8/7/2019 Our tax system is broken, ridiculously complex, and horribly costly

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-tax-system-is-broken-ridiculously-complex-and-horribly-costly 1/2

[Type text]

Democrats behaving badly: Hysteria on display overspending cuts

As last week progressed the prospect of a government shutdown loomed, and someAmericans had a hissy-fit. Demagogues did their level best to make it seem as if theworld would end if the government was shut down, although not long ago asnowstorm in DC shut things down for a couple of days, and no one seemed tonotice.

 The Heritage Foundation provided some insight on just what a governmentshutdown really means: “During the last shutdowns, only 20 percent of Washington-area federal contracts were suspended, as were visa and passport applications,bankruptcy cases, and firearm applications. About 368 national parks closed. Butthe Department of Defense, power grid maintenance, border patrol, Coast Guard,air traffic controllers, inpatient and emergency outpatient medical care, and other

vital services continued.”

Not so bad, really. The world didn’t stop spinning. Some inconveniences, to be sure,but you know what? Sometimes stuff happens, and we have to behave like adultswhen it does.

Still, even though our government is grossly inefficient, wastes tons of taxpayermoney, and needs a major overhaul, there is something unseemly about having it“shut down.”

Customarily, government operates year-to-year on revenue/spending plan, abudget, the process for which is guided by a set of procedures laid out in the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, beginning with the President’s annual budgetrequest, then action by Congress.

But not for FY2011.

Ask Congressional Democrats why no budget was enacted. At the time it shouldhave been proposed, debated and approved they held a solid majority in bothhouses of Congress. They must have been busy doing other things.

So, dereliction of duty by the Congressional majority means the government haskept running through a series of short-term Continuing Resolutions that fundgovernment functions, essential and non-essential alike, and whether we can afford

them or not. Along the way many members of the Democrat majorities werereplaced in the November election by new faces that ran on fiscal irresponsibility,because voters understand that we must dramatically cut spending, and said soloudly on Election Day. Congressional Democrats, however, still haven’t gotten the message and wouldprefer not to make any cuts. When pressed they grudgingly agreed to cut spendingby $38 billion, which sounds like a lot. But this year we will spend $1.65 trillion more

8/7/2019 Our tax system is broken, ridiculously complex, and horribly costly

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-tax-system-is-broken-ridiculously-complex-and-horribly-costly 2/2

[Type text]

than we collect, and a cut of $38 billion is comparable to cutting 38 cents off of a$165 invoice.

And for some reason, everyone is celebrating.

And after having created this crisis by not passing a budget, Congressional

Democrats like DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and New York Rep. LouiseSlaughter adopted hysteria and hyperbole as their mode of response to Republicanefforts to tie spending cuts to the Continuing Resolution to keep the governmentrunning. Rep. Norton shrieked, “We are absolutely outraged. This is the functionalequivalent of bombing innocent civilians.” And Rep. Slaughter: “In 1994, peoplewere elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts, nowthey’re here to kill women,” she ranted. (Reports that they held their breath andstomped their feet could not be confirmed.)

Did alien beings take control of these two women? In response to these absurdperformances, a corps (not corpse!) of psychiatrists has been dispatched to theNation’s Capital to try to calm down the frenzied pair, or failing that, find a couple of 

spare beds for them in the nervous hospital.

Such gross exaggerations are out of bounds and likely reflect the disdain with whichthese elected public servants regard their bosses’ demand for spending cuts.

What we see today is the predictable, perhaps unavoidable result of governmentgiving money to segments of the private sector, a situation where governmentlargesse has reached an unsustainable level, and must be stopped. And the reactionof the recipients of that largesse and their government enablers is loud, angry and,as illustrated above, sometimes irrational. It would have been better to not havegiven these hand-outs in the first place than to have to stop giving them becausethey are not economically feasible.

And that would have been the constitutionally appropriate course. Governmentshould not subsidize private sector entities; not oil companies, green energycompanies, farmers, Planned Parenthood, banks, public broadcasting, or anythingelse. That’s what is wrong here, and such imprudence was not contemplated by theFounders, who figured future Americans would be smarter than we have turned outto be.

However, Democrats and Republicans were able to find a funding plan that wasmutually acceptable and ward off a shutdown for a few days, leaving the details of funding the government through September 30 for this week. Unfortunately, thespending cuts agreed to are far too modest to make a noticeable dent in the deficit.

No sensible person believes we can continue spending billions more than we takein. We have to stop that, and immediately begin to reduce spending to a sensiblelevel, like 18 percent of GDP. That would produce a budget of $2.63 trillion, and if we can’t run a constitutionally proper and efficient government on that amount, weought to ask Great Britain to take us back.