$2.23 trillion isn’t enough
Journalists are taught that when a number rises above the thousands it is best expressed in a combination of digits and words. For example, President Bush’s budget introduced on Monday is conveyed to the public as a $2.23 trillion spending plan. To write it as $2,230,000,000,000 is much too difficult for most Americans, whose take home salaries are still expressed in solely numerical terms, to easily translate and comprehend. A mathematician might describe it as 2.23 times 10 to the 9th power, which is even more perplexing. However it is expressed, the important thing to remember is each dollar comes from one type of tax or another. And each program funded is held sacred by those who benefit.
The budget Bush placed before Congress will be the subject of much debate to determine whether it is realistic and if it is a wise plan not only to see the country through 2004 but for America’s future.
The president wants to cut taxes substantially yet also increase spending. To do this America’s debt in the short-term is projected to grow $307 billion next year until four years out it will stand at more than $1 trillion (that’s $1,000,0000,000). Of course, much could change. Consider that when Bush took office, projections of massive surpluses were still on the horizon. Bush might not be wrong in adopting the Reagan School of Trickle Down Economics by looking to stimulate the economy by easing the tax burden on the wealthy. But that type of thinking was believable long before struggling Americans learned that a top corporate head spent more on a shower curtain than they earn in a year and that more money at the top means more mansions and not more jobs.
Whether Bush’s belief that a balanced budget will come eventually through economic growth spurred by further tax cuts is unknown. What is known: America stands at the brink of war with Iraq. Yet, when the astronomical sums needed to fight a war are included in Bush’s budget, $2,230,000,000,000 won’t be enough.