The President released his 2012 budget on Monday, and — to his
credit — it includes some substantial reductions. Unfortunately,
our out-of-control spending has put us in a position where even
substantial reductions are not even close to enough.
In order to make any real difference, it’s going to take
more than a line item cut here and there. It’s going to take a
change in culture on the federal level.
For one, too much funding goes out the door in grants to
states. Yes, reducing that money may mean that cash-strapped states
have to increase their taxes; however, money is better spent and
politicians more accountable at the state level. We should be
working to reduce federal taxes so that states can
increase their taxes. That way we can provide the most bang for the
buck and the highest return on investment, all while the same
amount of total tax money is being plucked from American
households. Eventually, total taxes will go down when the
efficiencies and savings of having money spent at the state level
are realized.
Not only is money better spent at the state level, there
is no motivation for state politicians to send federal money home.
When you can take money from other states and give it to yours, the
temptation to do so is hard to overcome — even when it costs your
state in the end.
For example, the U.S. Department of Justice’s core mission
is to prosecute criminals, defend the United States against
lawsuits, and sue corporations and individuals to recover money
taken as the result of fraud or negligence. Nonetheless, that
department has an Office of Justice Programs that simply doles out
grant money to private organizations and to the states. In 2012,
the President has asked for $7.81 billion for this purpose, a 90%
increase over 2010.
Programs fund some really great things, such as DNA
analysis to help solve more crimes. But if the federal government
stopped taking so much money to do it — $68.72 per household —
the states could institute these programs with less waste, fraud,
and abuse, and with more accountability and competitive
contracts.
Maybe that sounds like small potatoes next to the
Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration which,
according to its website, “administers federal government job
training and worker dislocation programs, federal grants to states
for public employment service programs, and unemployment insurance
benefits.” The cost? In 2012, the President has asked for $117.66
billion. That is a large decrease from 2010, but still will cost
the American people over $1,000 per household. Imagine if
we could reduce federal taxes by $1,000 a household? Even if it
gave the states the ability to raise taxes by the exact same
amount, our money would be much better spent.
This year, Congress voted to end all earmarks from its
members, and the President vowed to veto any bills with these
designated funds. But what about all the money that was earmarked
before? The money is still there, but now the discretion to spend
it is with federal agencies instead of elected representatives. The
president should have started by reducing the 2012 federal budget
by the amount of earmarks in 2010.
These examples don’t add up to a great deal — relatively
speaking — but they are an indication of the culture change that
must occur if the United States is going to lead the world into the
next century like we did the last. Interest alone on the national
debt will be almost $475 billion — that’s over $4,000 per
household before we pay down one penny of principal.
The Republican House of Representatives should be
applauded for decreasing its spending, and the Democrat-controlled
Senate should follow suit. This is no longer a partisan issue of
trying to reduce taxes for constituencies and increase spending for
others. This is an issue of keeping America on the forefront of the
world. Our state system will work if we trust the states and yield
to their discretion.
