“We dodged that bullet,” sighed many beneficiaries of the federal largesse. But did taxpayers dodge that bullet?
While some of the resistance to compromise was engendered by a desire to stop implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the temerity of the congressional stand-off actually had its genesis in fear the nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. Although the current administration points the finger of blame at the administration it succeeded, taxpayers should note that the federal debt grew by just more than $4 trillion during the eight years of the previous administration, while the current administration has managed to increase the debt by more than $6 trillion so far. Admittedly, this has not been entirely the fault of the administration, but congressional representatives as well, as they have added more programs and projects to the federal budget.
Elected officials at all levels of government believe tax revenue is theirs to spend to satisfy this or that constituency. Constituents believe that money should be spent on their pet project or peeve. Even news reporters have come to report federal dollars as “free money” when they announce that local projects aren’t paid for by taxpayers, when funding comes from the federal government. Did these journalists fall asleep during that civics lesson?
While the recent resolution of the loggerheads in Washington allowed the debt ceiling to be raised, that higher debt ceiling is only temporary — lasting only until the beginning of 2014. Although lawmakers and the administration don’t seem to have taken the initial blow of sequestration to heart, they need to understand the federal government is spending more than it takes in, and if the nation is to avoid default — not being able to pay its bills — the solution has to begin with reining in spending.
Some argue that new programs are needed but ignore the more important question: What services are no longer necessary or appropriate for the federal government to perform? During the shutdown, the media highlighted programs that would tug at the heartstrings of taxpayers, such as national parks or food stamps for the poor.
Rather than pandering to the emotional appeal, taxpayers should demand that elected officials and federal bureaucrats be held accountable for the outcomes of pet federal programs. For example, some decry the loss of the safety net for the poor and disadvantaged or underserved. However, the current solution to the problem is to appropriate more financial assistance including welfare payments, foods stamps and the like. It is not that taxpayers shouldn’t have sympathy for the poor, but they should also ask how the programs will get the poor off the welfare rolls.
Is there, for example, a program to teach job skills so they can become gainfully employed or improve their financial literacy to better manage their money? Have lawmakers questioned the effectiveness of long-standing programs that people take for granted? Are they working or are these programs being kept alive simply to keep those who hold jobs with them employed?
None of these questions were raised in the interim between sequestration and the threat of a complete government shutdown earlier last month. As has been noted time and time again, government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem and until that problem is addressed, we will be living off the credit card called the debt limit.
While the blame game will continue, it should be remembered that politics is an art of compromise. “My way or the highway” politics is not what taxpayers want.
If there was less government, would the economic outlook be better than it is, with looming debt overshadowing whatever economic prosperity there might be?
Lowell L. Kalapa is president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii.
