Lamentably, there comes a time when political haters will put their country at risk in order to defeat their opponent. Have Israel's Netanyahu haters reached that state?
The charges are serious but are they also could be scandalous/spurious? Time will tell.
The same is true here in America. The haters want to scalp Trump and impeach him because he is their 'Pinata."
Lynn's family, in Israel, have been well connected politically for decades and her great Uncle was one of the founders of Likud. P.M Begin was the one who held her cousin at his bris and Uncle Avram trained Netanhyahu for government so we have a particular interest in Israel's Deep State operatives.(See 1 below.)
And:
Israel thwarts cyber attacks.
Cyber warfare is the new war and we not only must prepare for it but also defeat it because it is equally, if not more, threatening than conventional warfare. (See 1a below.)
More::
Tobin bashes Trump's son in law for pressing forward and wanting to serve a dead duck claiming it is palatable. (See 1b below.)
Finally:
Iran's efforts to build a military presence in Syria, whose sole purpose, creates havoc and more tragedies. (See 1c below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of my consistent themes has been runaway and uncontrolled spending will be our downfall.
Politicians have sought re-election by giving into demands and eventually you cannot borrow what cannot be repaid because, at that point, lenders generally become smarter than borrowers.
You decide. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Dysfunctional politics and disgraceful behavior
By Isi Leibler
The criminal charges recommended by the Israel Police against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the politicians’ and media’s reactions amount to perhaps the most scandalous political imbroglio in Israel’s history.
This is not to say that Netanyahu should not be criticized for insensitive and hedonistic behavior. We look back nostalgically to the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin, whose lifestyle was the antitheses of ostentatious.
But the current orchestrated effort by the police and media is the culmination of decades of efforts by Netanyahu’s adversaries to delegitimize and slander him and his family. It is directed against a prime minister who has proven outstanding leadership in the international diplomatic arena and is largely responsible for having transformed Israel into a financial and military superpower.
Ever since he was elected to lead the Likud and especially after he became prime minister, the mainstream media – apart from Israel Hayom – has ceaselessly sought to besmirch him and his family. No other democratic leader has been continuously vilified to such an extent. The liberal Israeli media has had more front-page coverage of Netanyahu’s alleged personal failings and vague accusations of corruption than coverage of the turbulent and bloody events in the region that threaten our very survival.
The principle that a person be deemed innocent until proven guilty was never applied to Netanyahu, who has for years been accused of bribery and corruption.
Over the past two years, the police invested inordinate sums of money and employed massive manpower, both locally and overseas, in a desperate effort to find a smoking gun in relation to the prime minister. Based on what was disclosed upon release of the police recommendations, it would appear that they failed. Yet in a scandalous breach of accepted practice, every shred of gossip hinting at Netanyahu’s guilt was leaked to the media.
The ultimate outrage was a TV interview with Israeli Police Commissioner Roni Alsheikh in the week prior to the release of the police recommendation that Netanyahu be charged with bribery. He clearly lost the plot when he unleashed a tirade against the prime minister, predicting that he would soon be charged with two major acts of corruption. He also effectively confirmed that he had been leaking confidential police data to the media. To top it off, he implied that Netanyahu had orchestrated the engagement of private investigators to monitor the police inquiries. Yet, when challenged, he refused or was unable to provide an iota of evidence to substantiate these allegations.
In any normal democracy, a police commissioner breaching his duties on any of these issues would be dismissed. In our dysfunctional system, Alsheikh carries on as usual.
After two years of digging under every stone, real or imagined, the police recommended that Netanyahu be indicted on two charges of bribery and corruption.
The first charge was accepting bribes in return for favors to Israeli-born billionaire Arnon Milchan and Australian tycoon James Packer. Netanyahu was accused of receiving large quantities of cigars and champagne, amounting to about a million shekels ($280,000) over the course of a decade.
What evidence did the police disclose that Milchan’s gifts amounted to a bribe with a quid pro quo? They claimed that Netanyahu intervened with the U.S. secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to obtain a visa for Milchan. But the prime minister was entitled to do so, and this would have been an appropriate intercession on behalf of Milchan, who was involved in clandestine intelligence activity for Israel. Netanyahu pointed out that the late President Shimon Peres made a similar intervention to the U.S administration on behalf of Milchan, yet no eyebrows had been raised.
