Slashing the State

The Cato Institute's Chris Edwards offers the GOP some solid advice on cutting government spending:

Some initial targets for GOP reformers, with rough annual savings, could include: community development subsidies ($15 billion), public housing subsidies ($9 billion), urban transit subsidies ($9 billion), and foreign development aid ($18 billion). On the entitlement side, initial cuts could include raising the retirement age for Social Security and introducing progressive price indexing to reduce the growth rate of future benefits.

We will not get federal spending under control unless we begin a national discussion about specific cuts. And we won't get that discussion unless enough members of Congress start pushing for specific cuts.

Speaking of specific cuts, Reason recently proposed 14 ways to dismantle our monstrous government, one program at a time. Read all about it in "How to Slash the State."

Comments

[Max]

Jesus, Gillespie, pull the copy of Atlas Shrugged out of your ass!

[Xeones]

Just because that line made Epi laugh once doesn't mean it's funny, Edward. Remember, Epi uses a lot of drugs.

[Episiarch]

I do. And I'm no longer laughing.

[Sudden]

Tranquilizers today I take it?

[JW]

Then you've cut back too far.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Max,

Max, H&R's pet yorkie.

Here, boy! Here, go fetch! That's a good boy! Yeah!

[KG]

Defense, Medicare, Social Security, Interest on Debt; that's 85% of the budget. Talking about anything else is a waste of time since cutting the everything in the remaining 15% doesn't balance the budget. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for defunding and eliminating the Department of Homeland Security, but if they really want to balance the budget it's going to require cutting stuff that is popular.

[John]

"Defense, Medicare, Social Security, Interest on Debt; that's 85% of the budget."

ah no. They are 63% of the budget or about 2.5 of the 3.5 trillion in spending. There is over a trillion dollars worth of stuff beyond those.

If you are going to talk shit, lets at least get our facts straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....ral_budget

[Xeones]

Just to be safe, let's cut all of it.

[JW]

Just to be safe, let's cut all of it.

From orbit.

[Old Mexican]

We need defense to kill us some ay-ranias!

[Get your facts straight]

2.184 + 0.6637 = 2.8477

2.8477 is about 80.2% of 3.55

[John]

$677.95 billion (+4.9%) ? Social Security
# $453 billion (+6.6%) ? Medicare
# $290 billion (+12.0%) ? Medicaid
# $164 billion (+18.0%) ? Interest on National Debt
# $663.7 billion (+12.7%) ? Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

For a total of 2.248 trillion give or take out of 3.55 trillion in total spending.

That is about 63%.

Learn to do math before you adopt joke handles.

[Gray Ghost]

Where do the 571 billion in "Other Mandatory Programs" fall in? Thought they were part of either SS or Medicare. They seem to be, on the accompanying pie chart. (And for that matter, HHS really needs to be included within either Medicare or Medicaid for this discussion. Adding the 571 billion gets you to about ~75%.

In any event, KG's larger point---that we are not going to balance the budget, much less retire debt, by only looking at discretionary spending---still seems valid.

[John]

But if you have one point three trillion to play with, why not cut that in half? That is nearly seven hundred billion dollars in deficit reduction. Do that and cut defense spending by a couple hundred billion and you have nearly a trillion.

Why not get that before you go to war over entitlements? That would be a hell of an improvement over what we have. And don't forget all that discretionary spending does bad things to the economy by regulating and warping the market.

Eventually we are going to have to deal with entitlements. But to say you can't do anything serious without taking them on first, is bullshit.

[marlok]

I made the error of going to Andrew Sullivan's website earlier hoping for some quality schadenfreude (sp?), but instead got his standard issue Obama worship and bitter clinging to this argument that proposed small cuts in funding are not big enough. He would have prefered greater spending a la Obama + Democrats, I suppose.

[Get your facts straight]

You left out the $571 billion in other mandatory spending. Oh, well, I never expected you to admit you were wrong. You're just like MNG in that regard.

[John]

I believe those are entitlements like welfare and such. I do not think they are medicare and social security. If they are, I stand correct. But I don't they are. And if you want to cut welfare, go for it.

So I don't think I am wrong. And if I am fine. But show me a link where I am.

And use your own handle MNG.

