If the 2010 election produced any conservative mandates, they are to create jobs and to rein in soaring spending and deficits. Republicans should begin implementing this agenda by extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and paring back a government that now spends a staggering $30,000 per household annually.
Despite liberal claims to the contrary, rising spending — not declining revenues — drives America’s long-term deficits. Once the economy recovers, revenues are projected to return to their historical average of 18 percent of the economy — even if all tax cuts are extended. Federal spending — rising from its historical average of 20 percent of the economy to a projected 26 percent by the end of the decade — is the moving variable.
Advertisement
Nearly all of this new spending will come from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt. Combined and adjusted for inflation, these annual expenditures will rise from $1.6 trillion to $3 trillion over this decade. Therefore, budget reform must include putting Social Security and Medicare on a fixed long-term budget with a capped growth rate.
Yet major entitlement reforms would be phased in slowly. In the meantime, Congress should enact government-wide spending caps that gradually return spending to 20 percent or less of GDP.
After a $727 billion spending increase since 2007, there is no shortage of programs to cut to meet that 20 percent target. The 112th Congress should target programs based on their economic impact, their cost, and the feasibility of reforming them. It should build credibility with the public by including cuts in the federal government’s spending on itself, unpopular earmarks, and even traditional conservative spending programs. Conservatives could begin with the following twelve projects:
One.Freeze and reform federal pay. Before Washington asks Americans to tighten their belts, it must tighten its own. While some federal employees are undercompensated, the average federal employee receives 30 to 40 percent more in total compensation than the equivalent private-sector worker; all this extra pay adds up to $47 billion. Lawmakers should freeze federal pay until it can be fundamentally reformed.
Similarly, Congress should cut its own budget and salaries to 2008 levels, pare back the surging federal travel budget (not every federal conference has to be in Maui), suspend acquisition of federal office space, competitively outsource more federal work, and require federal employees to fly coach domestically.
Two.Ban earmarks. These symbols of waste and corruption cannot be salvaged. Taxpayers will never accept Social Security and Medicare reforms if they believe the savings will go toward bridges to nowhere. Beyond costing $20 billion annually — a non-trivial sum, even if it’s just under 1 percent of the federal budget — earmarks encourage lawmakers to vote for budget-busting bills and divert their attention from higher priorities.
Republicans should not leave unelected Washington bureaucrats to distribute federal dollars to fund local projects in place of earmarks. Rather, grants can be distributed by formula to state and local governments, which are in a much better position than Washington, D.C., to decide where to put their streetlights.
Social Security and Medicare MUST be dealt with now. Either will put the US into bankruptcy. Why most are afraid to deal with both is criminal. Here's where to start:
Social Security: Return it to a retirement program only. Eliminate disability payments and payments to kids under 18. This is a retirement system, not a wellfare program. Eliminate the early retirement option that provides lower payments at 62. All should retire at the same age. Oh, and jack that up as well. 68 starting in 2011, 69 in 2014, and 70 in 2016.
Medicare: Why do all seniors get coverage just because they reach 65? Means testing is a must. However, my mother (89) pays over $4,000 a year for "free" Medicare (deduction from her SS check and AARP supplements). Why have Medicare at all if she has to pay for coverage anyway?
I don't understand why you want to tinker around at the edges with band-aids. Just cut out every single government department and agency that is not authorized by the written Constitution! Why is that so hard? The social security and medicare scams can be wound down over time so that the elderly who are currently living with these supports will not be harmed. These costs can be allocated to general revenues and should be available to only non-baby-boomers, meaning people over about 69 years old. Everyone else can just get a check for their money back plus interest. Where should the money come from? Same place that the trillions have come from to "save" the banks!
"While some federal employees are undercompensated, the average federal employee receives 30 to 40 percent more in total compensation than the equivalent private-sector worker ..."
When the economy was starting to teeter, I went from a professional position in the private sector to a government position. I did this for job security, taking a noticeable *cut* in pay. Everyone around me is also making less than comparable positions in the private sector. I know we're going to have to sacrifice; I know the government is in a mess. But still, when someone says that only "some" government workers are undercompensated, that just doesn't mesh with my real-life experience at all. I would really like to see some hard numbers on this if you have them available.
