John A. Lovra – 10/4/04

This page was last updated on October 4, 2004.

Bush will stick us with the bill; John A. Lovra; Beaver County Times; October 4, 2004.

Mr. Lovra is getting busy. This is his third Bush-bashing letter since September 30^th.

Mr. Lovra apparently doesn’t know the difference between a budget deficit and debt, or the difference between a budget surplus and a “savings account.”

Regarding the letter title, I don’t know if Mr. Lovra supplied it or if the Times provided it. Whoever supplied it doesn’t seem to understand the taxpayer always gets stuck with the bill whether we have deficits or not.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Book Keeping [sic] 101, first lesson: Don’t write checks that you can’t cash. If you want to make a purchase that wasn’t in your budget, first you go into your savings. If you have no savings, you’ve got two choices. Either you find a way to increase your income or you cut costs elsewhere.

“That’s not too difficult to understand. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that George Bush refuses to learn.

“When Bush took office, he was given a huge savings account, also known as a budget surplus. He immediately tapped into this surplus in order to provide for tax cuts.”

[RWC] As noted above, Mr. Lovra apparently doesn’t know the difference between a budget surplus and a savings account. Despite a few years of budget surpluses, the United States still had a public debt of $3.3 trillion. That’s no savings account. Perhaps Mr. Lovra needs to repeat “Bookkeeping 101, first lesson” himself.

Mr. Lovra neglected to mention President Bush pushed for tax cuts to help put the brakes on the recession he inherited from the Clinton administration. History shows tax cuts are a proven means to soften the impact of a recession.

“On the surface, this looked like a good idea. Sure, I like the idea of keeping more of my paycheck. Who wouldn’t?”

[RWC] At least Mr. Lovra recognizes his paycheck belongs to him, not the government. Most liberals believe the government has first dibs on your paycheck.

“But then came Sept. 11, 2001, the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq. These things cost a lot and had to be paid for. Where did the money come from? Mr. Bush kept writing checks.

“Now, even though we are experiencing a huge deficit, currently in excess of $7-trillion, or put another way, more than $25,000 for every man, woman and child in America, Bush insists on extending the previously mentioned tax cuts.”

[RWC] Mr. Lovra confuses debt and a budget deficit. It looks like Mr. Lovra gets his “facts” from Times editorials which report the gross debt, not the net public debt. As of fiscal year 2003, the Congressional Budget Office reports the net public debt is $3.9 trillion and the deficit is $375 billion. It’s my understanding the 2004 estimated deficit is $422 billion.

“At least when he first signed these cuts into law, he did have a surplus to work with. Now, the money just isn’t there.

[RWC] Even if President Bush had done nothing but carry over President Clinton’s last budget, there would have been a deficit because of the economic downturn that began in 2000. That’s why the last Clinton surplus was less than half the previous year’s surplus and dropping. The idea that President Bush had a surplus to work with is a myth.

“Sooner or later, these bills will have to be paid. Whenever the Democratic side of our government suggests that we need to either raise more money, or cut costs elsewhere, it gets shut down.”

[RWC] Other than for national defense items, please provide some examples of Democrat suggestions to cut spending.

“It cannot go on like this. We need a president who knows how to be fiscally responsible and is willing to make the tough choices in order to pay the bills instead of Bush, who will just run up the bills and then skip out on the check.”

[RWC] Does anyone believe Mr. Lovra would support a combination of spending cuts and tax increases that would eliminate the deficit? For what it’s worth, a tax increase never reduced a federal deficit. Increased taxes tend to slow economic activity to the point that increasing tax rates actually reduce tax revenue.