New Leadership, Same Course

The victories for Republican and Tea Party candidates Tuesday was the change we'd all been expecting. I'm wondering, though, if anything has actually changed at all.

The mantra of the Republicans and Tea Party is simple and predictable: Cut taxes and shrink government. They sound very angry when they say it, too. But will all that anger translate into tangible results? A look at the numbers leaves something to be desired.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the federal government is projected to spend $3.6 trillion in 2010. Of that, $2.2 trillion will be financed by federal tax revenue. The rest – $1.4 trillion – will be financed by borrowing, which will ultimately be billed to future taxpayers like me.

That's not an idea I'm fond of.

Sure, cutting taxes sounds good. But how does the new leadership plan to cut $1.4 trillion in spending? Last I checked, a trillion dollars isn't chump change, and right now our total debt is $9 trillion. What I'm most curious about are their plans for the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and National Defense.

Defense takes up about 20% of the budget at $715 billion, with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan claiming $172 billion. Social Security is another 20% at $708 billion, and  Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program will account for 21% in 2010 at $753 billion. Interest on debt takes 6% of the budget, and safety net programs like food stamps take up 14%. The remaining 20% goes to programs like education and research.
 
Do the Tea Partiers think they can trim these programs and manage to be reelected when they fail to bring home the pork to their own state? They can try to cut programs like farm subsidies, but those hardly even register as part of the budget at around $20 billion. They have to focus their cutting exuberance on the biggest items on the budget if they want to make any progress. But so far, I've heard no Tea Party candidates ever commit to dealing with those problems.  

I'm becoming more convinced that increasing taxes is the answer. Taxpayers – specifically everyone older than me and in their earning prime – should be paying for all the benefits they will receive in their lifetime before they die. I'm just not excited at the idea of paying for another man's benefits even after he's dead.

If the Tea Party is sincere, we should hear them say, "I care so much about your generation's future, I want to increase my taxes, raise the retirement age, and cut my Social Security and Medicare benefits. And while we're at it, let's stop throwing good money after bad and completely pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Let's be honest. That's just not going to happen. Promises of cutting spending have always fallen under the vague definition of "shrinking government" and have always been absent of any real commitment or tactical approach. Without raising taxes now on current taxpayers, the can will be kicked still further down the road, at which point it will no longer be a can, but an entire junk yard.

The thought of what my children will someday have to pay in estate taxes on the farm when I'm dead 40 or 50 years from now makes my blood run cold. We should be paying more now to avoid those potential catastrophes. But I'm not holding my breath for the new leadership – angry as they may sound – to provide any real solutions for our future.