The supposed smoking gun in this case was testimony by Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, who alleged that when he was finance minister, Netanyahu sought – unsuccessfully – to double the existing 10-year period of tax exemption on foreign income of Israeli émigrés returning to their native country, which would have immensely benefited Milchan.
The fact is that no such legislation was ever even tabled and it was immediately rejected by the Finance Ministry. It is not even clear whether Lapid is claiming that he was under pressure by Netanyahu to advance the legislation, or that Netanyahu merely asked him to review the proposal, for which Milchan had lobbied. But even if Lapid claims that he was under pressure, it is highly debatable if a court could convict Netanyahu based on the testimony of Lapid, who has been frenziedly attacking Netanyahu with the objective of displacing him as prime minister.
It is also not clear if Lapid initiated his testimony or if the police approached him, obligating him to provide full and frank testimony in response to questioning. However, aware that he is a key witness, his mistake was to lead the attack on Netanyahu by calling for his resignation even before the police recommendations were released. This has raised doubts about his credibility among the Israeli public and may ultimately jettison his ambition of replacing Netanyahu as prime minister.
The second charge appears, on the surface, to be even more ludicrous. Netanyahu was alleged to have offered a bribe to Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes in a backroom deal according to which Netanyahu would persuade Sheldon Adelson, the owner of Yedioth’s main competitor, Israel Hayom, to curtail its booming weekend edition, in return for Mozes ending Yedioth’s defamation campaign against the prime minister.
In fact, it was Mozes who initially approached Netanyahu with a view to reaching an arrangement, which was never actualized. Far from an accommodation with Mozes to promote Yedioth Ahronoth, Netanyahu deflected efforts by the Knesset to pass the so-called Israel Hayom bill, which would have made the distribution of free newspapers illegal.
The reality is that this entire incident was mere chatter initiated by the other party and never implemented. Netanyahu claims that he had no intention of proceeding. So there simply is no case.
That a prime minister seeks to build good relations and influence the media by cozying up to editors has been a hallmark of former leaders as well as many ministers. How the police could construe this as bribery is mind-boggling.
All in all, we have a case of Netanyahu accepting large quantities of cigars and champagne as gifts from close friends. This may be unpalatable to most Israelis but it is certainly not clear that it represents corruption or a breach of the law.
There have been new developments in relation to the Bezeq investigation over the last few days but as this is only at a preliminary stage of the police investigation, it is impossible to assess its implications. One would hope after what has transpired that this latest ”discovery” remains grounded on factual evidence without leaks and wild conspiracy allegations.
Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit will ultimately determine how to proceed with the police recommendation to charge Netanyahu with bribery, fraud and breach of trust. This process will likely take many months and could stretch on until mid-2019.
My prediction is that Netanyahu will be exonerated on the serious charges of bribery and fraud which, based on what has been disclosed to date, appear to lack any real substance. If so, this will be recorded as one of the most disgraceful episodes in Israel’s dysfunctional political history. In the meantime, his government, including future candidates for Likud leadership, has united to back him. But there is no doubt that, until resolved, it will cast a shadow on his leadership.
The question remains whether, under the weight of public pressure and police agitation, Mendelblit will feel obliged to offer a token indictment of breach of trust in relation to the gifts. While this would not necessarily involve a criminal charge or result in any prison sentence, it still could force Netanyahu to resign. This too would be a travesty as no other prime minister has been investigated under such scrutiny.
There are certainly legitimate concerns that can be raised about the gifts and Netanyahu’s hedonistic lifestyle. But, in the absence of any substantive objective evidence of bribery or criminal activity, distaste for Netanyahu’s weakness is not sufficient grounds for “breach of trust,” let alone the more serious charges recommended by the police.
It is the people in the voting booths who should determine the future of the prime minister, not the demonizing efforts of the police and the media.
We currently face crucial threats from our enemies. There is no other Israeli capable of stepping into Netanyahu’s shoes during this critical period, which could erupt into war. His diplomacy and experience are crucial in retaining an equilibrium between the United States and Russia.
Most Israelis, whether they like or despise Netanyahu as a person, recognize that replacing him today with Lapid, Labor party head Avi Gabbay or other aspiring leaders could lead to catastrophic consequences.
We should exert maximum pressure on those who continue seeking to besmirch Netanyahu to desist and enable him to fulfill his role without being continuously distracted.
