While he acknowledged the single-year fiscal improvement touted by the Bush administration for 2006, he said that "it did not fundamentally change our long-term fiscal outlook." He also noted that since 2000, America's net social insurance commitments and other fiscal obligations have increased to $50 trillion from $20 trillion, representing four times the nation's total economic output. Rising national health care costs are the greatest culprit according to data collected by Walker's agency.
The head of the GAO also warned that if no action is taken now to control government spending, severe tax hikes could be necessary. He stated that, "balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes to 2 times today’s level."
Of course, this doesn't matter to those of us who don't mind leaving a mess for our kids to clean up... Or global warming the next generation will have to deal with... Or a war for the next president to fight...
Oh, and get this:
During the course of the hearing, senators also asked Walker about the cost estimates presented by President George W. Bush for sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq this year, according to Air Force Times. Walker believed that the amount of money planned to be spent on the troop escalation was much more than needed for the number of troops involved. "I have some serious concerns about the numbers...It is unclear what much of the $5.6 billion is to be spent on," they reported him saying.
3 comments:
"During the course of the hearing, senators also asked Walker about the cost estimates presented by President George W. Bush for sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq this year, according to Air Force Times. Walker believed that the amount of money planned to be spent on the troop escalation was much more than needed for the number of troops involved. "I have some serious concerns about the numbers...It is unclear what much of the $5.6 billion is to be spent on," they reported him saying."
Come on, Nadir; you're not telling us that any uptick in tax revenues is going straight to Halliburton's top line, are you? Conspiracy theorist!!!!
Big problem with this proposal: increasing tax rates will surely decrease tax revs. Anybody making such a prediction must make an incorrect assumption: that people will behave the same with a new tax rate. They will not.
To increase tax revs, congress will have to cut tax rates.
Lowering the deficit back to black will also require spending cuts.
Bush's war in Iraq was supposed to pay for itself, by producing a new nation of consumers (creating tax revs from companies selling to Iraqi consumers), reducing the need for defense spending (by seducing Arabs into focusing on self-improvement rather than destroying other people's civilizations), and ensuring a major source of petro in the hands of a stable and thriving government (ie, a modern market-driven democracy) which would boost the US economy. Clearly instead this has turned into a money drain. The tyrants are winning.
Post a Comment