The Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson deficit reduction plan doesn’t go far enough in reducing spending, something fiscal commission members should consider before Friday’s vote. In fact, the plan doesn’t actually cut federal spending, which would compel me if part of the 18-member commission to vote “no.”
Under the commission’s proposal, federal spending would rise from roughly $3.5 trillion today to more than $5 trillion by 2020. This is the old Washington game of calling a slower increase than previously projected a “cut.” It does lower spending as a percentage of GDP from 24.3 percent today to 21.8 percent by 2025, 15 years from now. But just 10 years ago, under President Clinton, the government only spent 18.4 percent of GDP.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable for us to return to Clinton-era spending levels. People were hardly dying in the streets back then. And, if we were to return to Clintonian-size government, there would be no need for the tax hikes that the commission recommends. Ultimately, the commission report is a good effort that falls short because it fails to address the proper role of government.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and head of research into health care reform.
Click here to visit the Capital Exchange home page.