John Hinderaker at
PowerLine wonders why budget "compromise" always results in higher spending. The best conservatives ever seem to be able to get is decreases in the rate of increased spending.
A number of observers are praising today’s deal as a “compromise.” Patty Murray set the tone: “‘Compromise has been a dirty word” in Washington, D.C., Murray complained in an evening news conference, but “we have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock.” But wait! The 2011 Budget Control Act was itself a compromise. The $967 billion discretionary spending limit was a compromise, just two years ago. So why should a higher spending number now be lauded as a “compromise”? How about if we reduce spending by another $50 billion, to $917 billion? That would be a compromise too, wouldn’t it? But somehow that isn’t the sort of compromise that is ever entertained in Washington.
Hinderaker also points out the soft underbelly of this and every other budget "deal"--the gambit Republicans fall for every single time:
Republicans did get something in exchange for increasing spending: notably, federal employees will have to increase their pension contributions. But we can say goodbye to the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts that the GOP trumpeted following the 2011 Budget Control Act. That is the real moral of the story–long-term budget agreements are meaningless. Typically, minuscule spending cuts up front are augmented by major cuts in the out-years. But the reality is that the out-years never come. No Congress can bind a future Congress, and political will to reduce spending is always in short supply. Consequently, any spending deal is meaningless, except insofar as it applies to the current year or next year’s spending. Beyond that, all claims to have cut government spending are fatuous.
Wouldn't it be amazing to see a bipartisan compromise that imposed immediate spending cuts (not merely decelerations) in exchange for unspecified entitlement increases to be implemented in 2024?
20 comments:
They will not stop the spending. Any hope otherwise is just a desperate attempt to insulate ourselves from reality. Eventually, they will run out of money- it matters not how much they print, if it will not buy anything. The resultant effects will be severe beyond our experience.
The usual suspects are 1) a compliant media, 2) RINO's, 3) the duped/duplicitous mix among Democrats, and 4) special-interest tradeoffs.
All of these are true, and important. Let me add something that is often missed. Arithmetic. Almost none of Congress has any scientific training. Absolutely none of the journalists do. (NH sent you John Sununu, but then pulled him back in favor of high-school administrator Jeanne Shaheen.) These are the people who avoided Algebra II and certainly Calculus if they could, and did much better on their SATV than their SATM. They don't really think in numbers. They don't entirely grasp statistics and graphs. Not in their blood.
Even our guys. Conservatives often can't get beyond the (entirely correct) notion "Whoa! We're spending way too much here!" Trends, compounding, acceleration - these are not familiar territory even to them. Narrative is all. My next post is going to be on teaching probability and statistics in high school. Long overdue.
The federal budget is so large that it doesn't get overhauled in its entirety every year. So I don't really understand the expectation that there would be deep, compensating cuts when new programs come into being? That's what *ought* to happen in a sane world, but as a practical matter the mechanics are daunting.
The vast majority of spending isn't even discretionary - in order to cut it, Congress would have to go through each program with a fine toothed comb to understand it all well enough to know where cuts make the most sense.
This is the problem with big government - it's SO big that no one can understand the whole thing. It's like asking a surgeon to operate blindfolded - you wouldn't expect a good result.
The other problem is that we haven't obviously run out of money. If tomorrow it became obvious that there was no more money, we'd find a way to reduce spending (if only to guarantee the existence of our favorite programs). But that hasn't happened yet.
On further reflection, it's like asking a committee of surgeons who don't even agree upon the diagnosis to operate blindfolded.
Oh, and "RINOs" have constituents. Lots of them. That's how our system is supposed to work - politicians are elected representatives of We, The People.
I understand that it's grand fun to call politicians names, but honestly - what are we expecting here? Should Republican politicians lie to voters and then do as they please once elected? Would this make us respect them more? Would it be honest or honorable?
If no voters supported so-called "RINO" policies, you wouldn't see "RINO" politicians getting elected. I've never understood the whole name-calling thing. I happen to disagree with a lot of conservatives, but I don't see the need to insult potential allies.
Yes, I realize that a lot of folks think that agreeing 80% of the time isn't any better than agreeing 10% of the time, but that raises a whole 'nother set of mathematical literacy issues.
I'm not trying to pick on AVI, but the whole RINO thing can generally be relied upon to set me off :p
Forest. Trees.
Should Republican politicians lie to voters and then do as they please once elected?
I think the RINO complaint is that this is exactly what did happen. They lied to voters by telling them they were conservatives, and then did as they pleased once elected.
I won't get into whether or not this is true. But I think that's the argument.
Lots of states have balanced-budget requirements, and they figure out a way to deal with it. It's true that the federal budget is bigger and more complicated, but it still could be balanced if Congress had a good reason to do it. As it happens, though, they don't. The voters aren't really insisting on it. They've heard horror stories about Argentina and Venezuela and Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic, but they don't really believe it can happen to our currency.
"Conservatives" is not exactly a well defined word :p
Even mainstream conservative thinkers can't seem to agree exactly what conservatism is, so whilst I agree that this argument is being made, it's a particularly weak argument.
It's true that the federal budget is bigger and more complicated, but it still could be balanced if Congress had a good reason to do it. As it happens, though, they don't. The voters aren't really insisting on it. They've heard horror stories about Argentina and Venezuela and Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic, but they don't really believe it can happen to our currency.
