The Proposed GOP Budget

Ken AshfordCongress, Economy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

“A budget is a moral document; it talks about where your values are,” said Representative Rob Woodall, Republican of Georgia and a member of the Budget Committee. “

Okay, Rep. Woodall.  Then let’s see where the Republicans values are, by looking at its proposed budget:

Without relying on tax increases, budget writers were forced into contortions to bring the budget into balance while placating defense hawks clamoring for increased military spending. They added nearly $40 billion in “emergency” war funding to the defense budget for next year, raising military spending without technically breaking strict caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act.

The plan contains more than $1 trillion in savings from unspecified cuts to programs like food stamps and welfare. To make matters more complicated, the budget demands the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including the tax increases that finance the health care law. But the plan assumes the same level of federal revenue over the next 10 years that the Congressional Budget Office foresees with those tax increases in place — essentially counting $1 trillion of taxes that the same budget swears to forgo.

And still, it achieves balance only by counting $147 billion in “dynamic” economic growth spurred by the policies of the budget itself. In 2024, the budget would produce a $13 billion surplus, thanks in part to $53 billion in a projected “macroeconomic impact” generated by Republican policies. That surplus would grow to $33 billion in 2025, and so would the macroeconomic impact, to $83 billion.

“I don’t know anyone who believes we’re going to balance the budget in 10 years,” said Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado. “It’s all hooey.”

So let me get this straight.  It adds to war spending, cuts food stamps and welfare for the needy.  Guns, not butter.  AND…. it assumes an increase in federal tax income without actually raising taxes, because….. magic, I guess.

Hooey, indeed.