What's on (or off) the table?
I expect that many Ricochet members are following Jim DeMint's efforts behind a moratorium on "earmarks", Congress's favorite way to funnel Federal dollars into their districts. He's fighting an uphill battle but has the Tea Party behind him. It's coming down to the wire...
On a related note, in this article in the WSJ, Gerald Seib notes how The chairmen of the deficit-reduction commission have grabbed the headlines and set the agenda for the debates to come. What struck me especially was this statement:
"By offering even more deficit reduction than necessary to achieve the commission's target, they sent a message: See, it isn't THAT hard to come up with a plan, especially if you're willing to go after popular as well as unpopular programs."
Rather than discuss the specific details of any deficit reduction scheme (we will be doing that for many years, alas) I'm struck by how the commission chairmen have pointedly raised proposals that have traditionally been considered "off limits". The programs favored (and well protected) by both the left and the right have been placed on the table.
So...is it time to start the country thinking about the unthinkable? Do we need to start preparing the nation for changes in Social Security (and other entitlements), cuts in corporate tax rates, belt-tightening at Defense and an end to a myriad of other subsidies and pork-barrel programs? Are Victor Davis Hanson's farmer neighbors going to fight for their subsidies? (as referenced in this week's podcast) or are all of us, liberal and conservative going to bring our pet programs forward for sacrifice?
Or are there elements of Federal spending that cannot be touched? And, since we're addressing the need to spread the pain around, what, dare I say it, about revenues?
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
I think it is time. We need to think hard about cuts to medicare and social security. Rand Paul, speaking on This Week last Sunday, also said that he wouldn't rule out cuts to the Defense department. He also mentioned cutting the incomes of federal workers and cutting the number of federal employees by 10%.
Jul '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
I don't think any spending cuts will be made, unfortunately.
That said, I don't think any spending program, entitlement or otherwise, should be off the table in terms of the discussion.
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Michael Tee: I don't think any spending cuts will be made, unfortunately.
That said, I don't think any spending program, entitlement or otherwise, should be off the table in terms of the discussion. · Nov 11 at 1:06pm
When it comes to politicians getting constructive things done, I'm an eternal pessimist. Sure there'll be some spending cuts, but they'll be token cuts (e.g. cutting the paperclip & stationery budgets of various departments).
And we haven't quite reached the point where everyone's on the same page about how dire a situation this is, as evidenced by the midterm results in California and New York. Unless everyone has some idea about the peril we're headed for, there's no way entitlements would be slashed.
But if it were all up to me, nothing would be off the table.
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
10% cut in Federal employees? Why are the Republicans ignoring the facts. That the number of federal employees went up ten fold since 2005? What are these people doing and do they really need to be doing it? If there's going to be belt tightening, how about looking first within the beltway?
May '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Revenues should be taken care of by growing the pie, not by increasing the size of slice that goes to the Treasury. We've had decades of empirical evidence about which side of the Laffer curve our marginal rates are situated, and it's not on the side of increasing rates.
Feb '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Time for the Washington, D.C. area to experience some of the "rightsizing" the rest of the country has been experiencing. I hear it's actually been boomtown down in D.C., relatively speaking-- and that is just perverse.
However, Denise, can you cite a source for the statistic that federal employees went up 10x since 2005? I have a hard time believing that-- though if it is true, that is a real problem.
Jun '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Dan Mitchell at Cato puts it pretty succinctly here:
"If you read through their report, it sounds like there are lots of spending cuts. But they never explain that these supposed cuts are really just reductions in previously-planned increases... [T]he Fiscal Commission is asking us to pay higher taxes so that government spending can grow at twice the rate of inflation. That's not a good deal."
I think Mr. Mitchell touches on something very important in his piece. Washington terminology (along with a lot of other things) has gotten out of control. It's not a cut to spend less than you intended if you still spend more than last year, tax cuts can only by paid for by less spending, and it's not "extending tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires" if those "cuts" are marginal rate reductions extant from 7-9 years ago.
