DEFICIT AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Nobody seems to be impressed by Bush's budget. The Economist and Paul Krugman both think its claims to long-term deficit reduction are bogus. This Paul Krugman column is actually sane, and I thought maybe he had recovered from his bout of demon-possession, but nope. This Washington post piece is good because it goes into more detail about how the Bush administration's plan to cut the deficit anticipates cutting social programs.

"This administration has done a lot for low-income people," he said, citing increases in the food stamp rolls and the recently enacted Medicare prescription drug plan.

But the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the official administration budget document "shows that the number of children from low and moderate-income families who received child care assistance would be cut by 200,000 by 2009."

The Washington Post also cites the line that the budget is bogus.

"This is one more piece of the puzzle showing this is not a serious, credible budget," said Thomas S. Kahn, Democratic staff director on the House Budget Committee.

A long-term shift in spending priorities such as that outlined, he suggested, would be sure to meet with powerful congressional opposition in both parties, and much of it might have to be discarded.

The truth is, it's strange to say this, but my stand on this issue is closer to Krugman's than it is to the Bush administration. I think the American system, with minimal social safety nets and relatively (compared to Europe, say) small government, is better than the European system. But I'm not convinced that we needed to go further in that direction than we already were under Clinton. I was never a big fan of the Bush tax cut. My view is, if we can run the government cheaply enough that we can let the tax take slide to 15% of GDP, great. But you have to prove you can run the government that cheaply first, and that means taking on the Lobbyist of lobbyists, Public Enemy #1 (sound track plays something ominous, like the Imperial March)... the A... A... R... P!!!. Paul Krugman (see link above) is right about this:

So what will it take to get the budget deficit under control? Unless Social Security and Medicare are drastically cut — which is, of course, what the right wants — any solution has to include a major increase in revenue.

Darn right we do! Social Security is a disgrace, a fraud, intergenerational highway robbery. It's a form of welfare, and should be recognized and stigmatized as such. Welfare not only busts the budget, it degrades its recipients and breaks down the family. It renders the elderly useless, dissolves the sense of responsibility of the young for the old. It permits and encourages many perfectly able-bodied older people not to work, which erodes their self-esteem and marginalizes them. I support a welfare-to-work program for the elderly. The "social insurance" character of the Social Security program should be phased out over twenty-five or thirty years; instead, we should still have a guaranteed income for the elderly, but middle-class elderly people should be expected to live off their own savings, their own wages, and their children. I propose creating major tax incentives for children to stay with their parents-- for example, triple the dependent tax credit for people taking care of an elderly relative over 65. Meanwhile, have programs to create work for the elderly, work that people who are not physically strong can do, in their homes for example. This would allow us to reduce the federal budget drastically; to repeal the payroll tax, the most regressive tax of all; and it would firmly express the government's disapproval of that insidious cultural innovation of ours, that the bond of obligation between parents and children is a one-way bond. If I ran for office, the AARP would have me assassinated.

I'm not alone, of course, in skepticism from the right about Bush's budget plans. Lots of Congressional Republicans agree. It seems that they are even rebelling and demanding further spending cuts. (You might note that the New York Times only reports their doubts, you have to read a right-wing newspaper to find out they're doing something about it.) Now I like this news. One thing I don't like about Republicans is party discipline, and I would love to see it break down. There are diverse intellectual currents in the Republican Party which deserve expression, deserve to form the elements of a debate. I don't even think this will hurt Bush's re-election chances. On the contrary. If the Republican Congress attacks Bush from the right, Bush will look more centrist.

My advice to Congressional Republicans: fight hard against Bush's budget, humiliate the White House, then turn around and campaign for him in November. Tell the public: "Bush is a great president except for his tendency towards fiscal responsibility; elect Bush, then leave it to us to restrain him."