Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
My former Department of Labor colleagues Jim Carter and Pat Pizzella have a piece in the Washington Examiner on “How to cut the budget, for real.” In it, they compare the very real budget cuts at Department of Labor under Bush and his Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao, with the Obama administration, under which “DOL's discretionary budget authority ballooned 50 percent in a single year!”
According to Pizzella and Carter, DOL under Bush and Chao achieved their savings by cutting management costs, reducing the number of employees, vehicles, and toll free numbers, and curtailing the department’s regulatory agenda by 46%. They calculate that “Reducing DOL's fiscal 2012 discretionary budget authority to its fiscal 2008 level and freezing it at that level for five years would, relative to the administration's latest budget, save taxpayers more than $4 billion.” More importantly, they note, “Applying the same restriction across the federal government (excluding the Department of Defense) would save $58 billion next year alone.” Seems like a good place for the Super Committee to start.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
May '11
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
How much would be saved if the DOL were cut altogether?
Sep '10
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
I have often considered this approach of just setting targets by cabinet department and holding top management responsible for meeting them. This could be done relatively easily in the private sector, but I have wondered if the problem in the public sector is that you can't really hold anyone responsible. And what I mean by that is can the executive branch fire bureaucrats for not meeting their goals? Are the functions carried out by the various cabinet departments specifically authorized (read required) by congress in such a way as to give the bureaucrats cover that allows them to say their hands are tied with respect to cutting back?
I realize the bureaucrats could get around any of this if the they saw it in their interest to cut spending, but my sense is that they will never see it that way, and will have to be under threat of losing their government job to do so.
Edited on Sep 2, 2011 at 8:07amJun '10
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
Half measures. Government is like kudzu; pruning it only makes it come back stronger. Entire departments need to be eliminated. There is nothing the government can do that the private sector can't do more efficiently. And don't give me the economies of scale argument. Economy is lost when bureaucracy becomes perpetual.
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
Paules and Pilli have a point, but in the realm of realistic possibilities, the Pizzella-Carter approach is not only do-able, it has been done, at least at one department.
Ross Conatser's thoughtful post reminds us that government will need to take some important lessons from the private sector about belt-tightening, but that those lessons have yet to take hold.
Sep '10
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
Maybe this already answers my question, but I have always assumed that the "regulatory agenda" is mandated and funding authorized by congress. The article makes it sound like the cabinet department has leeway to just stop doing some of what it used to do (with the direction of the executive branch alone). I would assume congress could block the president by mandating via legislation things the president wants undone, however, I am pleased to see this is a viable option.
One of Milton Friedman's recommendations was to reduce the FDA's scope to verifying the "safety" of drugs rather than the current "safety and effectiveness" of drugs. I think that this sort of re-orientation of the cabinet departments' mandates would be a huge benefit to setting priorities which can help reduce spending.
Perhaps in 2013
Edited on Sep 2, 2011 at 12:30pmJun '11
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
Implementing this program across the entire government (excluding defense)would reduce the annual deficit by 4%. So, first of all it's not enough. Second, as pointed out by ~Paules, it merely resets the baseline for future spending growth. Even if this method would eliminate the deficit, the effects would not last. It's not enough to reduce the size of government; we must reduce the scope of government if we want to put a lid on spending in a lasting way.
I've come to believe that Milton Friedman had the right idea. We need to get rid of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. We should keep only the departments of Defense, Public Health, Justice, State and the Treasury.
That would plow under whole acres of ~Paules' kudzu.
Sep '10
Re: Super Committee Take Note: An Example of Real Budget Cutting
One-Eyed Jack:
I've come to believe that Milton Friedman had the right idea. We need to get rid of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. We should keep only the departments of Defense, Public Health, Justice, State and the Treasury.
This is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. One of the Dem's big themes is to label Republicans as "extreme". Of course we see through it, but it has resonance with the middle ground of voters who do not see much below what is blasted at them by the MSM on TV. Conservatism at its heart is about gradual and incremental changes to fix problems. Dr. Friedman points the way correctly, but his solution is a "radical" one not a conservative one.
I am often frustrated at our refusal to turn our ship of state away from the iceberg. It is not enough to slow down, we must change course as you recommend. We must also, however, win the election for captain, which we will do unless we overreach and scare off the independent voters