Denise makes the perfect point, that the first place to look for savings is inside the beltway. We have got to address spending before absolutely anything else, and what's within arms reach of our representatives is the best place to start.
Edited on November 11, 2010 at 11:30pmMay '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
I didn't declare myself in the original post, but I am with Emily that we need to bring everything to the table and speak openly and without alarm about some scary realities. If only to assert that there will be "no more business as usual".
Even conservatives have been too ready to fight for cuts in the other guy's district, while fighting to preserve and expand their own. You cannot convincingly argue that the nation must be weaned from the federal teat when you are suckling there yourself.
I hope that the Tea Party sticks to their promise to "hold their feet to the fire". Time to get that effort organized, perhaps.
May '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
I think before we start hacking away at federal jobs and salaries, we should first find a way to defund the portion of Obamacare that authorizes HHS to create a National Health Service, creating thousands more federal jobs. By the way, federal salaries are decreasing. We certainly won't see the kind of pay raises this year that we saw under Bush. We could draw down the federal workforce more gradually by just letting Boomers retire and not filling their positions. There will be a dramatic drop in the workforce anyway in the next few years, so I don't see why so many want to cut them. I guess federal employees are easy scapegoats. One thing we shouldn't do is furlough fed employees, because it won't end up saving any money and just antagonize the employee unions. You might gain some short-term political points, but it will just be more waste long-term. Automation is another way to efficiently reduce the fed workforce. Also, let us consider how the federal gov't expanded in the recent years, specifically with intelligence agencies. Don't you want the best and brightest protecting our country?
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
G.A. Dean: I didn't declare myself in the original post, but I am with Emily that we need to bring everything to the table and speak openly and without alarm about some scary realities. If only to assert that there will be "no more business as usual".
Even conservatives have been too ready to fight for cuts in the other guy's district, while fighting to preserve and expand their own. You cannot convincingly argue that the nation must be weaned from the federal teat when you are suckling there yourself.
I hope that the Tea Party sticks to their promise to "hold their feet to the fire". Time to get that effort organized, perhaps. · Nov 11 at 2:33pm
Hear, hear. Because the alternative to "everything's on the table" is the slow decline of the American economic engine.
Oct '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Steve Manacek's post from yesterday http://ricochet.com/conversations/What-Am-I-Missing pointed out the the benchmark for government spending used by the commission was around 20% of GDP. That is not reducing the size of government, that is indexing the size of government to economic growth. I would like to work toward a fixed target for federal spending so that when the economic pie does grow, the spending to GDP ratio falls. That would, in at least a relative sense, result in shrinking government.
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
I harbor one grave fear. In times of economic trouble, liberal democracies tend to engage in wishful thinking with regard to national defense; and while their adversaries build up their capacities, they cut. That is what happened after 1929, and I fear that it may happen again.
Jul '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
While I agree with you in principle, Prof. Rahe, it is nonetheless true that defense procurement is in a heck of a mess, to put it mildly. Daniel Hannan, lately interviewed by Peter Robinson, had a post on the Daily Telegraph website in which he wonders why British defense procurement is so bad. Quoting a British newsreader, he observes that Israel spends $14.5 billion a year, and only 400 people administer these funds; Britain requires 23,700 bureaucrats to administer a budget of $16.1 billion.
Edited on November 12, 2010 at 12:59amJul '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
What, then, of the US defense budget? What is the procurement bureaucrat to procurement dollar ratio? Why do weapons systems always come in over time and over budget? Why are there so many more flag officers than required by the size of the ranks beneath them? Could this mean we should lessen the intake of commissioned officers? In an age in which so many officers come from ROTC programs, are the service academies still necessary? Could ROTC programs in the universities be unified, with specific service training being continued during the summer-not merely an economy, but a measure that guarantees "jointness", as it is infelicitously termed. How might we reform military payroll, such as merging pay and the Basic Allowance for Subsistence? What about ending "up or out"? Could we merge the Air National Guard with the Air Force Reserve? Etc., etc., etc.
