RSS Feed MenuDemocrats have angrily rebuffed a group of four party members intent on proposing a reasonably modest budget rescission package to cut $1.4 billion of unrequested but congressionally approved spending from the federal budget. It’s easy, and largely correct, to paint anti-cut Democrats as big spenders unwilling to reduce even the most wasteful spending programs. But, to a large extent, even pro-spending cut congressional Democrats have joined with Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration in substituting theatrics and easy solutions for the hard work of budget cutting.
Let’s review: The Obama administration has, for the second year in a row, solicited money-saving ideas from federal workers while Republicans have devoted lots of web bandwidth and House floor time to moving forward YouCut agenda items (based on public votes on a website maintained by Minority Whip Eric Cantor. The proposals: let patients at VA hospitals take unused drugs home, (administration), cuts to a Clinton-era program that builds “new urbanist” public housing (Democrats), and eliminating federal pay for people who work only on union issues (Republican) are all fine ideas and could save some money. They are all worth considering. But, frankly, none of these easy-to-support, hard-to-oppose proposals are likely to make a big budget difference.
Putting aside some unrealistic proposals (Republicans say that barring the IRS from enforcing the new insurance mandate would save as much as $15 billion although the actual savings seem much, much smaller), the sum total of the savings from YouCut, administration proposals, and Democrats amount to somewhere around $5 to $15 billion a year. This is real money, but, in the context of the federal budget deficit of about $1.5 trillion, it’s not going to solve any problems. Without very serious reforms to major entitlement programs that involve cutting benefits to at least some current beneficiaries, it will be impossible to close these gaps without raising at least some taxes.
It’s time for both Democrats and Republicans to make the difficult proposals needed to balance the budget. Republicans intent on avoiding any tax increase should outline a proposal to cut benefits to current and near future entitlement program recipients and Democrats should actually outline what large across the board tax increases they favor. Healthy economic growth, if it ever returns, could help close budget gaps as could smarter ways of running some government programs. In the end, reasonably small budget cut packages make good headlines but, wherever they come from, such cut proposals distract Congress and the public from the hard fiscal decisions ahead.
Oldskool // Aug 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Nothing substantial will ever happen as far as spending cuts until we get to the panic point of California or until we have another bubble of some kind and rake in revenue.
I think it’s sytemic more than partisan. We keep 535 people on duty to tell us want we want to hear, regardless of what we tell our neighbors or polsters.
Gramps // Aug 5, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Yet there’s some really good news this Thursday…
The new health care law has significantly improved the prognosis for Medicare, extending the life of its trust fund by 12 years until 2029, and thereby delaying any need for dramatic changes in benefits or revenues, according to a new report.
The annual check-up from government actuaries overseeing the nation’s two central safety-net programs also found that Social Security continues to be much less of a problem than Medicare, and will remain in strong financial shape at least through 2037.
Good news for all you geezers and would be folks…!
PracticalGirl // Aug 5, 2010 at 5:46 pm
A pox oon both their Houses…
Would love to see a Frummer tackle the refusal (again) of the House to pass a bill providing necessary health care funds for 9-11 workers suffering the effects of heroism. The Democrats made sure to include a stupid procedural note to require 2/3 majority to pass it…The Republicans made sure to fight for the retention of a tax loop hole for foreign corporations (necessary to, well, actually PAY for the care). And in the end, the people who were brave and steady AND used as props and puppets by all the scummy politicians who wanted to look patriotic-you know, the ones who PLEDGED to a debt to those same workers- lose.
Must be an election year. The needy are once again getting screwed.
