Robert Samuelson's column in the Washington Post this morning is a broadside against entitlement spending. You see, Samuelson believes that Congress will never balance the budget because so many Americans receive welfare (read: Social Security, Medicare, Medicade) that cutting such programs is politically impossible. And because raising taxes is also politically impossible, eliminating the federal budget deficit is impossible. Annual budget debates are sterile -- long on rhetoric, short on action -- because each side blames the other for a situation that neither chooses to change. To cut spending significantly, conservatives would have to go after popular welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare. To raise taxes significantly, liberals would have to go after the upper middle class, a constituency they covet (two-thirds of all federal taxes come from the richest fifth). Deficits persist, because neither side risks its popularity, and, indeed, both sides pursue popularity with new spending programs and tax breaks. I know 7 years is a long time, but has Samuelson already forgotten about the budget surpluses in 1999 and 2000? (click to englarge)