BINGO.
Oh, and "RINOs" have constituents. Lots of them. That's how our system is supposed to work - politicians are elected representatives of We, The People.
he voters aren't really insisting on it. They've heard horror stories about Argentina and Venezuela and Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic, but they don't really believe it can happen to our currency.
BINGO.
Some voters were insisting upon it, loudly, until the IRS decided to make a practice of auditing everyone who did (especially those who tried to organize). Voters who wanted to organize to encourage the government to do what it wants to do, however, were hurried along through the system, given tax breaks, and even put in charge of the execution of government programs (as "nonpartisan" organizations).
It's not just that voters are lazy or ignorant (as you suggest, Cass), or that Congress is (as AVI does). There's a structural problem that wouldn't go away if we replaced every elected official. The government gets bigger in part because it wants to: the bureaucracy wants bigger budgets every year, and more control over people's lives. Since they already have so much control, it's not that hard for them to get more. They are in a position to punish anyone who tries to organize a vote against their interests.
Now, it's fair to say "Well, the Founders went through much worse than an audit." I think that's not just fair to say, but right to say.
I don't think voting will fix it, though. The structural problem is very deep, and the bureaucracy has already proven it is willing to illegally deploy its power against those who attempt even to organize voters in a way they don't like.
It isn't just a matter of scientific training. Dr. Bill Foster (IL) voted for the ACA. I don't believe he is wise, but his intelligence and training are better than mine. (I worked with him.)
It's not just that voters are lazy or ignorant (as you suggest, Cass), or that Congress is (as AVI does). There's a structural problem that wouldn't go away if we replaced every elected official. The government gets bigger in part because it wants to: the bureaucracy wants bigger budgets every year, and more control over people's lives. Since they already have so much control, it's not that hard for them to get more. They are in a position to punish anyone who tries to organize a vote against their interests.
Well, I don't know that I meant to suggest voters were lazy/ignorant. There's such a thing as honest disagreement too, though we seem to have lost the ability to see that.
I don't believe there's a formula to make people agree with conservatism because most of this comes down to value judgments. I think AVI is right that many people don't realize the effect of compounding interest and escalating debt. But those things go more to sustainability than whether or not government should be spending money on these things in the first place.
Some voters were insisting upon it, loudly, until the IRS decided to make a practice of auditing everyone who did (especially those who tried to organize).
The answer to that, though, is not to fold and slink away, but to raise the ante and even more speak up. They can't audit us all anymore than they can kill us all. And take the cases to court. The IRS has more fiscal resources than some of us, but not more than all of us.
Of course, that's easier said than done, which is why most rebellions die aborning.
Eric Hines
I'm not sure the IRS audited *everyone* who supported fiscal conservatism, either :p
Or that the knowledge of IRS audits was widespread enough at the time to make a difference in voter turnout or political speech. I'm not even convinced the IRS is so efficient as to be a menace to the general public. Eric pretty much nailed it here:
They can't audit us all anymore than they can kill us all. And take the cases to court. The IRS has more fiscal resources than some of us, but not more than all of us.
"Wouldn't it be amazing to see a bipartisan compromise that imposed immediate spending cuts (not merely decelerations) in exchange for unspecified entitlement increases to be implemented in 2024?"
Tex- this is brilliant- and exactly what the Republicans should do. Can you imagine painting the Dems as against strengthening Medicare or Social Security (in out years- you know the drill...)? This is the perfect time too- the R's don't have a lot of credibility with the people, but they have more than the D's right now. The best defense is a good offense- put 'em on their heels.
...exactly what the Republicans should do.
Yeah, but now is not the time. Do a similar square-filling deal on the debt ceiling, and take those distractions off the table. That lets the Republicans and Conservatives control the battlefield during the election season that will begin in earnest shortly after the debt ceiling.
Then put the Democrats and Progressives on the spot: on Obamacare, on economic policy, on explicit spending and taxing.
Bipartisan? Never going to happen. Real progress won't occur in a bipartisan manner; it's going to have to be rammed through unilaterally.
Eric Hines
Real progress won't occur in a bipartisan manner; it's going to have to be rammed through unilaterally.
[fist bump] What he said!
"Conservatives" is not exactly a well defined word :p
No, it isn't. However, granting that anecdotes are not data, when I voted for Lamar Alexander, twice I might add, he wasn't running as the type of person who thought it was the .gov's job to prevent people from being overly annoying.
But apparently, he is.
So much for smaller gov't. I'm no longer one of his constituents, but yes, I feel lied to.
I will confess to being unsure about cell phones on planes.
It's not the annoyance factor for me, but rather a healthy respect for technology and the dangers of hacking/jamming aviation electronics. I don't see why we would ever want to make that easier, nor does it seem like too much to ask for people to get through a flight without calling people.
This is where I have a real problem with the libertarian mantra "if you can't PROVE to me that X is harmful, you can't limit X in any way". I think there's such a thing as healthy caution, and allowing cell phones on planes seems kind of dumb - not much benefit to outweigh the potential harm.
But then I'm a fascist that way :p
The language in this clip is a little harsher than we usually use here, but it's on point, Cass.
That was awesome, Grim :)
Especially the last few seconds.
Post a Comment