-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The conservative National Taxpayers Union and the liberal Public Interest Research Group have co-published a report (pdf) outlining a program of spending cuts that would reduce the debt by $600 billion before the 2015 date specified by the deficit commission as the target to lower the debt to a sustainable 60 percent of GDP.
The groups list 30 specific programs to be cut, as well as the amount of money each program is projected to cost according to official government sources. The aggregate $600 billion those programs total represents spending that both liberals and conservatives should recognize as useless or even harmful (with the exception of serious defense spending reductions that many hawks would object to). The authors write, “we strongly believe this list represents a consensus that can be reached between political factions that spend a great deal of their time fighting one another. In our estimation, these recommendations reduce spending without significantly degrading the level of services provided to the American taxpayer and without neglecting the federal government’s commitments.”
Unfortunately, the exercise illustrates better than anything else the difficulty of finding “common ground” solutions to the deficit problem. Over one-half of the cuts are cuts to defense spending. Even if all these cuts are justified and would do nothing to lessen the military preparedness of the country, they would still be politically unobtainable. For example, about a quarter of the report’s projected savings come from ending wasteful spending on “obsolete spare parts and supplies” for the armed forces and cancelling the F-35 and F-22 fighters jets. Yet all of those spare parts and supplies and fighters are protected by the iron triangle of defense spending. No one cares as much about shutting down the factory that produces spare parts as much as the people in the factory’s district care about keeping it open. The same goes for the $60 billion or so in subsidies to ethanol and subsidies to agribusiness. Other than ethanol producers like Archers Daniels Midlands and the Midwestern voters (and lobbyists) they employ, no one, left or right, favors ethanol subsidies. Yet they are renewed every time the vote comes up.
The NTU/PIRG is a great demonstration of just how much fat there is in the budget, and politicians, especially Republicans who have trouble naming specific spending cuts, should use it. Unfortunately, despite the bipartisan appeal of the report’s measures, many, if not most, of the cuts are likely politically unattainable. A Republican-only deficit reduction program, such as the Roadmap, might even be more feasible before 2015, despite Democrats’ guaranteed opposition.
View all comments (5) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/28/on-spending-common-ground-is-n
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Nuts to Nutter
- The Demise of Money and Credit
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
luvntheBIGsites| 10.28.10 @ 6:35PM
Every time I read "politically unattainable" I think of how both parties laughed at the tea party when it first hit the scene. The Fair Tax is also considered politically unattainable, ( the best solution to the whole economic mess IMHO) How may supporters in congress for that now? 66-70 or so... how many will we have on the 3rd?
Siegfried X| 10.28.10 @ 7:05PM
I agree about "unattainable". The reality is that the Tea Party is a conservative rebellion, not a libertarian one. Libertarianism is, and always will get just 1% of the vote.
In reality the best we can hope for is a conservative solution of no new entitlements, plus a freeze or slow rate of government growth. That is very different from Bush & Obama creating new entitlements, and Obama increasing spending by over 10% annually. What we could hope for is a return to the first President Bush and his "flexible freeze".
And obviously there is no chance of deficit reduction with Obama in the White House. His sole focus will be trying to get Republicans to swallow a poison pill like tax increases in exchange for a few spending cuts.
Phineas| 10.28.10 @ 11:35PM
How cowardly to put down this thoughtful plan, by sighing that the powerful industrial lobbies won't accept it.
I encourage readers to check out the PDF.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.29.10 @ 1:54AM
"Unfortunately, the exercise illustrates better than anything else the difficulty of finding "common ground" solutions to the deficit problem. Over one-half of the cuts are cuts to defense spending. Even if all these cuts are justified and would do nothing to lessen the military preparedness of the country"
But they WOULD weaken the military severely, and NONE of the defense cuts proposed by these 2 liberal groups are justified. NONE.
Why would they weaken the US military severely? Because they are designed to do so. American liberals WANT to weaken the US military.
The author of this ridiculous post cited 2 examples: "For example, about a quarter of the report's projected savings come from ending wasteful spending on "obsolete spare parts and supplies" for the armed forces and cancelling the F-35 and F-22 fighters jets."
Such cuts would significantly weaken the US military by depriving it of crucial spare parts (wrongly called obsolete) and by cancelling the orders for all 2445 F-35 jets and all remaining F-22 fighterplanes. This would mean that, for a short time, the USAF, the USN and the USMC would be forced to fly obsolete jets, and afterwards their aircraft fleets would be severely reduced because of a lack of jets to replace the old ones. Not to mention that America's 8 allies who participate in the JSF program would not see their aircraft and would be alienated this way.
The JSF program and the F-22 fighterplanes are absolutely necessary to maintain the aircraft fleet of the US military and to ensure that it will be able to achieve air superiority. That these 2 treasonous liberal organizations have proposed to close them is exemplary evidence that their proposed defense spending cuts are deliberately designed to weaken the US military.
The defense budget ($534 bn) is so small (14.87% of the total federal budget, 3.65% of GDP) that even abolishing the DOD altogether would not even HALVE the annual budget deficit ($1.29 trillion). The ONLY way to balance the budget is to tackle its REAL cause - bloated domestic spending.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.29.10 @ 2:06AM
I've finished reading this BS report. Did you guys know where the authors got their "information" on what defense programs to close from?
The misnamed "Sustainable Defense Task Force", of course! The SDTF is an extremely liberal panel convened by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Ron Wyden (both of whom are strident liberals) comprised of reps of Soros-funded liberal and libertarian activist groups such as the CAP. This panel has proposed cutting defense spending over 10 years by $1 TRILLION, closing dozens of crucial weapon programs, and cutting weapon stocks severely.