CHANGE MY LOCATION
Commentary
California News
Multimedia News
Commentary - Scott Lilly: Showdown on government investment
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The White House released data last week indicating that the federal deficit for the 2007 fiscal year, which will end on Sept. 30, will be $205 billion rather than the $244 billion that the White House predicted back in February.
A $39 billion mistake in estimating the deficit isn’t as big as it might seem — the variation equals only a little more than 1 percent of total federal spending for the year. But the estimating error does provide some perspective on the looming battle over the 2008 appropriation bills.
The Congress maintains that an additional $20 billion is crucial to maintain federal efforts in a variety of areas during the 2008 fiscal year. The White House is threatening to veto because the additional $20 billion will add about $10 billion to the 2008 deficit. (Only about half of the appropriated funds will actually flow out of the Treasury in the first year.) That means the veto standoff that the White House is threatening is over an amount equal to about one-quarter of the estimated error the White House recently conceded making in projecting the fiscal 2007 deficit.
The president argues that the additional funding proposed by Congress is unneeded because his budget already contains a $60 billion increase in discretionary spending. The problem with the president’s argument, however, is that all of that increase goes to just four of the 12 appropriation bills — the four bills that fund defense, veterans affairs, foreign affairs, and homeland security. The entire domestic side of government is frozen, which means — when you consider the effects of inflation, the growth of the economy, and population — that they are facing substantial cuts. There are some programs that many Americans would agree should be cut, but any responsible citizen should carefully examine where Congress is intending to add money before deciding whether to support President Bush or the Congress.
In some instances, sticking with the president’s recommendation will in my opinion force cutbacks that most Americans would view as painful and unnecessary. The effects in other instances will be more than painful — they will force policies that a very large majority of citizens would find mindless and even absurd.
Comments from Examiner Readers
10:53 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007 re: "Pietro S. Nivola: Uncle Sam suffering from attention deficit disorder"
Report as inappropriate
4:57 AM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007
re: "Sunlight study sees 10 ways to open the House"
Report as inappropriate
Mr. Mirth Alert said:
Mr. Nivola should thank the Lord that he's allowed to put his ignorance on public display, for he knows little about division of labor & nothing about attention deficit disorder. Division of labor was a mfr.'ing scheme, to produce more for less, i.e., increase profit. Despite Mr. Mellon's early 20th-century claim that good govt. is good business, govt. neither mfrs. nor turns a profit. & This notion of doing a little of everything need not be explained by some questionable medical diagnosis but rather by the very dictum that got the guy who appointed all the policy makers elected: "I can please all of the people all of the time." Overstretched govt. is the product of deliberate planning, not some behavioral miscue.
290 agree | 217 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Sorry, but this Open House Project commentary reads like an Onion parody column: who @the Sunlight Fdn. sincerely believes that Congress has any interest in empowering the public? The gulf betw. haves & have-nots widens a little more each day, & as "haves" Congress sure as shootin' has nothing to gain by reducing that gulf. Never mind all this techno nonsense, Sunlight Fdn.: arrest members of Congress & detain them for 48 hr; if for no reason other than to shake it outta its "have" stupor.
297 agree | 308 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree