Yes: Ending budget deficits is essential
In 2016 then-candidate Donald Trump promised to eliminate the national debt within eight years. Instead, U.S. public debt grew by more than $2 trillion since President Trump took office and policies signed into law by the president will add an additional $4 trillion to the debt over the next decade. What happened? Eliminating the debt in eight years was always a pipe dream. But eliminating budget deficits within eight years is not only doable — it's necessary.
Unfortunately, we're not headed in that direction. Budget deals cut during the first three years of the Trump administration have sent federal spending _ and deficits _ soaring. Today, America's fiscal position, already precarious when President Barack Obama left office, is even worse.
Many on the left point to the 2017 tax cuts as the main culprit. Yet those reforms were for the good. Combined with the administration's deregulation initiative, they have unleashed hiring and wage growth. This surge in economic growth has been particularly beneficial for America's most vulnerable populations, including older workers and individuals with disabilities.
It has also not resulted in the precipitous drop in federal tax revenues some had predicted. In fact, federal revenues for the first nine months of this most recent fiscal year are up 3 percent.
Still, the deficit keeps growing. Why? Because, on both sides of the aisle, Congress's appetite for spending outpaces revenue growth. In those same first nine months, spending increased 7 percent. Consider the last two budget deals. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 — the first caps deal President Trump signed into law — increased spending by more than the two previous budget deals, forged during the Obama administration, combined.
The latest deal, worked out between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, is even worse. Neither side wanted to be bound by fiscal rules established by their predecessors. And rather than work out a responsible budget that would reduce deficit spending, they agreed simply to discard all semblance of fiscal discipline, waive the debt limit, and clear the way for spending to their hearts' content — soaring deficits be damned.
As if the budget deal spending levels were not already excessive, they added insult to injury by agreeing to yet more spending disguised by designating, improperly, billions of dollars as "emergency" provisions.
That may sound prudent — like establishing a "rainy day" fund. Don't be misled. Spending designated for emergencies has become little more than slush-fund financing — a wide-open loophole for profligate members of Congress who have broad discretion over for what to use it.
Take the Community Development Block Grant. It's used to address such "urgent and essential" national projects as paying for a brewery expansion in New York. Don't get me wrong. I love beer, but I don't expect federal taxpayers to subsidize production of my IPA.
There is a better way to manage taxpayer dollars. It starts with taking a close look at the federal budget and separating core constitutional functions and true national priorities from nice-to-have programs. Budgeting is ultimately about prioritizing.
Without budget limits,