HELLO, PAY-GO

Como o número de votantes é maior que o de contribuintes; como a maioria dos contribuintes sofre de anestesia fiscal; como muitos eleitores têm memória curta,

.

os políticos prometem frequentemente baixar os impostos, e depois ou não os baixam ou até os aumentam; por vezes baixam-nos à custa do aumento do déficit; mais raramente, prometem e cumprem. Na oposição, reclamam sempre a redução; Logo que se sentam nas cadeiras do Governo fazem o que as circunstâncias obrigam, e geralmente aumentam-nos, invocando desconhecimento da situção herdada do governo anterior.

.

Nos EUA, o Congresso liderado pelos democratas pretende que as propostas de reduções de impostos tenham sempre como contrapartida a partida na redução de despesas: abreviadamente, "pay-go".

.

Este deveria ser sempre um pressuposto que os políticos portugueses deveriam ser obrigados a respeitar sempre reclamam a redução de impostos. Não o fazendo, fazem chicana política para demagogicamente aliciarem os eleitores sem se confrontarem com os contribuintes nem com os eventuais atingidos com as reduções de despesas que o Pay-Go implica.

.

Hello, Pay-Go

Congress takes a first step toward restoring fiscal discipline.

Friday, March 30, 2007; Page A16

THE HOUSE and Senate have now passed budget plans for next year. First the good news: The resolutions enshrine "pay-go," which is a procedural impediment to additional deficit spending.

Pay-go means that more spending on things such as entitlement programs or tax cuts will have to be offset by either tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere. It's an eminently responsible idea that should force Congress to make some tough but needed choices as it allocates cash over the coming months.

The Democratic leadership should get credit for resisting heavy pressure to exempt some programs and policy priorities from the rule. Even a single exemption would likely have unraveled pay-go, as powerful lobbies, each with nice-sounding projects, asked for their own exemptions.

The bad news lies in the lingering differences between the two budget plans. The Senate's version contains language committing a projected -- and probably illusory -- surplus to the goal of extending for the middle class a range of tax cuts that are due to expire in 2010. Any bill written to extend these cuts according to the Senate's blueprint would still be subject to pay-go. So if the projected budget surpluses don't materialize, Congress will have to take money from elsewhere, raise other taxes or adopt a waiver from pay-go to extend the tax cuts. In early 2007, it is unnecessary and unwise to make policy commitments regarding tax cuts in 2010, especially when they are predicated on a projected budget surplus.

The House budget plan that narrowly passed yesterday does not contain the same language on tax cuts. But, like the Senate's version, it can be faulted for doing little to rein in entitlement spending and for basing projections of a surplus in 2012 on a number of accounting gimmicks. But the blueprint sticks closely to pay-go. It contains a number of "reserve funds" to pay for its policy priorities, such as expanding children's health insurance, that Congress must fund with money from elsewhere in the budget or from new taxes. Hard decisions on where to get the cash to pay for them will come later.

Now the two houses have to reconcile their plans. In conference, House representatives should push to strike the Senate language on tax-cut extensions.