Government Spending

Apparently Tax and Spending Cuts are Either Too Small or Too Big, but Never Just Right

Advocates of ever increasing spending will never meet a cut they won't overreact to.


Donald Trump, the ultimate outsider and former liberal Democrat, and Ed Gillespie, the ultimate insider and GOP veteran, are about as different as two people in the same party could be. But when it comes to taxing and spending, opponents are giving them the same old business.

Last week Trump unveiled his budget outline, which jacks up military spending—though not nearly as much as critics allege: His Pentagon proposal is only 3 percent bigger than what Barack Obama sought. To offset his defense hike, Trump has proposed cuts in other domestic programs, from the Appalachian Regional Commission to the Weatherization Assistance Program.

The screams of liberal protest still echo through the hills. Some progressives have been horrified to learn the administration might eliminate agencies they had never heard of in the first place. And many have pointed out that the budgets for those and other agencies are, in relation to aggregate federal spending, minuscule.

The combined budgets of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, complained one critic in Slate, "total under $300 million, which is less than 0.01 percent of the total federal budget." The Washington Post took this tack as well. When White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said the administration did not want to ask a coal miner or a single mom to pay for programs on the chopping block, the paper's fact-checker retorted with "A Coal Miner's Plight: Paying for Public Broadcasting Is Less Than a Dollar of His Taxes."

You get the point: Cuts to small agencies make no real difference—so don't cut them.

So does this mean Trump's critics favor big cuts that will make a difference? Perish the thought!

"Trump's Budget Is Pure Cruel Conservatism," says Rolling Stone, because it would have "devastating effects" on social programs. The left-wing website Common Dreams calls it "morally obscene" for the same reason.

"Cuts to education, labor, agriculture and many other departments of double digits," says a piece in U.S. News, amount to a budget that "has no soul."

Bottom line? Small budget cuts are bad—and big ones are absolutely heinous. Government must always continue to grow in every direction.

The same response greeted Ed Gillespie's tax proposal. The Republican candidate for governor of Virginia has rolled out a plan that would shave Virginia's tax brackets by 10 percent each, and eliminate three punitive business taxes. (Chief among those: the BPOL tax, which applies to gross revenue rather than net profit. Even Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) was willing to get rid of that one.)

Democrats are not impressed. "The Gillespie campaign's proposal would give the top 1 percent almost $3,200 a year," the Democratic Party complained in an email blast, "while a family of four with an income of $50,000 would get just $246 and a minimum wage worker with two kids just $42."

Now, it's certainly true that tax cuts often benefit people who pay lots of taxes. It's pretty hard to avoid that dynamic. And it's doubly hard in Virginia, where the top tax rate of 5.75 percent applies to anyone making more than $17,000. The state badly needs to bring its brackets in line with economic reality.

Gillespie should have made his tax plan more progressive by proposing a tax rate of zero percent for anyone making less than $20,000, and progressively higher rates for everyone else. But would Democrats have been any happier?

Probably not. Consider the freak-out that greeted Gov. George Allen (R) when he proposed a $2.1 billion tax cut in 1995. Democratic House Majority Leader Richard Cranwell warned that Allen wanted to "take police officers off the street." Others called his proposal "mean-spirited" because "people will fall through the cracks." Don Beyer, the lieutenant governor, suggested Allen's tax cuts were "cruel" and "reckless."

Back then Virginia's biennial budget was around $35 billion, or $54 billion in today's dollars. Today the budget is, at $107 billion, nearly twice as big in real terms. And Gillespie's tax cut, less than half of Allen's in real terms, is quite modest: It would trim $1.3 billion from projected budget growth of $3.4 billion over five years.

So under his plan the state's budget would continue to grow—just not quite as fast. Yet the Virginia Democratic Party warns that "critical public services would be put at risk." This seems to suggest state spending not only must grow, it must grow at a relentless if not accelerating pace. There's a lot of that going around these days.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Venezuela Arrests Bakers for Making Rolls, Claims They Were Waging 'Economic War' Against Country

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “…cuts in other domestic programs, from the Appalachian Regional Commission to the Weatherization Assistance Program.”

    Pretty sure the “Agency for Clever Bill Names” could be de-funded along with those.

    1. I’d rather see the “Agency for flat out dishonest Bill Names” get cut first.

      Thanks to them we have a monstrosity named the “Affordable Care Act”.

  2. Apparently Tax and Spending Cuts are Either Too Small or Too Big, but Never Just Right


  3. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes 69 every hour from home and she has been out of a job for three months. the previous month her earnings was 20887 just working on the internet 2 hours per day. see this page


  4. How many times must we fall to the Republican deceptions before wising up?
    In the 1950s, when the Right Wing wanted to suppress the labor unions, they accused the labor movements of Un-American activities.
    When the urbanites and the academia rose up to the aid of the factory workers, Republicans, led by Senator Joe McCarthy, yes, from Paul Ryan’s state, Wisconsin, went after the left wing and liberals accusing them of complicity with the communists.
    When blacks and minorities started agitating for equality, the good old Republicans tried to suppress them with law and order jingoism.
    Under Presidents Nixon and Reagan, they invoked family values and ghosts of welfare queens to bludgeon the opposition into submission.

    Today’s ruse, of course, is to make America great again!
    Again, to when or which times?
    Pre-formation of labor unions days?
    Or pre de-segregation times?
    Or the pre-Great Society times that brought in subsidies for winter heating homes of the poor, elderly and the sick?
    Or Meals on Wheels for the old, and the hungry?

    1. Yes, and yes, to all those times, before our society started going soft and squishy.
      Now again, it’s time to march forward fearlessly into the past:
      When the do-gooders did not meddle with defense contractors invoices for ash trays or toilet seats; when regulators did not interfere with landlords’ rights to choose their renters; or when no one questioned the allocation of our tax dollars.
      What difference does it make, anyway, if a few hundred millions are steered to the rich. After all that money will eventually trickle down to the main street, just as water does from higher to lower levels.

      As an essay grader I’d say it’s not the Republicans’ fault if busybodies among the Democrats and the media fail to grasp this simple concept. Is it?

  5. Cooing has 9 units available for sale in joulz in 6th October. See prices, amenities, and maps of new and resale homes by Inertia Egypt.

  6. Now you can easily set windows 10 alarm clock with the help of our article here you will get the pictures and videos tutorial that help you to set the alarm in windows 10 pc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.