I'm not sure I like all these questions, let alone the answers. But they should be asked. And I am certain that a great many steps could be taken that would save money and improve military readiness and capabilities.
Jun '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
I think you hit it on the head, Robert. The problem, though, is making smart cuts. We fired half of our force in the mid-90s but kept legacy programs (Comanche, Paladin, Bradley modernization, etc.), all while paying our forces less than peanuts and increasing the size of the bureaucracy. How not to do it: The Brits will be mothballing an aircraft carrier the day it leaves the shipyard, they're cutting military pensions, eliminating the military healthcare system, and cutting end strength. None of those are good ideas, and we don't need to go down that road. Cuts don't have to be painful to be intelligent.
Robert Barraud Taylor · Nov 11 at 3:55pm
Daniel Hannan, lately interviewed by Peter Robinson, had a post on the Daily Telegraph website in which he wonders why British defense procurement is so bad. Quoting a British newsreader, he observes that Israel spends $14.5 billion a year, and only 400 people administer these funds; Britain requires 23,700 bureaucrats to administer a budget of $16.1 billion.
Edited on Nov 11 at 03:59 pm
Jul '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Karen: By the way, federal salaries are decreasing. We certainly won't see the kind of pay raises this year that we saw under Bush.
Don't you want the best and brightest protecting our country? · Nov 11 at 2:40pm
Federal salaries are increasing.
No. I want the best and brightest inventing things and making profits.
That is their highest and best use.
May '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Everything's game, but defense is not where Congress should begin. We have more enemies and more military responsibility than any nation in the world. And world alliances are aligning as they did in the 1930s, so it's imperative that we maintain a capacity to fight simultaneously in multiple theaters. There's plenty of waste on defense spending, I'm sure, but entitlements are the expenditures that are drowning us.
For the economy, focus on entitlement cuts. For freedom, focus on cutting agencies and programs.
However they start, the GOP must make cuts, rather than government expansion, the norm. At this point, our government should need to introduce new agencies and programs only once in a blue moon. Their primary role should be to scale back government in general.
Edited on November 12, 2010 at 2:39amJul '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Read The Constitution.
If it ain't in there, then eliminate the program or amend The Constitution.
Not that tough.
May '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Michael Tee
Karen: By the way, federal salaries are decreasing. We certainly won't see the kind of pay raises this year that we saw under Bush.
Don't you want the best and brightest protecting our country? · Nov 11 at 2:40pm
Federal salaries are increasing.
No. I want the best and brightest inventing things and making profits.
That is their highest and best use. · Nov 11 at 4:31pm
MT - Well, considering my household received some years as much as a 4% raise under Bush, but last year only 1.5%, I'd call that a salary decrease. And plenty of gov't employees have made significant contributions to technology and continue to do so. Federal salaries actually fall below private sector. $150,000? What's the cost of living where you live? $150K doesn't go very far around here, but I guess folks don't realize that a big chunk of higher paid fed. employees live in one of the most expensive places in the nation. I believe people should get paid for their experience, education and expertise, especially when it comes to our national security and preventing another terrorist attack.
Jun '10
Re: What's on (or off) the table?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but 1.5% is still a pay increase when there's no inflation, which there wasn't last year. But I digress.
I agree with your defense of federal employees to a certain extent, but there are over 1.8 million government civilians, and despite NFFE or AFGE protestations to the contrary, pay parity was achieved several years ago. Can we not at least take another look at retirement, BAH, BAS, and COLA for federal employees? Can we not reconsider duplicate agencies or overlapping areas of responsibility? How about automation?
I'm sorry if it seems as if you're being picked on (I assume you're a federal employee), but you guys are low-hanging fruit right now.
Karen
MT - Well, considering my household received some years as much as a 4% raise under Bush, but last year only 1.5%, I'd call that a salary decrease. And plenty of gov't employees have made significant contributions to technology and continue to do so. Federal salaries actually fall below private sector. $150,000? What's the cost of living where you live? · Nov 11 at 5:43pm