The Corner

These Spending-Cut Proposals Are Meaningful

The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 appears at first glance to be a meaningful step in the right direction. It’s important not to get too carried away with big numbers, though: $2.5 trillion is a lot of money, but spread out over ten years it averages $250 billion. In FY 2008, the feds spent $3 trillion, so the cuts represent less than 10 percent of total spending before the fiscal debacle over the past two years.

Still, the proposed reductions in future spending are meaningful. Most of the “savings” get us back to the FY 2008 levels, and most of this will come from imposing macro limits on future spending by eliminating automatic increases in appropriations due to inflation, resetting the budget baselines to FY 2008 levels, and reducing the federal payroll by not filling vacancies created by attrition. These aren’t trivial changes. Without establishing FY 2008 as baseline, the effective political baseline will be FY 2010, which would accept and embed the much bigger government established during the recession.

The plan also claims to cut or eliminate 100 other programs. Alas, many of these programs have been on the chopping block since the Reagan administration — Legal Services Corporation, USAID, Amtrak subsidies, Davis-Bacon repeal — and have survived.

Nevertheless, even if this plan does little more than establish a baseline for fiscal restraint leading up to the next presidential election, it will serve a valuable purpose. This is a menu of waste and a set of budgetary benchmarks and milestones that can be used to score Democrats and Republicans.

I worked with Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Republican Study Committee, when he was in the Ohio Senate, and he was one of the few elected officials willing to spend political capital on political principle. One always worries if the political process inevitably corrupts the best among us. This plan appears to signal that he is serious about creating a better political environment for conservative fiscal principles. Let’s hope he and his colleagues can stay the course and gather momentum for real change.

— Samuel R. Staley is Robert W. Galvin Fellow and Director of Urban & Land Use Policy at the Reason Foundation.

Most Popular


Holy Week with Saint Paul

Just the other day, I ordered a replacement copy of The Passion of the Christ -- it can be so impactful for Holy Week meditation. In the years since its release, it’s become something of required Lenten viewing for me. But this year, there is a new movie to help with prayer, Paul, Apostle of Christ, released ... Read More
White House

Bill Clinton Redux

Stormy Daniels could have stepped right out of the 1990s. She would have been a natural in a Bill Clinton scandal, and, in fact, all the same means would have been used against her. Donald Trump’s tactics in these cases are almost indistinguishable from the Clintons’. The effort to shut down the ... Read More
Politics & Policy

California’s Pro-Nuclear Renegade

If California’s upcoming gubernatorial race gets decided solely by money, Michael Shellenberger doesn’t have a chance. The latest campaign filings show that Shellenberger, an environmentalist from Berkeley, has about $37,000 in cash on hand. The frontrunner in the June 5 California primary, Lieutenant ... Read More

Encouraging Signs in Iraq

Last year, relations between the Iraqi central government and the Kurds reached what was possibly an all-time low when the Kurds held an independence referendum in which 93 percent of voters opted to secede. The timing was no coincidence: Iraqi forces had retreated from Kurdish territory in 2014 as the Islamic ... Read More
Film & TV

Superannuated ‘Idol’

In the pilot episode of Fox’s American Idol, Simon Cowell defined the show’s thesis: “We are going to tell people who cannot sing and have no talent that they have no talent. And that never makes you popular.” The show’s producers and its three judges -- Cowell, Paula Abdul, and Randy Jackson -- kept ... Read More