1a)
IDF CYBER WARRIORS THWART MAJOR ISIS AVIATION TERROR ATTACK
Spread across the country, the online soldiers of Unit 8200 are on the front line of Israel’s cyber wars 24/7, 365 days a year to identify possible threats and effectively neutralize them.
Soldiers in the IDF’s Unit 8200 played a large role in thwarting a major Islamic State terrorist attack this past summer, which aimed to bring down a civilian airliner headed from Sydney to Abu Dhabi, the army has revealed.
In cooperation with Israel’s intelligence community, soldiers provided exclusive intelligence that they had gathered on an attack that was being planned. The intelligence led to the arrest of the suspects, who were in a very advanced stage in executing the plot, the army said.
“The thwarting of the attack led to the saving of the lives of dozens of innocent people and demonstrated that Unit 8200 is a player in the intelligence war against Islamic State,” the army said. Regarded as Israel’s equivalent of the National Security Agency in the US, the soldiers of one of the IDF’s most prestigious units, Unit 8200, intercept and collect digital communication and intelligence on Israel’s enemies.
Spread across the country, these online soldiers of Unit 8200 are on the front line of Israel’s cyberwars 24/7, 365 days a year, to identify possible threats and effectively neutralize them.
“About half of Unit 8200 is engaged in operational activity beyond Israel’s borders,” a senior officer in Unit 8200 told military reporters on Tuesday, referring to the interception and analysis of signal intelligence gathered by troops. “Because of our abilities, we are very attractive to foreign countries,” he added.
The ISIS-inspired attack against an Etihad Airways flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi was thwarted, according to Australian officials, in July. Four men were arrested in Sydney suburbs for planning two separate attacks, including one where a bomb, which was to be carried on board the plane by an unwitting “mule,” would be detonated while in the air.
Local press at the time quoted Australian police as stating that one suspect planned to plant military-grade explosives inside a meat-grinding machine. The explosives were sent by a senior ISIS operative through international air cargo to the suspects in Australia.
The New South Wales Joint Counterterrorism Team charged 49-year-old Khaled Mahmoud Khayat and 32-year-old Mahmoud Khayat with two counts each of acts in preparation for a terrorist act for that foiled plot.
While Islamic State’s territorial “caliphate” may have crumbled, the IDF does not believe it to be the end of the threat posed by the terrorist group, as terrorists have moved from Syria and Iraq to places like Egypt’s restive Sinai Peninsula, which borders Israel.
Unit 8200 soldiers were also responsible for thwarting a recent Iranian hacking attack against private and public organizations in Israel.
The attack by a hacking group was thwarted in cooperation with the defense division of the IDF’s telecommunications department by the “close monitoring of the operations of the Iranian network and the early identification of attempts to attack Israel,” the IDF said.
According to ClearSky, an Israeli cybersecurity company that has studied the malware behind cyberattacks across the region, the hacking group has been targeting multiple organizations in Israel and other Middle Eastern countries such as in Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon since 2015.
In one attack against the UAE government uncovered by Palo Alto Networks, another cybersecurity company, the hacking group sent spear-phishing emails with the subject line “Important Issue” which in reality were malware-infected documents.
A January 2017 report by ClearSky stated that the hacking group set up a fake VPN Web portal and targeted several Israeli IT vendors, financial institutions and the Israel Post since the end of 2015.
“Today, cyber is an additional front in which Israel has significant offensive and defensive capabilities,” a senior officer in Unit 8200 said Tuesday.
“Iran is a very smart country with advanced technology and a lot of motivation,” the officer said, adding that he respects the intelligence of his enemy, which is “increasing in its offensive capabilities.”
According to the senior officer, the unit has also been very effective in thwarting dozens of attacks by lone-wolf Palestinians in the West Bank since the beginning of the latest wave of violence that broke out in 2015.
“When we see talk of an attack that could happen in the next 10 minutes, we need to act in an effective and quick manner in order to stop it,” he said. “There is a lot of responsibility sitting on the shoulders of these young officers.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday evening that Israel’s intelligence service deserve thanks for not only protecting Israel, but also for “protecting people everywhere around the world.”
Netanyahu, speaking at the annual meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said the downing of the plane would have led to a major tragedy and to a massive disruption of civilian air traffic.
Netanyahu said this was just one of many attacks that Israel has thwarted throughout the world.
Herb Keinon contributed to this report.
