Government

More revenue, more spending, more revenue, more spending … This is progress toward lowering the deficit?

As the debate rages on over the budget and deficit, many see raising taxes as the solution to reducing the deficit. But you have to wonder how that works, how do you make progress toward reducing a deficit if you continually add new spending even while adding new revenue that is supposed to reduce the deficit.

Here are two recent examples just released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Keep in mind this is a weekly occurrence. Our elected representatives just don’t get it. As desirable as these and other proposed new laws may be to many, can we keep justifying spending money we don’t have? These proposals were introduced not after we have raised taxes or made progress in lowering the deficit, but at a time when we spend $4 billion a day more than we have. This is like a family near foreclosure and unable to pay their credit cards taking a trip to Disney World to get away from it all.

What are they thinking? Or are they?

S. 3340, Mental Health Access to Continued Care and Enhancement of Support Services Act of 2012 cost estimate

As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on September 12, 2012

S. 3340 would extend mental health services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to family members of active-duty servicemembers, enhance programs for homeless veterans, and make other changes to veterans’ health care, compensation and burial benefits. In total, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have a discretionary cost of $310 million over the 2013-2017 period, assuming appropriation of the specified and estimated amounts.

S.1910, Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2012 cost estimate

As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on May 16, 2012

S. 1910 would make same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (including certain employees of the District of Columbia who were first employed by the District before October 1, 1987) eligible to receive the same employment benefits as married spouses of federal employees. Benefits that would affect the federal budget include health insurance, survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries, and travel and relocation benefits.

Categories: Government, Politics

Tagged as: , ,

What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s