President Obama’s 2012 budget, officially released less than an hour ago, cuts the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Wow, great news, right? No, because Obama also increases the deficit by $1.7 trillion next year alone and sets spending-to-GDP ratio records like it’s his job.
And speaking of pitiful attempts to use superficially appealing numbers to mask a nightmare fiscal reality, a confederacy of conservatives and tea-infused freshman GOPers last week completed an intra-party coup on spending as swift as it was decisive, getting the House leadership to agree to $100 billion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts in the current fiscal year (the number for Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Committee was initially $58 billion). Good on them; $100 billion is a nice chunk of change. But in truth the victory here won was against ambiguity — the figure saves members from having to explain to their constituencies how the Ryan number “technically” cleaved to the ‘Pledge to America’ due to changing baselines etc. etc. etc.
But the size, and most critically the scope, of the Republican cuts make them a drop in the bucket. Consider that total spending in FY2010 was about $3.5 trillion, including an annualized deficit of $1.4 trillion. Of that, total non-defense discretionary spending — the focus of Republican cuts — was $660 billion. In other words, the tea partiers could have turned the House side of the Capitol into Tahrir Square and gotten leadership to zero out non-defense discretionary spending, and it wouldn’t have amounted to half of our current-year deficit. The New York Times has a neat (that is to say, horrifically depressing) visualization of this. Go here and click “hide mandatory spending.”
Hooray!
Now, you’re National Review readers, so I know you know that the name of the game is entitlement reform, and the rules are simple: save the entitlements, save the world. Ignore them, and we’re Greece with better plumbing. But the president’s jokey budget does the latter, and the Republican response has been, if possible, even more disheartening.
Credit where it’s due: Reps. Flake (Ariz.) and Lummis (Wyo.) — both of whom cast dissenting votes in the House Appropriations Committee on a continuing resolution that used Rep. Paul Ryan’s original $58 billion number — endorse his “Roadmap,” the only credible, fiscally conservative congressional plan for saving the entitlements out there. And a spokesperson for Rep. Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), whom we quoted as a warrior for the bigger, $100 billion number, tells me she’s endorsed the Roadmap in the past and would do it again if it maintains its current form.
But others, including some of the selfsame tea-party heroes who raised hell over what amounts to one percent of the budget, are hemming and hawing on the Roadmap and entitlement reform in general — non-committal at best and cowardly at worst.
Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.) calls Ryan’s plan “a good start” but “not perfect,” and calls for Republicans to be “flexible.” Rep. Kristi Noem (R., N.D.), already the recipient of favorable Sarah Palin comparisons, says she likes portions of the Roadmap but hasn’t “explored too far.” That dog-ate-my-homework theme repeats itself among a number of freshman, and maybe it’s even true, but then are there members like Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), an RSC guy now entering his eighth term, who says he is “still studying” the Roadmap and is “not ready to announce a position” just yet. Well, maybe by his tenth term.
Then there is the case of Rep. Steve Womack (R., Ark.), who said of the role of GOP freshman in the $100 billion fight, no doubt with a measure of pride, that “we may be rookies in this game. . . [b]ut there is no question that the leadership respects our opinion.” Sure, Womack went on, “there’s an argument” that Ryan’s original $58 billion CR did in fact keep the promise of the Pledge, but it is overridden “by a demand for cuts . . . articulated in such a way that the American people can understand.” But while Congressman Womack is worried about clear diction and word choice when it comes to non-defense discretionary spending, he’s much more content to let vagueness and ambiguity stand when the subject is the long-term drivers of structural budget deficits. Thus a spokesperson tells me, “Congressman Womack believes Rep. Ryan’s ‘Roadmap’ makes sense, and he’s courageous for coming forward with a plan that addresses our fiscal situation.” But, “Having said that, Rep. Womack believes we need to listen to the American people and continue the discussion in determining the best way to move forward.”
Not exactly the speech on St. Crispin’s Day.
The bottom line is this. If the Republicans can do the $100 billion cuts and make meaningful statement on entitlements in their own 2012 budget, I’ll eat my hat. I think doing the discretionary cuts, which every two-bit Democratic alderman is already calling “draconian,” is 90 percent as hard as dealing with entitlements, and 10 percent as substantive. In short, spending political capital on this fight could be a colossal folly that drains the House GOP of the will, and the way, to bring this country back from the fiscal brink. That so many “tea partiers” and “conservatives” are willing to blithely do it suggests they don’t understand the politics, or that they are just as contented with cosmetic victories as the old guard they seek to replace.
Name a way to abandon conservative voters and some "conservative" Republican can be found doing it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere, Here! Exactly right.
Oh, and "...continue the discussion in determining the best way to move forward” is classic cr*pweasel. It's in every politician's and bureaucrat's playbook for how to kick the can.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSurprise, surprise, surprise. Young idealists elected on the strength of empty rhetoric are rapidly assimilated by the System. Resistance is futile.
They are all CongressVermin now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" Ignore them, and we’re Greece with better plumbing."