[KG]

I was going off memory, so apologies. But adding in welfare/unemployment/mandatory spending and medicaid and we're closer to the 85%. end of the day, cutting nothing but discretionary spending doesn't get us there.

[Pablo]

That's correct. There was a discussion like this here, a while ago, and someone came up with a plan to reduce the budget by about a third without touching defense, Social Security, or Medicare. Basically called for eliminating or gutting everything else but it would be feasible.

[John]

I know it wouldn't exactly save us from bankruptcy. But God liberal tears that would be shed over killing community investment and public housing would be sweet. Ezra Douchebag was talking today how losing the majority was worth it for Obamacare. I would love to see the liberal reaction if losing the majority actually resulted in some sacred cows being slaughtered.

[Xeones]

That might be too much whining for me to handle.

[Virginia]

He's going to cry himself to sleep after Justice Thomas et al gut that garbage.

[marlok]

They'll be back. They always come back.

It's a shame we don't have any transcripts from the new journolist to laugh at. I bet they're a hoot, full of death-wishes and tears of impotent rage.

[Pro Libertate]

All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

[SugarFree]

A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye.
In the most high and palmy state of Rome,
A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,
The graves stood tenantless and the sheeted dead
Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets:
As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,
Disasters in the sun; and the moist star,
Upon whose influence Neptune's empire stands,
Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse:
And even the like precurse of fierce events,
As harbingers preceding still the fates
And prologue to the omen coming on,
Have heaven and earth together demonstrated
Unto our climatures and countrymen?

[John]

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
If it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words

[Pro Libertate]

BUDGET

For the Budget,
I stand here for him: what to him from Congress?

CONGRESS

Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt,
And any thing that may not misbecome
The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.
Thus says my voters; an' if your father's highness
Do not, in grant of all demands at large,
Sweeten the bitter mock you sent their majesty,
They'll call you to so hot an answer of it,
That caves and womby vaultages of DC
Shall chide your trespass and return your mock
In second accent of their ordnance.

[Pro Libertate]

Leaving the Bard behind for a moment, my ideal Republican Congress might be best represented by Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner. Seen here addressing the administration: "I want more life, fucker."

[Pro Libertate]

Returning to Shakespeare:

'tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn, and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world. Now could I drink hot blood,
And do such bitter business as the day
Would quake to look on.

[Fleeing Cali]

Why not just cut everything across the board first? Then go back later and reduce/kill individual items? It would come across as a more even-handed/everyone-share-the-pain type of approach.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Has anyone yet pointed out that all those suggestions are racist?

[Al Sharton]

All those suggestions are racist!

[BakedPenguin]

So was the white man who stole your p. He was probably a Republican operatives testing it for drugs, so they could set you up like Marion Barry.

[Virginia]

I say we actually increase debt spending until we have our implosion and then let outside consultants (creditors) decide our fate. You know, to keep it objective. That's the route California (Brown) and Illinois (Quinn) voters decided on.

[Corduroy]

I already had to move out of CA, please don't make me leave the country, moving sucks.

[?]

Solid advice? "Just fly, dude."

The Republicans hold half of one branch by a not-insuperable margin, and the house still runs the house. The cutters don't have shit.

A handful of bad bills might fail to make it through the House. That's the absolute limit of possible good.

We will not get federal spending under control unless we begin a national discussion about specific cuts.

Is there a name for this psychosis? Wonk's Delusion? When has making a to-cut list resulted in a cut?

...

Right.

[Tony]

Just don't dare raise any revenues from millionaires! Preserving their ridiculously low tax burden is more important than housing poor people.

[George V]

And let's not forget the poor need cell phiones and plasma TVs!

[Fleeing Cali]

Tony, you're probably already aware of this, but the millionairs are already paying a significant amount of the revenue that the government receives. The problem is that nearly half of Americans aren't paying anything (or even are receiving money.) How are we all in this together if half the country isn't participating? If someone only makes 20k a year, would it be too much to ask for them to pay even 500 dollars a year for all of the wonderful benefits our glorious federal government provides? How about 200? Or is it wrong to ask them for anything at all?

[SugarFree]

Tony is aware of nothing.

[Fleeing Cali]

I'm living in CA and surrounded by Tony's, so I have to keep trying. They're not stupid, not evil, it's just that their heart and sense of 'fairness' is trumping their reason.