1b)
x 1950 x 4.9%
Playing charades? Or dealing a bad hand in the form of so-called peace
The Trump administration’s new Middle East peace plan will be dead on arrival. Should they try anyway?
On a day when many of those interested in the Middle East were mulling over new corruption charges leveled at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than the latest bloviating in New York, the U.N. Security Council meeting devoted to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians didn’t achieve a thing.
The session was nonetheless useful in one sense. If the U.S. delegation is serious about making good on its promise to put forward a new Middle East peace plan, then surely they recognized the gap between reality and what passes for serious discussion at the council. It’s simply too great to be overcome, even if the scheme being devised by presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner and his team is as clever as they’d like us to think.
The real question about the U.S. plan is not whether or not it will work. It’s why are Kushner and envoy Jason Greenblatt even trying?
Optimists claimed that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas struck a moderate tone in his address to the council, in which he advocated for the beginning of a multilateral negotiation where Russia, rather than the United States, would play the key role. But coming as it did only weeks after delivering an anti-Semitic speech to his people—when he made it clear the P.A. didn’t recognize Israel’s legitimacy within any borders—why should anyone treat his pose as a would-be peacemaker seriously?
Abbas chose to treat President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as the end of the peace process, despite the fact that nothing in the American stand precluded a two-state solution or even a redivision of the holy city. Locked in a never-ending struggle with the Islamists of Hamas for support of the Palestinian street, Abbas has torpedoed every peace negotiation since succeeding Yasser Arafat in 2005. His routine of vacillating between inciting Palestinians to violence—such as his vow not to let “stinking Jewish feet” profane Jerusalem’s holy places, which helped set off the “stabbing intifada”—echoed in official P.A. media (and even schools) with more moderate remarks convinces no one.
Abbas’s goal is to appear sufficiently hostile to Israel and the Jews in order to compete successfully with Hamas for Palestinian public opinion, while doing nothing to instigate fighting that might result in his fall from power.
Sitting in front of Kushner and Greenblatt, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Niki Haley summed up the situation when she reminded Abbas that the United States was ready to negotiate peace, but had no intention of chasing after him. Moreover, she rightly pointed out that the United Nation’s disproportionate focus on the conflict in a way that demonstrated its consistent prejudice against Israel encourages Palestinian intransigence, not peace.
Administration sources say there will be parts that both sides will dislike, but that the plan provides a path to peace. But since Abbas consistently resisted the overtures of an Obama administration that was more sympathetic to him than that of Trump, it’s hard to imagine him ever saying yes to anything. If he’s unwilling to stop funding terrorism by paying salaries and pensions to terrorists and their families, how is it possible to think that he’ll ever agree to anything that resembles peace?
Nor, to be fair, is Israel’s government in any position to negotiate right now. With Netanyahu under pressure from his right-wing coalition partners and considering calling for early elections to forestall efforts to oust him due to corruption charges, this is not the moment for America to expect him to be risking his political life to make potentially dangerous concessions to the Palestinians. Moreover, despite concerns about his future, Netanyahu still embodies a broad consensus of Israeli opinion about the Palestinians—one that correctly sees no viable peace partner in a possible negotiation. Any attempt to replicate the 2005 Gaza experiment, in which settlements were dismantled, is utter madness.
Yet Kushner is still trying. And he is likely to unveil a proposal at some point in the not-too-distant future.
There are two reasons for this. One involves his father-in-law’s ego. Trump may actually still believe that his negotiating skills can bridge any gap between the parties in pursuit of the “ultimate deal.” The idea of succeeding where all his predecessors failed still entices him, even if the odds—and common sense—are stacked against him.
But a better answer may be that Trump, like every other president, thinks playing at Middle East peace is a necessary part of U.S. diplomacy.
Russia’s U.N. ambassador issued a familiar warning about the window of opportunity for peace as starting to close. But that window has been firmly shut during the last decade, ever since Abbas walked away from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of statehood in the West Bank and Gaza, in addition to a share of Jerusalem.
Key Sunni Arab states have tired of Palestinian intransigence and have given up seriously advocating for a solution that would give their brethren an independent state—one that would likely be another unstable target for extremists. Yet considering the importance of the issue to international Muslim opinion, they still pay lip service to the Palestinian cause even while they send signals—as they did after Trump’s Jerusalem statement—that they won’t lift a finger to help. They don’t wish to be accused by radicals and the Iranians of being de facto allies of Israel, even though they are.
