Budgeting And Deficit Reduction Is About Spending Less On Worthwhile Projects

A comment I posted on Econbrowser, "AP: GOP budget targets agency that warned of tsunami" posted by Menzie Chinn:

Americans cannot afford to fund every worthwhile project. Budgeting is about admitting dollars are limited and setting project priorities. Just like a household that goes to the grocery with a fixed budget. The household cannot afford to buy every appealing delicious or nutritious food item in the store that catches their eye. Some items must stay on the shelf and not go in the cart.

Looking at any government project or expense in isolation is unfair. You have to look at all of the items together and decide which are the ones you want to keep and fund and which are the one you want to pass on.

Would you rather have a Tsunami warning system, headstart, a no fly zone over Libya, heating fuel subsidies for the poor, housing rent subsidies for the poor, incentives for converting to solar energy, etc. A great majority of the things the government spends money on are worthwhile, but which are the keepers and which are the unfunded and shelved.

The choices are tough. There is no right or wrong answer or choice, but it is unfair to discuss just one project in isolation. It makes it seem as if there is no reason other than politics not to fund a project and that is not the case when one is trying to reduce a deficit and balance a budget. In budgeting, sometimes very worthwhile funding must be curtailed.

It is the bright, rational do-gooder people who look at defunding of a project in isolation that are the biggest political force against budget balancing and deficit reduction. They are for deficit reduction, but they are not willing to make the hard choices, set priorities and limit funding with the understanding that some good projects will not get money.

CBO's 2011 - 2021 US Budget Deficit Projections

From the CBO summary, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021":

sharply lower revenues and elevated spending deriving from the financial turmoil and severe drop in economic activity—combined with the costs of various policies implemented in response to those conditions and an imbalance between revenues and spending that predated the recession—have caused budget deficits to surge in the past two years. The deficits of $1.4 trillion in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010 are, when measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), the largest since 1945—representing 10.0 percent and 8.9 percent of the nation’s output, respectively.

For 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The deficits in CBO’s baseline projections drop markedly over the next few years as a share of output and average 3.1 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections, however, are based on the assumption that tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law. Consequently, they understate the budget deficits that would occur if many policies currently in place were continued, rather than allowed to expire as scheduled under current law.

Read the complete CBO summary here.

Read the complete 172 page CBO report here.