A Rebuttal to "Democrat Budget Proposal is Unrealistic"
The budget deficit of the United States has exceeded over $1 trillion and debate is raging over how to reduce the budget deficit without further negative impacts on the economy, business, and jobs. As the federal government approaches the borrowing limit of $14.3 trillion, the Democrat argument is to raise the debt ceiling in order to allow for continued borrowing and meet current financial obligations or default on its debt or risk financial collapse as a result of decreased creditor confidence (Toomey, 2011). Republicans have countered that they will not allow debt ceiling increases without substantial cuts in spending and without increases in taxes (Toomey, 2011). The article, “Democrat Budget Proposal is Unrealistic,” posted on www.caldwellteaparty.org, provides as its’ central thesis that government spending should be decreased to 2008 levels and claims that the current Democrat-led administration as having “recorded and performed the most gargantuan, massive, unconscionable, ruinous, explosive, erratic, careless, extreme, astronomical increase of the deficit EVER in U.S. History” (snaketread, 2011, para. 7). This article is examined and a rebuttal provided to its various claims.
Analysis and Rebuttal The central thesis of the article is that government spending should be reduced to 2008 levels and that the recent budget deficit issue is the result of gross overspending of the current administration’s policy of big government, big spending, and intervention that hampers business (snaketread, 2011). Beyond widely published figures, for example the $800 billion cost of the stimulus package, the author fails to provide any substantive reliable data that would support a spending reduction to 2008 levels. The author claims that the current deficit is the result of the policies of the Obama-administration, but ignores that the deficit was increasing at the same rate in the years prior to President Obama taking office and further ignores that the preceding administration inherited a surplus and, regardless of the effect of a positive housing boom and strong job market, enacted fiscal policy that led to a deficit in subsequent years (Blodget, 2011). Further, the authors claim that the Obama administration “recorded and performed the most gargantuan, massive, unconscionable, ruinous, explosive, erratic, careless, extreme, astronomical increase of the deficit EVER in U.S. History,” also ignores the simple relationship of spending to incoming revenue that creates a deficit (snaketread, 2011, para. 7). To say that government policy was the direct result of the deficit is an oversimplification and does not consider that the country was already in an economic recession prior to the current administration. The article also ignores that incoming revenue will increase or decrease depending on the amount of tax collected. As businesses close or reduce output, the amount of taxable income will reduce and the amount of tax paid will also reduce, directly affecting the amount of incoming revenue that can offset spending. Additionally, taxpayers who found themselves unemployed or with reduced income because of salary reductions or work furloughs, would also have less taxable income and pay less federal income tax. Although there are several other factors that affect incoming federal revenue, including consumer spending that supports business and the collapse of the housing market, the aforementioned impacts on tax contributions by businesses and individuals was not mentioned by the author and would lead to a more appropriate conclusion that the current increasing deficit can be attributed to many factors and can be attributed to the current and previous administration, especially when considering the recession that was inherited by the Obama administration that was already impacting both businesses and individuals.
In addition to the argument of the cause or contribution that the Democrat-led administration being the sole cause for the current deficit without any consideration to all other mitigating factors and history, the redundant hyperbole used in the author’s claim, “…ruinous, explosive, careless, erratic…,” leads to an observation that the author is clearly strongly biased in the presentation of his argument(s) (snaketread, 2011, para. 7). This bias must be considered as you consider the reliability of his stated claim(s). While there may be some truth in his or her argument, the author only diminishes his or her credibility by exaggerating the causes of current budget deficit.
The other premise of the author’s argument is to reset the spending to 2008 levels (snaketread, 2011). Unfortunately, the author does not address the details of how this could happen and ignores economic, social, and other factors that dictate government spending. Most logically, the author ignores the strength of the dollar and the cost of goods in his or her argument to reset spending levels. The author seemingly does not care what programs might be impacted or doesn’t state which programs might be affected in his or her argument in favor of these spending levels, nor does he or she consider the impact on such a significant cut in spending on an already fragile economy, job growth, business growth, and consumer spending. One area the author does address is to reduce government spending through federal workforce reductions, claiming that federal workers could find work in the private sector (snaketread, 2011). However, the author also ignores that job growth in the private sector has been significantly reduced and that unemployed federal workers would subsequently be eligible for federally-funded unemployment benefits.
Conclusion
The author of “Democrat Budget Proposal is Unrealistic,” expresses his or her argument that the current federal budget deficit is the responsibility of the current administration and that a reset of spending to 2008 levels would help reduce the deficit, but the many interrelated factors that drive a healthy economy are not considered and the limited data presented does not fully support his or her argument. When all factors are analyzed as be missing pertinent facts and supporting data and the wording of the article is considered to include known exaggerations and hyperbolic statements, then the author’s credibility must be questioned and his or her argument dismissed.
References
Blodget, H. (2011, July 11). The Truth About Who’s Responsible For Our Massive Budget Deficit. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7
Toomey, P. (2011, April 22). The Truth About the Debt Ceiling and Default. Real Clear Politics. Retrieved from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/22/the_truth_about_the_debt_ceiling_and_default_109633.html snaketread. (2011, April 7). Democrat budget proposal is unrealistic [Discussion group comment]. Retrieved from http://caldwellteaparty.org/2011/04/07/democrat-budget-proposal-is-unrealistic/