-
Undoing the Brainwashing
May 22, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Wimps Versus Barbarians
May 21, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Looking Back — And Forward
May 15, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Lies About Libya
May 14, 2013 | 80 comments
-
Bouncing Ball Politics
May 8, 2013 | 16 comments
A Further Perspective
Budget Politics
The political calculations of cuts look towards the 2014 election.
Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?
The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.
The example was deliberately extreme as an illustration. But, in the real world, the same general pattern can be seen in local, state and national government responses to budget cuts.
At the local level, the first response to budget cuts is often to cut the police department and the fire department. There may be all sorts of wasteful boondoggles that could have been cut instead, but that would not produce the public alarm that reducing police protection and fire protection can produce. And public alarm is what can get budget cuts restored.
The Obama administration is following the same pattern. The Department of Homeland Security, for example, released thousands of illegal aliens from prisons to save money — and create alarm.
The Federal Aviation Administration says it is planning to cut back on the number of air traffic controllers, which would, at a minimum, create delays for airline passengers, in addition to fears for safety that can create more public alarm.
Republicans in the House of Representatives have offered to pass legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick and choose what gets cut — anywhere in the trillions of dollars of federal spending — rather than being hemmed in by the arbitrary provisions of the sequester.
This would minimize the damage done by budget cuts concentrated in limited areas, such as the Defense Department. But it serves Obama’s interest to maximize the damage and the public alarm, which he can direct against Republicans.
President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.
The sequester creates more visible damage and more public alarm than if the president were given the authority to trim a little here and a little there in the vast trillions of dollars spent by the government, in order to make a relatively small “cut” that still leaves total federal spending higher than last year.
Only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth of spending called a “cut.” Moreover, costly boondoggles not covered by the sequester can continue and grow.
Obviously Obama wants public alarm, which he can use to help defeat the Republicans in the 2014 elections, so that Democrats can take back control of the House of Representatives.
When Obama was offered the authority to make the spending cuts wherever he chooses, anywhere in the government’s multi-trillion dollar budget, it was the only power that this power-grabbing president has rejected.
Why? Because with this new power would go responsibility for the consequences of his choices. And responsibility for consequences is precisely what both the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats have been avoiding for years, by refusing to pass a federal budget, as required by the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats prefer to get the political benefits from handing out goodies, while Republicans can be blamed for not subsequently raising enough taxes to pay for the Democrats’ spending spree.
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/05/budget-politics
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Peace in Our Times
- The (Real) Great Divide
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 3.5.13 @ 7:00AM
Dr. Sowell writes: " We could become the world’s largest banana republic."
I only quibble with the word "could" as opposed to using "have" to describe the Fecal Govt.
cicero| 3.5.13 @ 7:49AM
Pete, you got to my comment before I could get here.
The only way to remedy this is fo the Republicans in the House to propose very specific cuts, and name the programs, and the things they are spending the money on, to be cut. I have to believe that, if even the dullest of us knew what our heroes in Washington are spending our money on, we may agree to the cuts. Each Department in the government should have its more idiotic programs highlighted. It will be interesting to see who leaps to the defense of the most egregious. Perhaps it will start a snowball roll that will pick up whole departments, and leave them scattered at the bottom of the hill.
Mike G| 3.5.13 @ 8:49AM
They could take a list of Sen. Coburn's wasteful spending and put it into a bill. Then pass it and send it to the Senate for it's death sentence. It would contain all the talking points needed to take over the Senate. But doing something like that would take cajones that cannot be found in today's GOP elite.
Cat Shot| 3.5.13 @ 8:43AM
Purp & Co. - And you say....?
Albertus Magnus| 3.5.13 @ 10:48AM
Purp is a tiresome, dim-witted fool. Clearly he is a "seminar" poster, a person completely devoid of intelligent thought or cogent ideas. He just parrots obozo talking points. It is impossible to reason with him and therefore a waste of time to respond to him, or to solicit a post from him.
Von Mises Jr| 3.5.13 @ 8:46AM
Perhaps I am stubborn and refuse to give up on most Americans so easily. But Rush ended his show yesterday with what I have been convinced of for quite a long time: Events will affect our situation soon.
I suspect Rush posits that there may be major events such as financial collapse, terrorist attack, war or some other shock to the world or the United States. But while I suspect that all of these are possible, consequences for what has already taken place are unavoidable.
