Jewish World Review March 2, 2001 / 7 Adar, 5761
It's a vision thing
Whoops, sorry about that. My forehead hit the keyboard while I was reading President Bush's proposed budget, and I passed out from boredom.
Actually, I'm kidding, I wasn't reading the budget. I was just thinking about it, which was enough to make me face-plant. Truth be told, almost nobody reads the whole budget. I mean, have you ever seen one? It makes the Manhattan phone book look small. Worse, it makes the Manhattan phone book look like action-packed beach reading.
Back when I was a think-tank-dwelling policy urchin, I wasted hundreds of hours looking at strange budget tables and spending charts brimming with numbers that had only the vaguest correspondence to reality. I came to one inescapable conclusion: Nobody has any idea what's really going on. More to the point, it's impossible to know what's going on.
Of course, I wasn't the first one to discover this. David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's first budget director, admitted in 1981 that, "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers."
The budget is, at best, a plan taken from a bunch of sketches of a constantly moving economic scene. And economic forecasting is even more complex than budgeting is. This is the great paradox of federal budget debates. Unlike almost every other sphere of human activity, the more inexact you are, the more accurate you are likely to be.
It's pointillism. As you might remember from that class where you were doodling World War II air battles in your notebook rather than listening, pointillism is the school of painting where tiny dots are arranged so that only by stepping away from the canvas can you see the big picture.
President Bush seems to understand this. "An artist using statistics as a brush could paint two very different pictures of our country," he said in his address to Congress Tuesday. "One would have warning signs: increasing layoffs, rising energy prices ... persistent poverty. ... Another picture would be full of blessings: a balanced budget, big surpluses, a military that is second to none, a country at peace with its neighbors, technology that is revolutionizing the world."
Bush is being simplistic. Of course you could paint two very different pictures of the economy, but not just two pictures. In reality, you could paint a million economic or budgetary pictures and make a billion predictions about what might happen over the next decade just by rearranging the dots.
The trick is that at some point you have to make your best guess and try to impose some meaning on the canvas by defining your vision, in other words, by leading the country rather than surfing the tide.
|It's the vision, stupid|
So President Bush wants a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years. Sounds good to me - but I confess: I think all tax cuts sound good. Bush said, "I didn't throw darts at a board to come up with a number for tax relief. I didn't take a poll, or develop an arbitrary formula that might sound good. I looked at problems in the tax code and calculated the cost to fix them." That's silly. Bush has stuck to this 1.6 number since the GOP primaries, and even Alan Greenspan is shocked by the suddenness of the economic changes since then.
Nonetheless, you shouldn't be paralyzed by the lack of perfect information. Bush had to pick a big number for a big tax cut, and this one was as good as any. Whatever number he picked, opponents would have said it was too big, so why not stay consistent?
What's at issue is the principle. Is America, which is carrying the heaviest peacetime tax burden and the biggest surpluses in history, overtaxed? One side says no, the other says yes. One side says government should pay off even more debt and do more stuff. The other says pay off a bit less debt and fund a few fewer programs.
Bush's far-from-perfect budget proposes a massive $2 trillion in debt relief, 38 new spending initiatives or programs and saves about a trillion dollars for the "unexpected." That leaves $1.6 trillion in surplus cash.
If that money stays in Washington, Congress will be spend it like it always does with money lying around (that's why discretionary spending rose 8 percent last year). If it goes back to the taxpayers, it will be spent, too. So the question is who should spend it, them or us? Anything else is just
To comment on JWR contributor Jonah Goldberg's column
02/28/01: SAT is best measure of general aptitude
02/26/01: Easing the estate tax
02/23/01: Clinton defenders finally admit to his power abuses
02/21/01: Failed dot-coms missed rules of the marketplace
02/15/01: Clinton heeds my Harlem advice
02/12/01: Harlem could be Bill's best move yet
02/06/01: Lying, betrayal essential parts of journalism
01/18/01: How to polarize candidates
01/15/01: Dems never tire of using 'race card'
01/11/01: Taking the celebrity out of politics
01/08/01: Unfairly 'borking' Ashcroft
01/04/01: Want to be more efficient? Increase number of politicians
01/02/01: Whole lotta exploitin' goin' on
12/28/00: Hypocrisy police pounce on Clinton book deal
12/26/00: Sometimes, it's good to be a Grinch
12/21/00: Though symbolic, Bush's diversity sends a message
12/19/00: Gore concedes --- but why did it take so long?
12/14/00: Is 'Queer as Folk' what we asked for?
12/11/00: Election mess hardly a 'civics lesson'
12/07/00: Clinton's tacky legacy
12/05/00: Marriage civilizes the manly beast
11/30/00: Gore's speech more pompous posturing
11/28/00: Rabble-rousing Dems act irresponsibly
11/27/00: Duking it out with democracy
11/16/00: Issues irrelevant to most voters
11/14/00: Gore's us-vs.-them campaign
11/10/00: Dot-com disasters missing brand-name success
11/06/00: Conventional wisdom turns with the polls
11/03/00: Clinton photo, appropriately, hits below the belt
11/01/00: Electoral college ensures democracy
10/30/00: New Yorkers, media letting Hillary off the hook
10/23/00: Gore needs to put first things first
10/20/00: Treatment of Farrakhan glosses over odd issues
10/16/00: Secrets of election can be found in 'Star Trek'
10/12/00: Arafat hardly 'provoked' into violence
10/10/00: Undecided voters may be ignorant, not discriminating
10/06/00: The importance of character isn't debatable
10/03/00: Conservatives are the true friends of science You know why?
09/29/00: Symbolic 'born alive' vote makes sense
09/25/00: Conservatives adopt abandoned liberalism
09/21/00: Ventura's media backpedaling makes fiction of his new book
09/18/00: Tough questions target Hillary Clinton's elitism
09/14/00: Hollywood morality to blame
09/11/00: Specifically, AlGore's detailed plan is meaningless
09/07/00: Time-honored tradition: Insult the press
09/05/00: Scouting out justice
08/30/00: The ADL's historical revisionism
08/28/00: Sitcoms will survive, post-"Survivor"
08/24/00: Candidates' choice of movies shows refreshing honesty
08/21/00: An AlGore victory? Only if dead birds fly
08/17/00: AlGore is doomed, but Dems ignore warning signs
08/15/00: Proud and true: He's a Jew
08/10/00: Exploiting religion would be tragic mistake
08/08/00: Cheney serves up tempting appetizer
08/03/00: Republicans now 'nice,' media still nasty
08/01/00: Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania
07/27/00: Government shouldn't subsidize Reform Party
07/25/00: Campaign finance 'reform' gives too much power to liberal media
07/20/00: Hillary slur speaks volumes
07/18/00: AlGore's McCarthyism
07/11/00: 'Survivor' shows hypocrisy of animal rights groups
07/05/00: McDonald's deserves a break today
07/03/00: On July Fourth, time to reflect on America's founding
06/28/00: America bashing becomes international pastime
06/23/00: If Fonda is sorry, let her say so
06/06/00: NAPSTER exposes artists' hypocrisy
04/18/00: Not much difference between TV journalists, TV actors
© 2000, TMS