Stay on Target

 

This morning I read, as I always do, the Daily Shot.  And as always I enjoy it.  Well written, informative and humorous.  I have quoted from it many times to friends, always giving credit and encouraging visits to Ricochet.

I did think that in one place this morning that it was not quite a bull’s eye:  And, since it reminded me (legitimately or not) of shrieks I have heard from some that are, shall we say, a bit less conservative than yours truly, I came straight here.

Trump has proposed eliminating, among other things, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.  Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have several relatives supported in part by these programs.  I have enjoyed some programs funded in part by the CPB and the NEA.

Some are horrified that anyone could even dream of removing Federal funding for these hallowed programs. I, on the other hand, laugh in delight.  I do not believe the Feds should force me to support art that isn’t, humanities that are anti-human, or the broadcast of propaganda from the right or the left.

Daily Shot – and many others – sound like, because these programs are such a trivial slice of the budget, and since Trump’s proposed budget doesn’t touch entitlements, it doesn’t matter if we leave these things in the budget or not.  It may be that I’m interpreting incorrectly, or that I’m reading between the lines something that simply isn’t there, but what I think I read bothers me.  Because if we can’t cut these nickel and dime programs, how will we ever cut the big budget items?  Some of us object to the basic principle of Federal assistance for these things.  Some of us also object to the basic principle of Federal provision of retirement and welfare programs.  Should we wait until we can get rid of it all before we eliminate any of this stuff?  May it never be.  The list of programs Trump has proposed cutting ought not, in my opinion, be any sort of Federal program.  The list of programs ought to be miles longer.  Let’s eliminate them all, great or small.  Let us start somewhere, anywhere, please!

Published in Economics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    While I really like Fred Cole, his writing and posts, I had to take a breather from The Daily Shot which I too, enjoyed every morning. During the presidential campaign, it was clearly biased – but I sidestepped it.  I am willing to dip my toe back in, I want to…..is the water warmer?  Not so sure after this post.

    • #31
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    While I really like Fred Cole, his writing and posts, I had to take a breather from The Daily Shot which I too, enjoyed every morning. During the presidential campaign, it was clearly biased – but I sidestepped it. I am willing to dip my toe back in, I want to…..is the water warmer? Not so sure after this post.

    For a left libertarian, yeah.

    • #32
  3. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Think Giuliani.  We must sweat the small stuff.     Most Federal programs  are small or appear small because they are broken into pieces that form coalitions  built around  artful spin and interests.  And in this case the substantive reasons for cutting are very  real.  We don’t want the Federal government involved in news, art, media, entertainment  or educational programs.   Not everything is piss christ or elephant dung, indeed these insanities call attention to the inappropriateness of remote unaccountable federal bureaucrats involved in such decisions.

    • #33
  4. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Matt Y. (View Comment):
    I think this is kind of comparing apples and oranges. Not really relevant. It’s discretionary spending, which is included in the budget, and nondiscretionary spending, which happens anyway and would involve reforms outside of the budget process.

    I’m not even sure what “non-discretionary spending” means. Congress can cut any spending it wants. Do they say non-discretionary only so that it sounds like they can’t cut it?

    Funny, I read  discretionary spending as funds used for things the government has no obligation to fulfill.

    I like the idea of comparing a gov budget to a family budget, except for one thing: none of the funds belong to the government, or to the people elected to the government.

    If funds exist beyond needs of delineated governmental obligations, those funds should be returned to the people to use at their discretion.

    We have lost our way, and been wandering for too long.

    • #34
  5. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    Funny, I read discretionary spending as fundo used for things the government has no obligation to fulfill.

    I read “mandatory spending,” i.e., social security, medicare, and medicaid (note the Oxford comma; take that, Zafar) as totally unConstitutional spending of which the unConstitutionality is just ignored.

    • #35
  6. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Think Giuliani. We must sweat the small stuff. Most Federal programs are small or appear small because they are broken into pieces that form coalitions built around artful spin and interests. And in this case the substantive reasons for cutting are very real. We don’t want the Federal government involved in news, art, media, entertainment or educational programs. Not everything is piss christ or elephant dung, indeed these insanities call attention to the inappropriateness of remote unaccountable federal bureaucrats involved in such decisions.

    Budgetary Open Windows policy.

    Police the small stuff…

    • #36
  7. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    Funny, I read discretionary spending as fundo used for things the government has no obligation to fulfill.

    I read “mandatory spending,” i.e., social security, medicare, and medicaid (note the Oxford comma) as totally unConstitutional spending of which the unConstitutionality is just ignored.

    I agree. Over the life of this nation our legislators have overstepped proper boundaries, and have mandated spending on things outside their purview.

    • #37
  8. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    To walk back generations of foolishness is a long and difficult path. We must start somewhere…

    • #38
  9. Suspira Member
    Suspira
    @Suspira

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    My recollection may be fuzzy, but I don’t remember anyone wanting to vote for Trump because he was a fiscal conservative.

    Some of us evil Never Trump people told anyone who would listen that he was not a fiscal conservative—or a conservative of any stripe. That said, I support any budget cuts Trump wants to do. The journey of a thousand miles, and all that.

    • #39
  10. Amy Schley Coolidge
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Suspira (View Comment):

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    My recollection may be fuzzy, but I don’t remember anyone wanting to vote for Trump because he was a fiscal conservative.

    Some of us evil Never Trump people told anyone who would listen that he was not a fiscal conservative—or a conservative of any stripe. That said, I support any budget cuts Trump wants to do. The journey of a thousand miles, and all that.

    I was one of them, and yeah, that matches my memory too.

    • #40
  11. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):
    Trump proposed very large cuts to non-discretionary spending: $54 billion. Using cute rhetorical reductions to $3 billion is gaming the argument.

    That’s not a very large cut. $54 billion over 10 years is $5.4 billion a year. (I will go fix my math further up, as I realize I made a mistake.)

    The discretionary budget is $1.5 trillion/yr, making this “very large” cut 3%. ( And it’s not even being “cut,” just diverted to the military.)

    I don’t know about you, but when my husband says we need to make a large cut in our discretionary spending, I don’t respond by saying, “Okay, I’ll buy one less tank of gas. That should do it.”

    The $54 billion in cuts to discretionary spending is for fiscal year 2017 @amyschley, not for a ten-year period.  Over 10 years, they would amount to more than $600 billion, if you consider the likely growth in that sector being eliminated.

    • #41
  12. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Spin (View Comment):
    Wait, where did the $54B cut come from? Because I read that it’s a $54B increase to military spending…?

    The cuts in discretionary spending were designed (for practicable or PR purposes, or both) to balance the increase in defense spending.  Both are one-year, not ten-year, figures.

    • #42
  13. Duane Oyen Member
    Duane Oyen
    @DuaneOyen

    Spit in the wind instead of being strategic?  It is fine to eliminate agencies, a couple at a time.  It is even better to mandate reduced headcount and deny funds for beltway bandit contractors.

    The problem is that the meat axe approach here leans into the punch- by proposing a long list of low dollar things to chop which list will never be fulfilled, there is a false sense of progress, exactly as people cheered when eliminating earmarks- also a feel good exercise that didn’t really help the budget.

    Until they actually do good things- like reform SS, Medicare (according to the very good Ryan-Widen plan), Medicaid (in accordance with the current very good Ryan approach), instead of playing for the cameras as the alleged “Freedom Caucus” does- this is all fluff.

    Waste your time on this, if you wish.  But recognize that it is, in effect, a symbolic waste of time.

    • #43
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.