Rabiner // Aug 5, 2010 at 8:09 pm
PracticalGirl:
“The Democrats made sure to include a stupid procedural note to require 2/3 majority to pass it”
I think the fact Republicans refused to pay for it with the tax loophole you mention is pretty funny. And that they wanted to prevent the funds to be used to supply health care to illegal immigrants who helped at Ground Zero was outrageous. Because they should of realized that maybe they shouldn’t receive compensation for providing our country with a necessary service. The 2/3 majority procedure was to prevent ridiculous amendments from being voted on. I wish everyone watch The Daily Show’s segment on this issue last night.
easton // Aug 5, 2010 at 9:31 pm
another ridiculous posting. peanuts, he is talking about peanuts. The only way to cut spending is to go after entitlement spending, Obama trimmed 500 billion from Medicare part D (you know, the part where government just forks money over to big pharm) and the Republicans squawked about that. I would have had a tad more respect for them if they insisted that instead of the money going to finance Obamacare that it be put towards shoring up Medicare long term, with some of it being used for debt reduction, but they were far too stupid to think of that. Instead they screamed “don’t cut spending” while they screamed “cut spending.” 5 billion, yeesh, what is that, 2 days in Iraq?
By the way, Obama is reining in spending there as well by bringing most of the troops home. And rightly so, Bush negotiated a SOFA agreement spelling out just such cuts, but shhh….lets blame Obama for upholding that agreement.
Sunny // Aug 5, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Hoping someone smart here can explain this to me, because I can’t wrap my head around it.
I got curious and looked up tax revenues for the last century or so. Irrespective of actual dollar figures, tax revenues have pretty much stayed between 15-20% of GDP, with most years being in the 17-18% bracket. That’s irrespective of what party was in power, or what the top tax bracket was. (which might suggest that taxing the rich isn’t going to budge that percentage, but I digress…)
For the last 70 years or so, the amount of the budget was never less than 20% of GDP, and really ranged for a long time around the 35% mark, with 2010 anticipated to hit 43% of GDP.
I’ve known the debt was growing, and known we were spending more than we took in. I just had no idea how long we’d been doing it, and I’m wondering if all the bickering about Bush’s tax cuts or whether to cut spending here or fund this over there isn’t a lot like bickering about paint color in the dining room when the ceiling is caving in.
Is there someone who can explain to me in simple terms why we’ve had close to a century of elected officials who were peachy-keen about spending twice what they brought in, and how it hasn’t fallen apart long before now?
DeepSouthPopulist // Aug 6, 2010 at 12:05 am
People need to give up the ghost on meaningful spending cuts. Meaningful spending cuts will never happen, which is why raising taxes is pointless. The government will just use the money on more spending.
sdspringy // Aug 6, 2010 at 5:44 am
People run into burning building every day across this nation. Those people in New York were no braver than those that continue to do the same thing today.
There is no requirement for taxpayers to fund an entitlement in New York than there is to fund one for other individuals running into buildings in TX, IL, ND, CA.
It is just another example of a politican spending taxpayer money to improve his election chances in the fall.
Entitlement spending distorts the meaning of the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, whereas now it means “I’m entitled to life, liberty and happiness”.
Sparky // Aug 6, 2010 at 11:36 am
@Sunny
For most the history of the US, the government was funded mostly by tarrifs. With end of protectionism in th 80’s under Reagan and Bush, the government lost a source of revenue that they had to make up by increasing various tax rates.
easton // Aug 6, 2010 at 11:50 am
People need to give up the ghost on meaningful spending cuts. Meaningful spending cuts will never happen, which is why raising taxes is pointless. The government will just use the money on more spending
Uh…no. 2 words: Clinton Surpluses.
JeninCT // Aug 6, 2010 at 2:11 pm
IMO, 90% (or more) of national politicians want us bickering about who’s left or right so they can continue to focus on the two issues they care about, getting re-elected and gaining access to tax dollars that they can use to buy influence.
It’s not about what’s best for the country. If it were, we’d be out of debt.
easton // Aug 6, 2010 at 4:43 pm
JeninCT, um…if Bush did not enact those huge tax cuts we would be a lot less in debt, oh and it would have been nice if he chose to act like we were at war instead of telling people to go shopping.