ObamaCare is implementing now and by 2014 many will lose their employer coverage, premiums for employers or newly uninsured will skyrocket, fines will be assessed in 2014 for smokers and perhaps fat-fatties, seniors and the poor will find it increasingly hard to find a doctor, and perhaps some of y our mothers or fathers will get a pill, and it won't be Viagra.
Dodd Frank and EPA have all but sent business into a coma. For those that own stocks, they may continue to rise as they buy back stock and have additional RIF. My gold or oil stocks may jump from turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa as Dear Leader continues to poke Islamist with a stick undermining their governments. But the people who lose their job or have to pay for gas to get to work will not fare well.
There are too many things about to go wrong that I don't think we can discount some events that will wake many people the hell up.
Mike G| 3.5.13 @ 8:55AM
I hope you're right. But any of those events you mention could occur too late to "wake many people the hell up" .
sickofit5| 3.5.13 @ 10:17AM
In a perfect world an honest media would be destroying this president for what he has been saying and doing for the last 4 years. There would be no second term. After four weeks of campaigning and lying about the impact of the sequester he should have already been disemboweled by MSM and the outcome of the 2014 midterms would be secured with wins in both houses by the Republicans. But alas, we do not have an honest media and it is not a perfect world. Rush has been saying he expects something to happen that will correct our course. I too, believe this but my concern is, no matter how catastrophic the event is, his adoring media will cover and he will most definitely blame the republicans and the LIV's (low information voters) will eat it up.
chriser| 3.5.13 @ 11:33AM
I also hope with all my heart that you are right. However, based on the history of the past few years, I fear there is also a good chance that events of this type could accelerate the growth of our "soft" tyranny (or maybe not so "soft"). For example, when the social security checks stop coming or the food stamps aren't there, will their recipients have any hesitation about the government seizing all 401K accounts? That $16T could keep the money flowing for a few more years. If there were major terrorist attacks or rioting in the streets, will the terrified masses really object to FBI, ATF, or homeland security busting down doors of citizens suspected of having caches of weapons or ammo? When you can't buy food in your local grocery store will hungry people object to the government seizing the supply of those of us who have prepared for such events? We may find out sooner than most people think!
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 12:18PM
“Financial collapse, terrorist attack, war or some other shock to the world or the United States…many will lose their employer [medical] coverage, premiums for employers or newly uninsured will skyrocket… the poor will find it increasingly hard to find a doctor…business into a coma…turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa as Dear Leader continues to poke Islamist with a stick undermining their governments…people who lose their job or have to pay for gas to get to work will not fare well.”
Dude, you’re describing the Bush Years!!!!
Drunken Sailor| 3.5.13 @ 12:37PM
Twit
Von Mises Jr| 3.5.13 @ 3:08PM
Something that rhymes with "Twit" was the first thing to pop into my mind.
John Navratil| 3.5.13 @ 6:18PM
Delores!
Kwan| 3.5.13 @ 9:26AM
Anyone who thinks that any of Obama's economic policies are actually designed to improve the economy probably have just chug-a-lugged several bottles of Night Train Express (a bum wine), or are currently in the advanced stages of dementia. Any legitimate economist will tell you that not one of Obama's economic policies can possibly achieve anything other than to regress the economy. In fact isn't about time to stop using the misleading label "Progressives" when referring to the Democrat Party, and more correctly identify them as the "Regressive Party".
SUBVET| 3.5.13 @ 10:40AM
I prefer.........commie bastar*s.
A. C. Santore| 3.5.13 @ 10:20AM
I've been posting this for several years, and some people are finally catching on: the proto-dictator is over-loading the system [with both insane spending, over-taxing everyone who works for a living, and making it impossible for capitalism to work) so that our economy fails and he can replace it with an anti-capitalistic system.
And now he's creating his "private army" with how many tanks, and how many bullets, rehearsing armed put-downs of what they cynically call "zombie" attacks [cover name for loyal Constitution-revering citizens who will try to restore our country].
Wake up, America!
Riff Raff| 3.5.13 @ 10:58AM
I have seen this in my hometown in California, which has filed for bankruptcy. The FIRST things cut from the City's budget were Police and Fire. Several Firehouses have been CLOSED, and a large percentage of Police officers laid off. If the taxpayers do not want to give more in taxes, the Politicians will make them PAY for it, and PAY for it good. I look for alternative candidates for City Council and Mayor, but most are just as bad as the incumbents. I wish all the leftists out there would take a cold, hard look at the ACTIONS and MOTIVES for those actions by the Politicians whom they worship most. But I fear that most voters don't know what is going on and only believe what they see on the NBC Nightly News.
