Covered at Reason 24/7: Tax Revenues Forecast to Hit Record High $2.7 Trillion This Year

It's not hard to see that the federal government has a spending problem , not a revenue problem, despite protestations by apologists, beneficiaries and cheerers of big government. How do we know it's not a revenue problem?

From the Christian Science Monitor:

An impasse over the shape of the federal budget keeps boiling down to this basic plotline: Democrats say the solution to high deficits must include more tax revenue, while Republicans say the fundamental problem is spending.

Failure to reach a middle ground has prompted automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" to go into effect. This wasn't Plan A, or even Plan B, for either side.

As the politicians look for a way forward, conservative lawmakers say that new budget projections make their case for them. Federal tax revenue is forecast to hit a record $2.7 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Might $2.7 trillion in revenue have anything to do with the laconic pace of economic recovery?

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at [e-mail] and tweet us at @reason247.

Comments

[Palin's Buttplug]

Might $2.7 trillion in revenue have anything to do with the laconic pace of economic recovery?

Laconic?

The Dow just today hit an all-time high as corporate profits and capital investment hit new all-time highs. In January core CapEx was up 6.3% - quadruple forecasts.

[Virginian]

Because paper profits are real growth. And my house is totally worth over a million.

Derp derp derp.

[califernian]

I don't think the word laconic is used properly here.

[Virginian]

No, it's not.

[Juice]

Yeah. They keep using that word. I do not think that word means what they think it means.

[Jordan]

And GDP minus government spending is still in the basement. And then there's U6... Halcyon days are here!

[sgs]

"Might $2.7 trillion in revenue have anything to do with the laconic pace of economic recovery?"

"The Dow..."

It doesn't even know why we're laughing at it.

And isn't there some meany somewhere pointing out how terrible and stupid Rick Maddow is that you could be griefing?

[Brett L]

I just read that goddamn article. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go find a puppy to kick. I can't even form coherent thoughts around the rage. GDP as an economic measurement must be destroyed. Its the only way to save the world.

[SugarFree]

Libertard monsters! We have to borrow more and raise revenues! How can we expect the FedGov to survive on a measly $85,000 per second?!?

[Brett L]

But we only took in 16.5% of GDP and we spend 23%! Things will get better when we get back to the 18% historical average. And if we don't spend 23% of GDP, GDP will decline!

[Palin's Buttplug]

Cut everything 20% now then. Go tell SS/Medicaxx recipients they get 20% less next week.

I would but I already know I won't be (re)elected.

[Brett L]

The CSM doesn't have to carry water for them, though.

[Sudden]

How can we expect the FedGov to survive on a measly $85,000 per second?!?

That additional $32,000/second in debt it's accumulating is absolutely necessary.

[The Late P Brooks]

MOAR MOAR MOAR!

[Almanian!]

...how do you like it, how do you like it...

/lyrics

[califernian]

Cue all the water-carriers talking about population growth and inflation adjusted numbers and percentage of GDP

[Virginian]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09.....eral-spend

Look, let's just cut the budget by 40%. That brings us down to Bill Clinton's last year. So a 1.52 trillion dollar cut from 3.8 brings us to 2.28 trillion. Which leaves us nearly 500 billion a year to start paying down the debt.

But remember, we don't have a spending problem.

[Brett L]

I've heard convincing arguments as to why the government shouldn't be sequestering money in a "lock box" or even accelerating bond repayment. If we just serviced the outstanding debt as it came due and spent the rest, I'd be fine with that. In 15 years we could have a discussion with what to do with the approximately $450B in interest payments we no longer have. Well, probably not, because that's essentially what our Social Security will grow by. But it'd be built into the budget.

[Killazontherun]

It's not like there was a lack of bloat in the Clinton budget either. Over the eight years of his presidency the Pentagon lost a trillion dollars for which it could not account. That budget need pairing down of waste, duplication, and most departments. The only way it can even remotely appear a prudent one is by comparing it to the current one.

[Virginian]

That's the thing. It's not like the US economy has contracted insanely. The tax base has not been drastically slashed, contrary to leftist shrieking. The only thing that has happened is that in 13 years, we increased spending 40%.

This can be fixed. It's incredibly doable. The moment half the fucking country realizes that it's the spending that's the issue, we can balance the budget.

[califernian]

Failure to reach a middle ground has prompted automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" to go into effect.

This cause for despair. In a world where people are arguing over whether a 1% decrease, from a baseline of projected INCREASE, is some kind of disaster.. i'm sitting here hoping for a 90% across the board cut.

It's like listening to democrats and republicans argue over a 35 or 38% top tax bracket. Excuse me!?!?!? I'm thinking single digits max, and that's only if you can convince to support minarchy.

[Almanian!]

It's over, man. Abandon hope.

[TANSTaaFL]

"Let's make it an even 40"

http://youtu.be/2ZQjAA5TUfg