|
Teach
that Man Some Economics!
Congressman
Bobby Scott trashes President Bush's economic
policies, but he shows no understanding of the
factors driving economic growth and budget deficits.
After
six terms as a member of Congress and countless
speeches criticizing President Bush for failing to
make tough fiscal choices, it’s time for Rep.
Robert C. Scott to make some difficult fiscal
choices of his own. Scott,
a Newport News Democrat, is locked in a spirited
election contest with a former member of the
Virginia House of Delegates, Winsome E. Sears, to
represent the 3d congressional district.
Scott
blames President Bush for squandering a federal
budget surplus, creating massive budget deficits and
losing jobs since taking office almost four years
ago. He
scoffs at Bush’s contention that he inherited a
recession, saying that the recession began in March
2001.
Who
is Scott trying to fool?
The causes of the economic reversal during
the past four years are not attributable to the Bush
Administration. The
decline began before Bush took office, but it is
equally unfair to blame all of the bad news on the
Clinton Administration.
Our national government is powerful, but not
so powerful that it can eliminate business cycles.
According
to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the
economic expansion that ended with the 2001
recession actually began in March 1991, well before
Bill Clinton was sworn in as president in January
1993. If the
Clinton Administration is to be credited with
maintaining this expansion for most of the
intervening years, perhaps it should be held
responsible for the decline that had begun as
Clinton’s second term was ending.
What
is indisputable is that the 2001 recession was
remarkably brief, one of the shortest on record.
It ended in November 2001 just as the economy
experienced a devastating shock from terrorist
attacks on the Pentagon and the World
Trade
Center
in Manhattan. The airline
industry has yet to fully recover.
The
Bush fiscal record has both strengths and
weaknesses. The
Bush tax cuts contributed to the economic rebound
during his term, but the president’s failure to
insist that Congress cut spending can’t be
excused. Scott
is justified in pointing to a lack of fiscal
discipline in Washington, but he is clearly part of the problem.
Scott
is campaigning in 2004 for huge increases in federal
spending for universal health care.
He opposes cuts in the defense budget, and he
wants to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act and
expand federal housing and youth programs.
If
raising taxes is the fiscal discipline Scott is
calling for, he should tell the voters.
He had better be prepared to explain how a
tax increase will pay for his new and expanded
programs while reducing the federal budget deficits.
Any
substantial tax increase is likely to have an
adverse impact on the economy.
The loss of tax revenues attributable to a
weakened economy will defeat the purpose of a tax
hike.
So,
just what is Scott’s program to restore fiscal
discipline in Washington? There
isn’t a hint of a tough choice in any campaign
literature he’s distributed or speeches he’s
made. Without
pain, there won’t be any restoration of fiscal
sanity at the federal level.
Sears
knows that Congress is unlikely to cure itself.
Her support for a balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution makes sense.
Although
social issues have so far grabbed the headlines in
this race, the candidates’ positions on taxes, the
budget and economic growth deserve equal time.
--
October 4,
2004
|
