Monday, September 18, 2006
Dispatch Editorial on Voinovich and Taxes Is Largely on Target
The Columbus Dispatch printed an editorial today that is largely on target in terms of the federal deficit and the need for pay as you go legislation and raising questions about making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Voinovich's call for a commission to hold down entitlement costs we would be more effective if it was empowered to look at all the special tax breaks and loopholes that Congress has created. Most of them have never been evaluated and some of them are targeted at a single individual or company. In the meantime, Senator Bill Frist and others in Congress are pushing another effort to repeal the estate tax on multi-millionaires and tying it to an increase in the minimum wage -- that's cynical politics at its worst. My letter to the Editor of the Dispatch is below:
September 18, 2006
The Editor
The Columbus Dispatch
34 South Third Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Editor:
Your editorial today was on target when it recognized Senator George Voinovich for trying to restore some federal fiscal sanity. It’s especially timely in light of ill conceived efforts to repeal the federal estate tax on multi-million dollar estates. Such measures, often disguised as “reform” would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal deficit and hurt our economy and ordinary Ohioans who depend on important domestic programs.
In 1990, the last time the nation faced large deficits, Congress agreed on a bipartisan basis to begin restoring fiscal discipline by reducing entitlement costs, raising taxes, and then establishing “pay-as-you-go” (“paygo”) rules. Under these rules, any bill either to cut taxes or to expand entitlement programs had to pay for itself by raising tax revenue or reducing other entitlements so it did not enlarge the deficit. The paygo requirement played a big role in eliminating the deficit and creating a budget surplus by 1998. However, it expired in 2002.
What is needed now is a balanced approach to addressing the deficit. In 1990 (under the first President Bush) and in 1993 (under President Clinton), Congress adopted bipartisan, balanced deficit reduction plans that included revenue increases as well as program reductions, and that largely shielded many important domestic programs from deep cuts. That is why any successful deficit reduction commission should be charged with looking at both revenues and expenditures. Such a balanced approach seems unlikely in this Congress, but Senator Voinovich should keep speaking out on this important issue.
Sincerely,
John R. Corlett,
Senior Fellow
The Center for Community Solutions
Cleveland, Ohio
September 18, 2006
The Editor
The Columbus Dispatch
34 South Third Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Editor:
Your editorial today was on target when it recognized Senator George Voinovich for trying to restore some federal fiscal sanity. It’s especially timely in light of ill conceived efforts to repeal the federal estate tax on multi-million dollar estates. Such measures, often disguised as “reform” would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal deficit and hurt our economy and ordinary Ohioans who depend on important domestic programs.
In 1990, the last time the nation faced large deficits, Congress agreed on a bipartisan basis to begin restoring fiscal discipline by reducing entitlement costs, raising taxes, and then establishing “pay-as-you-go” (“paygo”) rules. Under these rules, any bill either to cut taxes or to expand entitlement programs had to pay for itself by raising tax revenue or reducing other entitlements so it did not enlarge the deficit. The paygo requirement played a big role in eliminating the deficit and creating a budget surplus by 1998. However, it expired in 2002.
What is needed now is a balanced approach to addressing the deficit. In 1990 (under the first President Bush) and in 1993 (under President Clinton), Congress adopted bipartisan, balanced deficit reduction plans that included revenue increases as well as program reductions, and that largely shielded many important domestic programs from deep cuts. That is why any successful deficit reduction commission should be charged with looking at both revenues and expenditures. Such a balanced approach seems unlikely in this Congress, but Senator Voinovich should keep speaking out on this important issue.
Sincerely,
John R. Corlett,
Senior Fellow
The Center for Community Solutions
Cleveland, Ohio
