Tax increase should be Prioritized over spending cuts

Resolved: The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts. The opposition side strongly negate this resolution. My contentions for negating this resolution are: prioritization of tax increases will harm us in the long term, we can afford to cut government spending, and spending cuts are more effective. Our first contention is that prioritization will harm us in the long term. If the government cuts its spending, it would trim the 2013 deficit by $500 billion and could presumably get its borrowing under control. If this were to occur, while there may be a short-term recession, after 2013 economic growth will pick up and the labor market will improve. As a result, the unemployment rate will drop to 5.5% by 2018.The question becomes, are we ready to pull off the band-aid all at once and deal with the pain, or do we want to drag out the process over a period of years in hopes of evening out the discomfort? If we increase the tax, we will be on the right track in terms of trimming our deficit, we"ll head back into a recession in 2013. In the alternative, if do nothing, we may preserve our recent economic growth, but by failing to address the government"s bigger problem " it"s bloated deficit and outstanding debt " we may end up worse off ten years from now. Our second contention is that many projects funded by the government is wasteful and can be afforded to be cut. "Spending Cuts Instead of Tax Increases - Citizens Against Government Waste."Spending Cuts Instead of Tax Increases - Citizens Against Government Waste. Citizens Against Government Waste, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. <http://membership.cagw.org...; It is not difficult to find waste, fraud and abuse in a $1.7 trillion budget. Each year, Citizens Against Government Waste finds the most flagrant cases of mismanagement and then prepares a blueprint for eliminating them. CAGW's Prime Cuts documents bureaucratic excess, corporate welfare, and poorly managed, obsolete, or duplicative programs. This year, 545 recommendations, which would save taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion in five years, include: Reforming government sponsored enterprises, saving $4.9 billion over five years; Giving states more control over the Superfund Program (getting rid of state's hazardous wastes) , saving $3.6 billion over five years; Privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority (company that builds dams for electricity), saving $2.5 billion over five years; and Eliminating the Advanced Technology Project (trying to find more advanced technology), saving $429 million over five years. It is clear that government isn't using its money effectively. Instead on focusing on increasing tax, which is not the best choice, we should focus on things that we know certain will work and can be afforded to, such as spending cuts. Our last contention is that spending cuts are more effective. The $200 billion decrease in military spending had an immediate positive impact on the economy. Harlem Children's Zone (helping people in poverty) is another great example of how managed spending can still yield good results and outcomes. If stop spending as much money, the economy will grow by an average of 0.05% per year and an average of 231,000 jobs would be created. (http://www.nationalreview.com... Which hurts more, tax increases or spending cuts, Veronique de Rugy, November 15, 2012, the National Review) The economists looked at 173 "fiscal consolidations" in rich countries, times when governments decided to reduce the long-run deficit. They then checked to see whether consolidations based mostly on tax hikes turned out better or worse than ones based on spending cuts. Both GDP and consumer spending tell the same story: Spending cuts are the less painful path to fiscal rectitude. When countries tried to get right with the bond markets, this IMF study found that nations that mostly raised taxes suffered about twice as much as nations that mostly cut spending. Mark A. Bloomfield [President and CEO, American Council for Capital Formation], "A Symposium of Views: Can Tax Reform Save the U.S. Economy?" International Economy, (Winter 2012), pp. 48-56. An econometric study by respected economist Allen Sinai notes that the economic activity sparked by eliminating the capital gains tax increases GDP by a little over 0.23 percentage points per year. Jobs increase by an average of 1.3 million annually while the unemployment rate drops 0.7 percent at its lowest point. Conversely, Sinai found that raising the top rate from the current 15 percent to 20 percent, as suggested in several deficit reduction plans, would cut annual economic growth by an average of 0.05 percent per year and an average of 231,000 jobs would be lost from 2011"16. Because tax increases will hurt the economy more, we cannot afford to gamble with the current crisis. We must prioritize a method that will work and will be better for the economy. Because of these reasons, the opposition strongly negate this resolution.