I always had a fairly good idea what “discretionary spending” meant, but I never gave it a lot of thought as it related to tough budget decisions. Yesterday, as one of the MSNBC hosts was explaining where cuts were most likely to be made, he was kind enough to define it — and describe some vulnerable areas. Bad news for the country.
To be precise (or as precise as possible), discretionary spending is a category in which the government can make choices. This is spending on such things as infrastructure, research, subsidies and tax credits for corporations and businesses — things that might or might not be a good way to invest taxpayer money.
There are some obvious cuts to be made — tax credits and subsidies for oil companies and agriculture, for instance. Both have outlived their usefulness and deprive the treasury of needed revenue while enriching the recipients.
Conservatives have successfully made “government investment” a dirty concept, but this attitude is making the US a second-rate country. Our transportation system, for instance, should have a vital high-speed rail network, but this isn’t even a reality for the distant future. In Europe, China, and Japan, meanwhile, such systems are present-day realities. We are being beaten to the punch in the alternative-energy arena by other countries, despite the best efforts of private industry. Our infrastructure is in disrepair and our electric grid is dangerously stressed.
Public investment in all these areas is vital to a robust US economy and job growth, yet conservatives don’t see this. It makes you wonder if they really care about America’s economic health.
The bottom line is, if discretionary spending is the only place significant cuts can be made, then there’s no real argument for counting on cuts to solve the budget crisis. That leaves, what — revenue increases.
Liberal Buzz 