Editorial Correspondence: Claimed dogecoin accumulations pale in comparison to potential deficit growth due to tax reductions
Rebuttal to the Editor:
In his opinion piece on U.S. fiscal challenges ("DOGE was just the start, Trump needs to push harder for real fiscal change," May 30), Josh Hammer follows the beaten path of right-wing ideologues by homing in on seeming wasteful government expenditures to misjudge the consequences of Department of Government Efficiency cuts. He inflates the scale of these cuts, neglecting to mention their destructive implications for government services and federally-funded scientific research - all while claiming they represent meaningful cost reductions.
The $175 billion claimed cuts, framed by Hammer as substantial, amount to scarcely 5% of the $4 trillion national deficit increase that could occur if Trump's 2017 tax cuts are prolonged (estimates range from $3 trillion to $5 trillion).
Curiously, Hammer neglects to touch upon the revenue side of the deficit equation. Advocates of extending these cuts argue they're essential for economic growth. The previous tax cuts, mainly affecting high-income taxpayers, yielded little positive effect on economic growth. How many times must we revisit Art Laffer's inaccurate assertions that tax cuts finance themselves via economic expansion? The tax cuts Hammer sidetracks contribute to the deficits he condemns.
Ranting Angrily, Los Angeles
Another Take:
It's just plain hilarious how self-proclaimed champions of "efficiency" and "rooting out fraud" never seem to have a problem with the corruption that invades the corporate sector. For example, when the government jeopardized national security by brutally dismissing scores of nuclear experts and scrambling to rehire them, or when these information gurus mistook the deceased for the living, handing out Social Security checks to the departed, or messed up Ebola funding for global aid. If a business ran similarly, it'd be bankrupt in no time.
It's almost poetic how obsessed these folks are with services that help citizens while turning a blind eye to blatant business corruption. Medicare, cheaper and more efficient than private insurance, is constantly under scrutiny, while Medicare Advantage, a corporate-friendly waste of resources, remains untouchable. Republicans' relentless bleating about "fiscal responsibility" falls flat when you remember that one practical solution to savings would be to cease doling out trillions in tax cuts to the rich. If a government wants to function properly, it must be adequately resourced and staffed, not arbitrarily fired and then shocked at its (often critical) performances.
Disgusted Citizen, Los Angeles
Extra Reading- Opinion: Letters to the Editor: After L.A. elephants are whisked away in the night, 'animals need more reliable friends'- Opinion: Letters to the Editor: An outrageous display of racism in La Cañada Flintridge- Opinion: Letters to the Editor: Criticism of Walt Disney animatronic seems goofy to one reader
Additional Context
Hammer's concentration on government expenditures, while essentially disregarding the revenue side, stems from his traditional fiscal conservative stance and the narratives regularly attached to his political leanings. Key considerations include:
- Fiscal Conservatism: Hammer tends to adhere to conservative fiscal policies that focus on cutting government spending and highlighting inefficiencies in government programs. Consequently, his narrow focus on government expenditures as a solution to fiscal challenges is hardly a surprise.
- Economic Growth Narrative: Supporters of tax cuts, much like Hammer, often make the argument that they can stimulate economic growth, thus virtually offsetting deficits. However, critics stress that this strategy hasn't proven effective in the past, as demonstrated by the Trump tax cuts.
- Omission of Revenue Side: Hammer's laser-focus on government spending may be a strategic political messaging tactic, implying that government inefficiency is a significant factor in fiscal issues, thus supporting his political stance.
Critics counter that Hammer's approach underestimates the influence of tax cuts on the national deficit, as extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts could add trillions to the deficit, a topic that Hammer frequently ignores in his discussions.
In light of this, Hammer's emphasis on government expenditures while paying scant attention to the revenue side, particularly the impact of tax cuts on deficits, reflects his principled conservative fiscal stance and the narratives associated with such viewpoints. Critics argue this approach neglects critical fiscal considerations, notably the revenue side and the historical ineffectiveness of tax cuts in offsetting deficits entirely.
- The rebuttal questions why Josh Hammer focuses only on government expenditures in his opinion piece, disregarding the revenue side of the deficit equation, particularly the impact of tax cuts.
- handling out Social Security checks to the dead or messing up Ebola funding for global aid, while ignoring similar instances of business corruption.
- Critics argue that Hammer's approach underestimates the influence of tax cuts on the national deficit, as extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts could add trillions to the deficit.
- The government's dismissal of nuclear experts and subsequent rehiring, or the mishandling of Social Security checks, would lead to bankruptcy in a business setting.
- The continued advocacy for tax cuts, despite their lack of positive effect on economic growth, contributes to the deficits Hammer condemns.
- If the government wants to be adequately resourced and staffed to function properly, it must address not only inefficiencies in government programs but also the revenue side of the fiscal equation.