Okay I hate to be Johnny one note but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Greece's problems stem from the fact that it does not have a sovereign currency. Greece gave up it's sovereign currency for the Euro.
The United States is not in that position. We still have a sovereign currency and as a result there is zero, zilch, no possibility of the United States going bankrupt. To pay off it's debts all it has to do is debit the debtors t-Bill account and credit their cash account. That is all. I t doesn't have to tax anyone. It doesn't have to sell anything. It doesn't have to lay people off in the middle of a recession.
The question you need to ask is who benefits from scaring the American people with this going broke malarkey.
As I have said before, at least a hundred times, United States Government Bankruptcy is conservatives version of Global warming. In order to really understand what's happening you have to discover who benefits from these scare tactics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne small sample of entitlements versus discretionary spending: Republicans are talking about how to cut $100 billion, but it's a long way from actually happening. Meanwhile making the entitlement problem worse by roughly the same amount sailed through in bipartisan fashion (the 2% payroll tax cut).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to spending is that during Democratic administrations Republicans make a big deal about deficits and out of control government spending blah blah blah but don't really do anything about it. During Republican administrations Republicans neither make a big deal about deficits (Cheney: "deficits don't matter") nor do they do anything about it...
Who is really surprised here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf flooding the market with worthless currency and runaway inflation is the solution to the debt crisis then to borrow a quote,"we are all doomed". That strategy didn't work out too well for the Germans in the 20's .........
I don't think we are doomed just yet. I am not ready to give up on the new congress because they made the "mistake" of cutting too much in 2011.
There is at least the possibility that this strategy will enhance their reputation for being serious and increase their chances for doing the hard part - the heavy lifting on entitlement reform.
Let's wait for the 2012 budget first and then see how they vote?
Watch what they do (when it actually matters), not what they say months ahead of time, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I think doing the discretionary cuts... is 90 percent as hard as dealing with entitlements, and 10 percent as substantive."
This is quite wrong. There are large numbers of self-described Republicans, tea-partiers, conservatives, 'Reagan Democrats', etc, who have a bizarre mix of anti-government but pro-entitlement beliefs. The classic "keep your hands off my medicare" sign (I forget the exact wording) is backed up by any number of polls. There's a goodly amount of discretionary spending that has either majority, plurality, or too-close-to-call support when it comes to cuts. The same cannot be said about entitlements.
The GOP needs to make the case and convince the people in regards to entitlements. Entitlement reform (other than Obamacare) was NOT a significant part of the 2010 GOP platform, and trying to ram it through now would have huge costs. Look what happened to Bush in 2005: he suddenly focused on SoSec after re-election when it wasn't a significant part of the campaign, and he was punished for it.
Entitlements are more important than this $100 billion, yes. It's also much harder and we have much more work to do for it to become politically feasible. Otherwise we'll run into the same end result the Dems did with Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat was it that Mark Twain said about criminals and congress?
Do we REALLY want criminals running our country and "directing" our lives?
I don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans go to congress to make deals with democrats. Democrats make deals with their constituents to go to congress. Did any of this change in the 2010 elections? A little, here and there maybe, but over all: no. In any event, the democrats like where this is heading. They really, really, like it. They are confident that any economic crisis/catastrophe will be blamed on the Republicans/Capitalism and the pet groups of the democrat party (who cannot ever be criticized to any degree) will stand by them. The dems will cash in, up to and including the one-party omega state. Just like China! Hooray.
Will there be a people's revolt at some point? Possibly, but Obama and/or his successors (Herr Holder?) will simply smear them as racists and mow them down with impunity. End of revolt.
Sorry for being so overwrought, but we have come far and the danger is severe. "Moderate Obama," "in the tradition of the European welfare statists," is a whole different beast from what this country has had to endure in the past. People who have read Radical-in-Chief know this, but since so few have, the warnings will be ignored. History is not reassuring.
It is not so much a financial disaster we are facing. The deficit business is simply the symptom, the high temperature of the underlying fever. It is the underlying sickness that is the danger. It used to be that conservatives studied history to understand those dangers. That they believed stuff like the only safety of free men is to believe all possible evil of evil men. Maybe it's time to prepare for that "shovel-ready" job, if you know what I mean.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost people are under the impression that cuts in spending, and taxes in the 1920's happened overnight. They DID NOT. It took years, and a concerted effort to make it happen. The 100 billion is not nearly enough, but it is a start.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure Ryan would argue with the characterization of his roadmap as "a good start" but "not perfect". He doesn't talk about his roadmap as though it's the only way, he talks about it as an initial proposal from which to start discussing long-term deficit reduction in a serious manner. If West offered a serious counter-proposal -- comparable to Ryan's in level of government spending, but reallocating it among accounts -- I think Paul Ryan would be quite happy to see the discussion moving forward.
