- most
important -- how can we prepare for the crushing costs of
the baby boom's
retirement?”
•
How much should government spend? A very good question!America
taxes and
spends a lot less than western European governments as a
percentage of gross
national product (GNP). We spend only an embarrassing percentage
of our GNP
on foreign assistance. Remember the budget game last summer?
Not much money
is going to Afghanistan now.
•
For what? Well, that’s another discussion. Working
for Al Gore’s National
Performance Review, I prepared a list of what I took to be
irrelevant and
wasteful programs that Gore took into the Oval Office. I
know, because I was
there. We offered up Billions and Billions of dollars. Did
we win a little?
Very little, because every program has its defenders. Even
the helium reserve. • Do we get our money’s worth?
No one knows, because no one looks. Program
evaluation is dead.
Years ago, I worked the Office of Economic Opportunity (Lyndon
Johnson’s War
on Poverty). I was in the Office of CAP Monitoring. Our job
was to go to
places like San Pat county in south Texas, Ferriday, Louisiana,
the projects
in Chicago, and find out what happened because of the Federal
money we were
spending. I could tell such stories.
Later, I created an Office of Program Evaluation at the Department
of
Commerce. Again, our job was to find out what happened because
Commerce was
there. We were so successful that the Office of Management
and Budget
recommended DOUBLING our professional staff. That’s
about as common in
Washington as hen’s teeth. I could tell such stories.
In between, I worked at the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare (now
HHS) with an informal evaluation program called PEBSI: Program
Evaluation By
Summer Interns. PEBSI sent college students all over America,
asking
questions. THAT raised some eyebrows.
•
How can we prepare for the crushing costs of the baby boom’s
retirement?
That’s YOUR problem. It’s worth a LOT of discussion
among your peers. I’m a
pre-boomer, and I’ve already retired! Think about it
in terms of the number
of retired folks being carried by the number of working people.
It’s a ratio,
and because of America’s demographics, there will be
a lot fewer workers
supporting a lot more retirees during your lifetime. And
all these people are
born now; there’s no fancy forecasting needed to see
the train wreck coming. You can find all the numbers in Samuelson’s
article. It’s a good one.
Bob Knisely
References:
1)The
Budget Charade By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, February 12, 2003; Page A29
|