That’s why the Arab states want Trump to continue to play the peace-process game in spite of it having no hope of success. It is nothing more than an empty gesture. In that way, another effort at reviving negotiations that everyone knows the Palestinians will reject in one way or another seems to suit the purposes of all sides.
Are their costs to this charade?
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Another public failure will strengthen the most radical Palestinian factions and could, especially if Iran thinks it serves their cause, lead to another round of fighting in Gaza, or serve as the excuse for a war between Israel and Hezbollah across a two-front border with Lebanon and Syria.
That’s why Trump needs to rethink starting something he can’t finish. As much as he may crave the ultimate deal, the president should also remember how much he hates losing—and tell his son-in-law to keep his peace plan on the shelf.
1c)The Editorial Board
Bashar Assad’s Syrian military committed more atrocities this week, bombing the opposition stronghold of Eastern Ghouta and killing at least 200. Rescue workers had to haul dead civilians from the rubble, including a family of five. As everyone deplores the killings, the point to keep in mind is that the driving political power here is Iran and its attempt to make Syria part of its growing Shiite-Persian empire.
Iran has propped up Assad since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, and along with Russia is largely responsible for the regime’s survival. After its 2016 victory in Aleppo and the ouster of Islamic State from Raqqa, this axis is now trying to roll up the last opposition strongholds. The trio will then use Russia-sponsored peace talks to re-establish Assad’s control over Syria. Russia will keep its military bases, and Iran wants to establish a new imperial outpost on the border with Israel.
Toward that end, Iran is building a robust military presence of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) troops, Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah, foreign fighters from Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and local Syrian militias in Assad-controlled areas. Iran’s ultimate goal is “the eradication of Israel,” as the leader of the IRGC’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, said recently.
Military analysts estimate Hezbollah could have more than 100,000 rockets pointed at Israel from its home base in Lebanon and possibly from Syria too. An Iranian redoubt in Syria would open another front in a war with Israel from which to launch more rocket and other attacks. U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster worried publicly in December about “the prospect of Iran having a proxy army on the borders of Israel.”
Tehran’s confidence abroad is growing despite its recent protests at home. Earlier this month Iran-backed forces launched a drone from Syria’s Homs area into Israeli air space. The Israeli military shot down the drone and sent F-16s to bomb the base from where the drone operated, as well as other military targets. The mission was a success, but the Israelis lost a fighter jet, the first such loss since the early 1980s.
The provocation is a sign that Iran is turning its attention from propping up Assad and toward establishing a more permanent presence in Syria, including the construction of military bases and weapons factories. Iranians are investing in Syria’s local economy to help Assad “rebuild,” and working to convert local Alawites to Shiite Islam.
Iran is also exploiting a “cease-fire” in southwestern Syria that the U.S. negotiated with Russia last year. Russia is supposed to stop Iran from building up its forces there, but the U.S. has been left to protest feebly as Russia lets Iran continue.
That leaves the policing to Israel, which has bombed Iranian and Hezbollah sites in Syria many times in the last year, including an Iranian base southwest of Damascus in December. On Sunday at the Munich security conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves” and “not just against Iran’s proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself.”
Israel’s military is formidable, and the country is protected by a robust antimissile system. But even Israel’s defenses would be strained by 1,500 to 2,000 incoming missiles a day from Syria and Lebanon, especially if Iran succeeds in upgrading Hezbollah’s arsenal to precision-guided weapons. Hezbollah attacks from civilian centers, which means an Israel-Lebanon conflict would be an extensive and bloody undertaking, as Israeli forces would have to attack fighters near homes and hospitals.
If the Trump Administration is worried about this gathering storm, you can’t tell from its actions. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson toured the region last week and called for a “whole, independent, democratic Syria with no special demarcations dividing Syria and with the Syrian people selecting their leadership through free and fair elections.” That’s something John Kerry might have said, with a similar lack of credibility with Iran or Russia.
Mr. Trump promised in October to work with allies to counter Iran’s “destabilizing activity and support for terrorist proxies in the region,” but in Syria the U.S. has shown no strategy for doing so. Meanwhile, an Iran-Israel conflict grows more likely by the day.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Why America Is Going Broke
Entitlements are driving deficits and debt. Absent reform, the problem will soon become a crisis.