Why are farmers the new whipping boy? We subsidize Wheat, Soy, Corn, Cotton and Rice because society has determined that having more of them is a good thing, regardless of who makes them. If you believe that having more of these commodities is not a good thing, or that subsidies are not good economic policy, make that argument, don't pull out the stock populism and say that farmers are millionaires and make to much money.
Granted, like noted conservatives Michelle Obama and Michael Pollan, you did mention the alleged obesity epidemic "caused" by sugary drinks derived from corn and the like. But, is not demand for such products created by consumers tastes rather than government policy? Are you against free choice?
Furthermore, if we are going to end subsidies to save the environment as you suggest, don't you think the elimination of conservation programs will give farmers more reasons to plow up marginal, environmentally sensitive land rather than less?
I'm a farmer and I agree with you on the need for the elimination of farm subsidies. However, as a conservative I think you should consider your arguments more thoroughly and make recommendations based on sound fiscal policy rather than faux-environmentalism, class warfare and food police totalitarianism.
Medicare is not "Free" for most recipients - it is astonishing to see statements that assume it is. The commentator who has an 89 year old mother states she pays $4000. per year in medical costs - let me state she is lucky its that small and yes it comes out of her Social Security payments just as it does for everyone else
I want social security reformed, too.
And I want it privatized for those who choose to use it that way. It should be voluntary for taxpayers to opt in or out.
But I disagree with those who want it means tested or changed by age. The original act said all who earn would pay into it and get equal benefits. It is wrong to have the original act say one thing, force all wage earners to pay into it, and then change the rules even though you don't change the forced tax.
I would like to see the disability benefit and aid to children axed as well since they were also not part of the original bill, if it is politically feasible. Such things belong in welfare type programs.
Why don't we have ALL government communications/publication in ENGLISH ONLY.
We have to use twice as much ink, paper, man-hours, overhead, etc. just so we can have documents, such as IRS regs and voting registration, be available in spanish.
To boot, all that paper we'd be saving should keep the eco-thugs happy!
What about defense? We are spending $725B on defense compared to $325B in 2003. I read an article on Mitch Daniels and he didn't shy away from that. In fact he stated "I don't know why we couldn't get by with that amount now". That's $400B off the top.
I am a staunch conservative and I believe in defending the country, but the ultimate defence is a balanced budget and a strong economy.
Besides, you are never going to get the votes to cut other programs if we conservatives won't agree to defence cuts.
I generally agree with the sentiment of this post. Especially with several first points. However further down the list, it seems that the Author was driven more by some individual agenda than by the goal of reducing deficits.
For example the issue of public transportation such as high speed rail. It is a relatively small piece of the budget. At the same time it is one of these pieces which can have significant impact beyond transportation: independence of high speed rail from oil seems like something that a conservative should value, because it does translate into independence from middle east oil economies; the research done here can help in many other areas; helping develop the technology in the US means that in a few years private industry won't have to buy it from Germany, China, or Russia.
At the same time, as some of the commentators below noticed, the Author does forget about the "elephants". Mr. Hanson before me noted the DOD budget. Why would the US need so many independently funded branches of the military? Why can't there be one structure? Why does MC need a different truck than the Army?
Why does the US need separate structures of the FBI, DEA, and ATF? Do criminals really concern themselves with such divisions, and when they deal with drugs, then do not use illegal firearms?
Also, if we speak of having to make cuts in the US, why not to cut foreign aid?
One should not be afraid to question the government business on very fundamental levels.
Bob is right. And Civil Service personnel are already required to fly coach.
A better approach would be to freeze hiring outside of national security and law enforcement.
Then start consolidating agencies and programs. The Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Labor, and non-military Energy could be consolidated into one Department of Trade. Preferably one with a considerably reduced scope of action. Congress has no business regulating light bulbs.
As for programs, duplicative programs should be consolidated. For example, we feed poor children...with WIC, Food Stamps, AFDC, and School Lunches. No wonder the "poor" are overweight - they have four separate bureacracies cramming four lunches down their throats. Three lunches would suffice...and one bureaucracy to feed them.
Finally, "poor" needs to be defined honestly. Right now, "poor" is the lowest 20% of incomes - regardless of what that income buys. Poverty should be defined objectively - a number of calories of food, square feet of living space, and articles of clothing. Without that objective definition, "poverty" becomes a slippery term that can be twisted for political or bureaucratic gain.