A wise man once said, "The only way to look at a Politicians is DOWN!" Politicians, far from being the noblest among us, are by far the most corrupt, the most venal, and the most selfish and greedy people on Earth.
vtwin| 3.5.13 @ 12:02PM
Mr. Sowell, do you know the difference between the "Republicans in the House of Representatives hav[ing] offered to pass legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick and choose what gets cut" and Republicans in the House of Representatives having passed legislation giving President Obama the authority to pick and choose what gets cuts?
John Navratil| 3.5.13 @ 12:26PM
Do you know the difference between HAVING passed a budget and NOT CONSIDERING a budget?
Perhaps the symbolic and sisyphean effort to actually pass the proposed legislation in the face of a non-responsive Senate AND a threatened veto was the right thing to do. But you are picking on an irrelevancy. As is typical.
CJW| 3.5.13 @ 12:33PM
Gee vtwin Dr Sowell just is not as smart as you. Where do you teach economics, and how many books have you written?
Pecos Pete| 3.5.13 @ 12:48PM
CJ: Violet is so rich from his several degrees and work in high tech companies, or whatever, that he knows everything about everything, proof that he is smarter than Dr. Sowell ... in his own mind. Although, you do raise a good point about Violet's non-published books.
CJW| 3.5.13 @ 5:08PM
Senor Pete
purpie/arnie/vtwin, or as you say Violet, cannot even spell economics. Dr Sowell forgot more at age one month than Violet thinks he knows.
JD| 3.5.13 @ 12:32PM
The key to the advance of Leftism is the blaming of its consequences on the Right.
Take this example:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/.....efuses-cpr
There's no reason for a nursing home to have a policy of not performing CPR when necessary except concerns about liability. The Left has long advanced the use of litigation to attack people for being imperfect in perfectly legitimate ways, such that our health-care system in particular is burdened with the high cost of insurance. Remember, being flawless isn't enough - you can still be sued by a crazy person, and once sued, you can lose even if you should win, or you can win but still be bankrupted by court costs.
Leftists love to strengthen the "right" to sue for all manner of ridiculous reasons, and to create impossibly regulatory burdens for providers, the slightest violation of which creates grounds for bankrupting lawsuits.
As a result, this nursing home had a policy of not touching anyone who needed medical attention. They required residents to agree to it. They had to be very explicit about it to protect themselves from bankrupting lawsuits. It was their only financially viable choice thanks to the absurdity of Leftism.
And now Leftism's foolishness led to the death of this old woman. But does the Left take responsibility? Of course not!
JD| 3.5.13 @ 12:40PM
The Left instead smugly declares that nursing homes should still be offering a full array of medical services. They should simply also be complying with regulations perfectly, and when medical services are rendered, they must be performed perfectly so that patients always live. The Left promises that there will be no unjust lawsuits, and declares that the facility should have enough money on hand to defend itself in court. All of these expensive things should be done, and still residents should be charged little money.
How is it all to be paid for? Why, the CEO should sell one of his 17 yachts, of course!
While demanding less than nothing of the millions of recipients of social welfare, the Left demands impossible achievements of the productive class. In fact, it demands the impossible even when demanding the impossible isn't necessary to fund social welfare. It does this because it NEEDS US TO FAIL. It needs us to fail visibly so that we can be blamed for all problems. That is why there exist regulations which benefit no one at all, but exist simply in the hope that people won't follow them and can then be called out for it.
http://www.theagitator.com/201.....y-machine/
Leftism in practice, first and foremost, is about the assignment of blame.
Ronsch| 3.5.13 @ 12:41PM
I am curious as to what lies are driving the current trend up in the stock market...I foresee another bubble bursting hard and trashing the over-inflated, hyped up stock market and another "crash" will come....Of course NerObama, the Halfrican Kenyan Usurper will probably then claim only he can "save us"...
JD| 3.5.13 @ 1:44PM
If you understood the formula for calculating the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and how it is frequently "adjusted", you would not need to ask.
There is not a single economically significant area in which Leftists have not advanced a misleading indicator as the authoritative measure.
hrgfue | 3.5.13 @ 7:51PM
thank you for your New post on that site.which is the best blog for us.we are enjoy it and will show them to everyone.