By John F. Cogan
The federal deficit is big and getting bigger. President Trump’s budget estimates a deficit of nearly $900 billion for 2018 and nearly $1 trillion (with total spending of $4.4 trillion) for 2019. Its balance sheet reveals that the public debt will reach $15.7 trillion by October. This works out to $48,081.61 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. That doesn’t count unfunded liabilities, reported by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, that are four times the current public debt.
How did the federal government’s finances degenerate this far? It didn’t happen overnight. For seven decades, high tax rates and a growing economy have produced record revenue, but not enough to keep pace with Congress’s voracious appetite for spending. Since the end of World War II, federal tax revenue has grown 15% faster than national income—while federal spending has grown 50% faster.
While most Americans are aware of the budgetary importance of entitlements, the accompanying chart clarifies the magnitude of the problem. It shows the importance of entitlements in determining past and present budget trends, and where they will take us if Congress fails to reform them.
The chart shows federal spending relative to gross domestic product since World War II, broken into three categories. Entitlements are depicted in red. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability insurance, food stamps and a host of other welfare programs. National defense is shown in blue. All other non-defense spending is in yellow. Interest on the public debt isn’t included. Because of currently low rates, interest payments amount to less than half what the government spends on all other non-defense programs.
As the chart makes clear, all—yes, all—of the increase in federal spending relative to GDP over the past seven decades is attributable to entitlement spending. Since the late 1940s, entitlement claims on the nation’s output of goods and services have risen from less than 4% to 14%. Surprising as it may seem, the share of GDP that is spent on national defense and nondefense discretionary programs combined is no higher today than it was seven decades ago.
The contrast between the long-term increase in entitlement spending and the long-term decline in defense spending reflects the profound transformation of the federal government’s priorities from providing for the nation’s defense to redistributing income. The Vietnam War, President Reagan’s defense buildup, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were costly, but the increase in defense spending in each case pales in comparison with the astonishing growth in entitlement spending.
If you’re seeking the reason for the federal government’s chronic budget deficits and crushing national debt, look no further than entitlement programs. Show the accompanying chart to your friends or acquaintances who continue to assert that defense spending is causing the budget deficit. Since the early 1970s, entitlements have been the federal budget’s largest spending category, the sole source of the federal budget’s growth relative to GDP, and the primary cause of chronic budget deficits.
Today, entitlement spending accounts for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. Defense spending still only accounts for about a sixth of the federal budget, even with recent increases. Defense spending could be doubled and it would still be only half what the federal government spends on entitlements. Significant reductions in the budget deficit can only be achieved by restraining the growth of entitlement spending.
History shows that such restraint is not possible without presidential leadership. Unfortunately, President Trump has failed to step up. His budget proposes to shave a mere 1% from entitlement spending that is growing at 6% a year. The president has ruled out any significant reform of Social Security and Medicare, the two largest entitlement programs. His budget shows that this year Social Security and Medicare expenditures will exceed the payroll taxes and premium payments dedicated to supporting them by $420 billion. Social Security and Medicare deficits will account for half this year’s total budget deficit.
The situation is no better at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Democrats are getting domestic spending increases and Republicans are getting increases to the defense budget. Instead of offsetting higher spending with reductions elsewhere, Congress simply increased both defense and domestic spending in the recently enacted continuing resolution to fund the government. At the same time, by eliminating the need to vote on a debt ceiling this year and ruling out the reconciliation process for any budget bill, Congress signaled that it has no stomach for entitlement restraint.
The continuing resolution’s two-year spending binge has been rightly criticized as excessive. But the size of the increase in spending it authorizes should be kept in perspective. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the resolution will add $174 billion in discretionary spending to the budget in 2019, the year of its maximum impact. At the same time, entitlement expenditures will automatically increase by about the same amount.
What about the future? Social Security and Medicare expenditures are accelerating now that baby boomers have begun to collect their government-financed retirement and health-care benefits. If left unchecked, these programs will push government spending to levels never seen during peacetime.
Financing this spending will require either record levels of taxation or debt. Economics teaches us that high tax rates reduce economic growth and living standards. History teaches us that high public debt aggravates economic volatility and makes a country’s financial system more prone to crisis. Congress can avoid these harmful outcomes only by taking action soon. Its first step should be to send the president’s budget proposal back with a request that he come up with a plan to rein in entitlement spending.
Mr. Cogan is the Leonard and Shirley Ely Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and author of “The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs” (Stanford University Press, 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment