WASHINGTON, April 7 (UPI) -- Nary a day goes by on the floors of the Senate and the House of Representatives or in news conferences and briefings with members of Congress from either party when promises are not made about reining in spending and decreasing the massive federal deficit.
But with corporate tax rates in 2003 at their lowest point in more than 20 years and their second-lowest point since the early 1930s -- and with pork spending more rampant than ever -- are lawmakers really serious about addressing the federal deficit?
Such talk is particularly acute this year, with an estimated federal deficit of $521 billion for 2004 and $7.1 trillion in national debt staring down the barrel at lawmakers.
But to borrow a phrase from Mattel's legendary Magic 8 Ball, the "Outlook (is) Not So Good."
While more proof of reckless federal spending is not really needed, several reports this week show that things are not what the prevailing congressional rhetoric makes them out to be.
According to the annual "Pig Book" detailing the more egregious pork-barrel spending released by Citizens Against Government Waste Wednesday, federal spending for pet projects in congressmen's and senators' home districts and states have hit record levels this year.
The organization says that 10,656 pork projects were included in the 13 appropriations bills outlining federal spending for 2004, a 13-percent increase over 2003, with a record $22.9 billion spending on so-called earmarks for members.
While it is possible that Congress will reign in this sort of spending, which fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill have been rallying against for years, it remains highly unlikely.
For one, while House GOP leaders who control the lawmaking process talk about addressing the federal deficit, they have shunned efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to reinstate Congress's ability to only increase spending or cut taxes by offsetting those changes with other tax increases or spending cuts.
The limits were considered an integral part of the coalescence of factors that led to the balanced federal budgets of the late 1990s.
While House leaders succumbed to internal party pressures and produced a bill that would enable such limits on spending, they refuse to allow them for limits on tax cuts and have yet to bring the spending limit legislation up for a vote.
On the opposite side of the Capitol, GOP leaders opposed the restrictions on taxes and spending added to the 2005 budget resolution on the Senate floor and are not expected to fight for them in negotiations over a final bill with the House and the Bush administration, which opposes imposing such limitations on taxes as well as spending.
Another sign of the lack of real interest in controlling federal spending is a report from the General Accounting Office released Monday showing that more than 60 percent of U.S. corporations did not pay a single dime in federal taxes from 1996 through 2002, years that included the height of the economic boom.
Even more foreign-owned firms doing business in the United States did not pay any taxes, with around 70 percent of them reporting they did not owe U.S. taxes during the period.
Federal budget data show that corporate taxes amounted to only 7.4 percent of overall federal revenue in 2003, the second-lowest level since 1934, and lowest since 1983.
The data shed a particularly harsh light on White House and GOP efforts in the House and Senate to further cut corporate taxes.
Although a number of House and Senate GOP leaders are on the warpath on the issue of tax avoidance, the moves by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and others seem disingenuous in light of the data on corporate tax payments and their efforts to give other tax breaks to corporate America.
Whether couched in the guise of job creation or protecting domestic industries -- as supporters on both sides of the aisle have spun recent attempts to decrease corporate taxes -- if 60 percent of American companies are not paying any federal tax, how does giving them a potential tax break help create more jobs?
Could it be that the sorts of tax breaks being pushed for are targeted only at the illustrious 40 percent of companies that do not yet have enough in the way of tax breaks and avoidance schemes to avoid contributing to federal revenue?
The Magic 8 Ball says: "Very Doubtful."
For one, it is expecting way too much of lawmakers and their staff to be so precise.
Wouldn't a tax break for the 40 percent likely just increase the portion of companies not paying their 35 percent?
Such numbers are likely a reason why the Conference Board reported Monday that U.S. business confidence is at a 20-year high.
The group reports that half of the corporate executives who responded to its latest poll expect that employment in their industries will increase in the coming months.
These tax and spending arguments will surely fall on deaf ears for those that think that companies should function unencumbered by federal, or for that matter, state taxes.
For conservative dreamers like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who want to abolish the federal tax system in favor of national sales taxes, such ideals represent a platonic economic system.
But if one accepts the fundamental need for the federal government to have money and the basic truth that people as well as the companies that employ them should pay to help that system function, the need for companies, which control the vast majority of wealth in our economy, to contribute a fair portion is clear.
Should the federal government spend less? Sure. But will it? Can it?
There is some hope to be found in the efforts of a dozen GOP lawmakers in the House who have hatched a fledgling plan to block budget busting legislation by voting with Democrats against the rules established by Republican leaders for votes on such measures, potentially blocking a floor vote.
House Republican leaders use such rules to effectively limit dissenting votes against GOP measures and block attempts to change bills with amendments.
But the deficit hawks are facing tough opponents in the House GOP leadership, who talk a tough game on spending but have shown a tendency to throw that rhetoric out of the window.
For instance, the Republican leadership clandestinely added billions of dollars in new tax breaks for businesses in the six-year, multi-billion dollar highway spending bill approved by last week in an attempt to shore up support from wavering GOP members.
Who will prevail in this fight?
Maybe the Magic 8 Ball has the answer: "Reply Hazy, Try Again."
What if you shake it and ask again?
"Concentrate and Ask Again."
The toy is about as reliable as the rhetoric on the issue.
--
(Please send comments to [email protected].)
