Losing the future

Losing the future
Obama proposes to spend more money we don't have
Chicago Tribune

January 29, 2012

President Barack Obama knows the federal government has a big spending problem, and he is not reluctant to point it out. "The American people deserve to have their leaders come together to make the tough choices necessary to live within our means, just as American families do every day in these tough economic times," the White House said in November.

In his State of the Union address, Obama was not so keen on preaching austerity. As part of his plan to create an economy that is "built to last," he said it's necessary to "pay down our debt and invest in our future."

The phrase "invest in our future," we regret to report, is Washington-speak for "spend money." And in the current fiscal context, that means "spend money we don't have."

His speech to Congress contained a litany of new spending programs, from creating a new "Trade Enforcement Unit" to helping out homeowners who haven't been able to refinance their mortgages. Each one, taken by itself, can be defended. But added together, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation reports, they would require more than $20 billion in new spending.

The president says that doesn't matter because defense spending will be coming down by some $48 billion, for a net saving of about $28 billion. That sounds pretty good — until you consider that next year (according to the fiscal watchdog Concord Coalition), the government will most likely run a deficit of about $1 trillion.

What part of "fiscal crisis" does the administration not understand? On Friday, the federal debt ceiling was raised by $1.2 trillion, bringing it to a staggering $16.394 trillion — double what it was in 2005. And it's going to keep rising in the years to come.

When you are that deep in the hole, you need to focus on eliminating expenditures, not adding them. The defense savings are a start, but they're no excuse to gin up new outlays in other parts of the budget. Even by themselves, the defense savings amount to less than 5 percent of next year's deficit.

If the president wants to boost expenditures in one nondefense program, he should pay for it by reducing it in another. Better yet, he should cut $2 or $3 in nondefense programs for every $1 in new nondefense spending.

The excuse that we are "investing" in the future has been used way too often to excuse fiscal bloat. The best investment in our future is to lighten the burdens that will fall on the taxpayers of tomorrow.

For that matter, the promise to "pay down our debt," which the president made twice in his address, is false. Republicans and Democrats are not arguing about how to pay down debt. They're arguing about how quickly or slowly we will continue to accumulate debt.

Obama says he wants to foster the long-term health of the economy. But it looks as though Washington's habit of living beyond its means is built to last.