By Jim Fisher
Friday, May 09, 2008

The Clarkston man challenging U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers for the Republican nomination to her seat in the U.S. House says she has been less than concise about her plans. But he appears to have left a thing or two out as well.

For example, Kurt Erickson says he would reduce the nation's debt while abolishing the income tax and the agency that enforces it, the Internal Revenue Service. That would be a good trick, considering the government is going deeper into debt with the income tax in place.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, however. And the best way to do it would be to erase the programs that consume the biggest share of the federal purse.

Is Erickson prepared to tell voters he would abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? If he is not willing to get rid of programs that provide financial security and health care for older Americans, and health insurance for the poorest ones, he will have a hard time making the kind of spending cuts that would be required.

The three programs together represent 43.5 percent of government spending, with another 12.5 percent going to other mandatory programs. It is true that Social Security is financed not by the income tax, but by the federal payroll tax. Surplus revenues from that tax have been used elsewhere in the federal budget, however, leaving behind IOUs that must be repaid when benefits start exceeding revenues.

How does Erickson propose repaying them?

Erickson does say he would save money by withdrawing American troops from foreign countries. But all federal spending on defense and the nation's security totals only 29.2 percent of the budget. Does he maintain bringing troops home from abroad would cut spending enough to enable abolition of the income tax?

If not, surely he isn't pointing toward domestic discretionary spending. Although it gets a lot of attention, especially when it is parceled out in earmarks members of Congress insert in appropriation bills, all discretionary spending in this country amounts to only 14.7 percent of federal outlays.

And it is shrinking compared to other spending categories.

It isn't as if Erickson is proposing another tax to replace the one on income, either. While other conservatives suggest a national sales tax, for example, he says only that existing sources of revenue like the gas tax, tariffs and excise taxes would do the job.

He's wrong, even if the gasoline tax were diverted from the highway and other transportation programs to which it is now dedicated.

You have to give Erickson this, however: He has managed to outflank McMorris Rodgers, a loyal foot soldier of George W. Bush's administration, on the right. That's no small feat, unless it is based solely on little thought and extravagant dreams. - J.F.