Most of us have that twinge of envy when we see someone that has more than us (the grass is always greener...) But most of us have learned to ignore that impulse, usually as children when we are told that it's not right to take Tommy's new cool toy even though we really, really want it. Somehow that lesson get's lost in teen idealism and the transition to adulthood for some people.

[John]

It is cultural with them. They have convinced themselves that anyone who objects to their ideas is the "other". It is very emotional. You can see this when Tony talks about how Republicans hate homosexuals but ignores the Democrats' own appalling record on the subject.

[TrickyVic]

""It is cultural with them. They have convinced themselves that anyone who objects to their ideas is the "other".""

Like many at Fox News.

[John]

That may be true. But Fox News is right on many things even if it is for the wrong reasons. Tony and his ilk are doubly screwed, they are not only wrong but also wrong for the wrong reasons.

[TrickyVic]

Then you're issue isn't culture war or that anyone who objects are others, or emotion for that matter. Beck cries like a gurlieman.

[TrickyVic]

you're should be your.

[Trespassers W]

They're not stupid, not evil

You've got a pretty high threshold for stupid and evil.

[Fleeing Cali]

Pretty high. They're both pretty powerful words. My companies located in the silicon valley. There are a bunch of very bright people there. A lot of them are also very very liberal. So it's hard to draw a connection between stupid and liberal.

As far as evil goes, I reserve that for the likes of hitler, stalin, pol pot.

A lot of my friends are liberals to some degree or another. Even more of my coworkers are. I know them, respect them (at least in some aspects) and genuinely like most of them. So I may think they are wrong, misguided, shallow, sometimes even immoral, but not evil and stupid.

[The Brain]

so only mass murderers are evil? That's not fair!

[marlok]

"So I may think they are wrong, misguided, shallow, sometimes even immoral, but not evil and stupid."

That's funny, because liberals tend to think that non-liberals are either evil, stupid, or both. Isn't that right, Tony?

[marlok]

Many true-believing liberals I know (as opposed to the ones who like Jon Stewart's show and think Obama's cool) were told stories of the haves and have-nots when they were little. Robin Hood was their hero because a rich person is, by the nature of their richness alone, stealing from the poor man. They bitterly cling to this idea, even in places like Cali where the job-creators (AKA "the rich") are chased out by liberals.

[BakedPenguin]

Including the fact that those millionaires are the ones creating the few jobs coming online right now, and that they money he's gleefully planning on swiping is the money they'd use to do so.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

Preserving their ridiculously low tax burden is more important than housing poor people.

The needy need the stolen loot that the rich can afford to give at gun point.

[Jason]

Raising taxes on millionaires to balance the budget is like spitting in the ocean.

Even NPR agrees:

Consider this: If everyone's tax cuts expire on schedule this year, the government stands to collect an extra $238 billion next year. Only about 15 percent of that would come from the very wealthy, those making more than $250,000. The rest ? $202 billion ? would come from everyone else.

The simple fact is that there are a lot more people making less than million dollars a year and the total income of those people vastly exceeds that of millionaires and taxing them makes the government a whole lot more money than taxing the wealthy.

That's how Wal-Mart thrives.

[Typical Liberal]

It's not fair that they make all that money on the backs of the poor! EVIL! I WANT THEIR MONEY! I'M ENTITLED TO IT!

[Matrix]

because the government is entitled to their money... or anyone's money for that matter, right?

[Gilbert Martin]

"On the entitlement side, initial cuts could include raising the retirement age for Social Security and introducing progressive price indexing to reduce the growth rate of future benefits."

A good place to start on entitlements is to completly cut out food stamps and federal Medicare funding transfers to the states.

Unlike Social Security and Medicare, none of the recepients of any of those handouts even nominally contributed any taxes into the system to help pay for them.

[Gilbert Martin]

I meant to say Medicaid funding to the states

[Fleeing Cali]

There's a reason the democrat/liberal/progressive movement has been more successful in the last 50 years. They understand incrementalism.

The republican/conservatives fight a battle, maybe win and then get all happy and declare victory. The angry supporters go home and sleep until the next 'crisis'.