I believe I have read that Noem described the deficit as the biggest problem facing America, so I hope she figures out a position on the roadmap (or some kind of proposal) reasonably soon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're right @GoyoMarquez, as well you'll be paying $500 for a gallon of gas when they fire that up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother reason why I am voting for Sarah Palin in 2012, if she runs, is that she supports Paul Ryan's Roadmap.
I grew up 30 miles from Ryan's hometown. Must be something in the milk in S. Wisc., but I think he is spot on with his Roadmap plan to modernize our social insurance programs...the sooner the better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"a bizarre mix of anti-government but pro-entitlement beliefs. The classic "keep your hands off my medicare"...
This is accurate, but it stems from bottomless ignorance on the part of the public on what the government actually spends money on, how much, on what, etc.
The first point that needs to be established is that there is no such thing as "mandatory" spending. Congress is sovereign and in charge of the power of the purse. It can spend or refrain from spending on whatever the heck it likes. The institutional red tape and Orwellian big lies the left has wrapped the whole subject in for generations needs to be smashed with a wrecking ball, right at the outset.
The only expense in the Federal budget that should be off limits is debt service, because without the public credit the government can't do anything, full stop.
The principle the right needs to establish on so-called "entitlements", which we need to snear and laugh out of existence as term incidentally, is that no one is "entitled" to anything they didn't pay for.
Social security can't spend one dime it doesn't collect. Medicare can't spend on dime it doesn't collect. If voters want public benefits amounting to 20% of their income then they get to pay 20% of their income in payroll contributions. If they want 10 they can pay 10 and if they want 30 they can go to a warm place because they ain't paying 30 and they know it.
There is nobody else to shift the cost off onto, just us. There is no future grab bag of wealth tomorrow to borrow from either - tomorrow is here and its all gone.
The folly of the present tiny fight is precisely that it perpetuates the illusion that trimming irrelevancies can somehow let the people receive 25% of the national income in give aways while paying only 15% of their income in taxes. They can't, full stop, game over.
Would somebody here please start teaching basic arithmetic to the American people?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish we could get some political advice on dealing with the entitlement problem without the ridiculous fratricide. How about if you geniuses at NR turn your fire around and point at the enemy (Democrats)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHold on guys. Let's think this thing through a bit more, before we start turning into the Democrat peanut gallery and chastising the Tea Party Reps. The American people during the 00's elected in an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and executive branch. Wisely, in the last election, they pruned away some of the Dems, but still quite a few remain, with a majority in the Senate, and the Vetoer in Chief remains. The Tea party is trying to reduce the deficit, but it has to work within the confines of the current state of the government. The Dems are already screaming about $100 billion in cuts being 'draconian', and it will have a hard time getting through. How likely is it that they would allow through $1 trillion in cuts? The Dems arguably still hold the major reins of power here. Look at it this way instead- would you rather have $100 billion in cuts, or no cuts at all?
Furthermore, these entitlements have been ratcheted up over decades (granted the rate of increase has itself increased in recent years). You know as well as I do that if Congress passed major sweeping cuts to entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various welfare programs, that a sea of gray haired voters and/or other activists would begin raising Cain, and the Tea Party would be blamed and booted out, allowing the O-man and crew to have free rein to start handing out more entitlements like Santa again, pretending there will be no future consequences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would like government spending to be drastically reduced as much as anyone else here, but it will have to be ratched down over a lengthy period of time if it ever is going to happen realistically (or else, we will have to face major civil unrest).
JasonC: "This is accurate, but it stems from bottomless ignorance on the part of the public on what the government actually spends money on, how much, on what, etc."
Yes, exactly, and pols take advantage of this to shield their spendthrift ways. It's going to take a lot of energy to correct that ignorance. If we don't correct that ignorance and instead skip from the first step (discretionary spending cuts) to the last (entitlement reform), the public will almost certainly put the Dems back in power next year and we won't have a chance of making progress until 2017!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Editor,
"President Obama’s 2012 budget, officially released less than an hour ago, cuts the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Wow, great news, right? No, because Obama also increases the deficit by $1.7 trillion next year alone.."
Can you please remind your staff of the difference between a deficit and a debt?
Regards,
Your loyal reader.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile most of us would agree (from my reading of the comments) that the spending needs to be cut, none of us agree on either the specifics or the magnitude. What the R's need to do is unify on those two things. The specifics should target those odious government items (like paying people to volunteer) with large cuts or elimination, and then making moderate demands of most other items. The tricky part is that the R's and D's will be negotiating, and the scope and magnitude need to show a seriousness, yet not be so far out that they are not taken as a serious first offer. Once we get to that point, then we righties need to be grown-ups and accept the results of the House-Senate-WH negotiation.
I realize that this sounds a bit like Monty Python's "How to cure the world of all known diseases" sketch. So my general rule of thumb is to ask for 3 times what I want, and settle for what I can get. In the mean time, before we get to negotiations, there needs to be a plan. In addition, the R's (and we) need to shape the battlefield. My perception right now is that there is no general making the calls, and coordinating a defined strategy-at least on the R side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse