During the Clinton years..revenue was 19% of GDP...spending 18 per cent... today... revenue is 15%...spending 25% ... I'd go back. ... there it is... the grand compromise.
i've been meaning to comment on this post for a couple of days, but work took me out of town. interesting that something you said jumped out at me, kootch. maybe more interesting that you actually said it. :)
i have to say, kootch, i've been looking at those numbers, too, and i think you're spot on - or at least on the right track. the federal budget is now a lower percentage of GDP than it has ever been. and revenues are in the basement - for whatever reason.
historically, the budget has always risen as the GDP rises. why do we want to go tinkering with that? just to make some vague political platitude about the government being "too big" without ever defining, discussing, or even examining the parameters?
why should the government not have the revenue to deal with an exploding population, an aging infrastructure, and a daily increase in the number of job-seekers entering the market? it makes absolutely no good fiscal sense to cut taxes while necessary expenditures are rising.
yes, "necessary" means medicaid. medicare. welfare. food stamps. the highway administration. the FAA. enforcing regulations against the health insurance industry and oil companies. all of it.
yeah, kootch, revenue was 19% of GDP under clinton... but now the deferment of infrastructure projects and chronically large debt has necessitated a bigger slice of that pie. for a while, anyway. sure, lower that 25% a little bit, but raise the revenue side a bit more to bring the numbers back into the black.
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog
