There is a lot going on in an article by the Washington Post’s Paul Kane about Congress’s last-minute efforts to fund the federal government in 2010. Embedded within the piece is a demonstration of the hypocrisy of so-called deficit hawks, who publicly say reducing the national debt is an urgent national priority.

Kane introduces the concept of a “debt limit” which is Congressional appropriator’s answer to the 24-second shot clock in the NBA.  It’s pretty arbitrary but it’s also for the overall good. Right now, this debt limit — an aggregation of federal deficit spending accumulated through the years — is $12.1 trillion. Democratic House leadership wanted to raise the debt level by $1.8 trillion to $13.9 trillion. Now,  the House just wants to increase the debt limit to $12.4 trillion so it can pass spending bills for each federal agency and also pass a health care bill and other major legislation.  Kane says this is due to pressure from deficit hawks like “Blue Dog” Democrats. Blue Dogs don’t even want that $300 billion increase: they claim Congress needs to offset all new spending with tax increases or pay cuts.

Or do they? This oath of fiscal purity is uncritically recited by Kane. But we later learn that the House will pass a $626 billion defense spending bill by Friday. Is this bill – an increase from last year’s military spending package and hardly a model of fiscal austerity — deficit neutral? In other words, where are the spending cuts or tax increases to make up for more military spending?

Also, the House is expected to keep the estate tax at its current level. Businesses have complained that the tax for inherited estates isn’t totally expiring in 2010 like George W. Bush wanted it to 10 years ago — back when the U.S. had a budget surplus. But in order to pay the current levy, your fortune has to be — get ready — at least $7 million dollars. With a  roughly 12.1 trillion national deficit and 10 percent unemployment rate, couples with a $6.9 million fortune aren’t paying any estate tax.

So why aren’t the deficit hawks up in arms about either a larger military spending bill or an extremely limited estate tax? You could argue increased defense spending and low taxes on the rich are generally consistent principles of fiscal conservatism. But the deficit hawks also don’t have the nerve to be against popular domestic spending increases like extended unemployment benefits. House Blue Dogs and Senators like North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad are against deficit spending except all those times they’re for it. The current wailing seems either a misguided stand or a political pose.

Comment RSS - You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.