The liberal/democrat/progressive movement is more steady. It wins a little, but keeps coming. It has applied a constant pressure. I'm not sure if this was by design, or just the natural way of things, but they've kept adding little by little until it's gotten to a point where we look at it and can't figure a way to make it disappear without doing something 'drastic.' They are also aware of the fact that once they start flowing 'free money' to someone, it's much harder to 'take the money away' than it is to stop the flow from beginning.

[JW]

Until a Republican Congress/Administration actually *cuts* spending, and not just slows its growth, (or not blow all previous records out of the water, AKA 2000-2006) this is all just wishful thinking.

The Dems also discovered that people like "free" stuff and respond positively to emoting pols .

[Fleeing Cali]

That's why I favor more of an across the board spending reduction. Don't make it sound as if you are taking stuff away from x or y. Instead, frame it as a shared sacrifice. I think people would respond better to that. Then maybe after the reduction, people would notice that the world hasn't ended, children aren't starving in the streets, we haven't been invaded by a foreign military power. Get the people conditioned slowly, just as the democrats have done.

Fixing a mess created over decades can't be done overnight. Even if it is the right thing to do, it would never fly.

[JW]

I bet you want to shrink gummint back to 2001 levels, you heathen barbarian, you. That's when the rape gangs roamed the streets unchallenged.

[George V]

Recommit to the 2nd amendment and that should help curtail that problem.

[Fleeing Cali]

That would be a good start! I'm sure there would be a lot of screaming, moaning (some manufactured, some genuine) but if a good enough job is done convincing people that a shared sacrifice (albeit a small one) is needed for the future, and then people see that their life isn't ruined, we can start really getting to business.

[JW]

I won't be happy until the streets of DC run red.

[MP]

There is zero chance of a fiscally responsible bill emerging from the DC machine before 2012. These flights of fancy topics are ultimately pointless.

In fact, I'll go even further and state that a fiscally responsible bill won't even make it out of the House before 2012.

[John]

I bet some fiscal responsibility comes out. Not a lot. Not enough to turn things around. But some. Nearly one fourth of the Democratic Congress critters in the House lost their jobs last night. That has a way of sobering people up. Spending will get cut. Not by a lot, but by some. And it will be portrayed in the media as returning the country to some kind of Dickens slave state. But it will happen.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

Can we get rid of the Department of eduation already. I don't care how big it is. It mostly just exists to funnel stolen money to teachers unions, which are basically just an arm of the Democratic party anyways, so fuck them.

[George V]

And Pell Grants so not only can we send our own children to college but we can send other people's children to college.

[ChrisO]

Fiscal responsibility, if it occurs, will only happen once federal and state governments lose the ability to borrow money. In other words, a crash.

Sure, the feds can print more money and "lend" it to themselves, but not nearly enough to prop up the current behemoth.

It will look very ugly, like the Greek and French situations multiplied many times, but it's coming. The crash will either cause us to snap out of it or become a perpetually unstable basket case like Argentina.

[BakedPenguin]

I know this has been mentioned, but Europe can defend itself. AFAIC, so can Iraq and Afghanistan.

[John]

Obama is doing is press conference saying he won't revisit healthcare. That is great. Pass a repeal out of the House and make all 20 or so Democrats in the Senate up for re-election cast another vote for healthcare or if they vote to repeal it, make him veto it. Perfect.

[George V]

The House can pass a budget that defunds Obamacare.

[John]

Yes they can. And short of shutting down the government, there is nothing he can do about it. Now he can scream and say the Republicans are destroying the country to repeal healthcare. But a large minority or small majority want the thing repealed. If the Republicans say "fine, we don't need to repeal the whole thing but repeal these really awful and unpopular pieces of it, BO is going to be in a tough spot.

[TrickyVic]

""If the Republicans say "fine, we don't need to repeal the whole thing but repeal these really awful and unpopular pieces of it, BO is going to be in a tough spot.""

I don't think they will repeal but they will try to change some of it. BO will not be in a bad spot becuase he can claim that everyone is working to make a good law better. I suspect he will sign some R sponsered fixes to the health care law. Assuming it gets passed the Senate, which I think it will.

[James Ard]

Obama yielded some ground on the onerous 1099 requirements in his press conference today.

[TrickyVic]

I think Obama has a chance to look better. He will not get outragous partisan bills to sign that would be a hammer in 2012. If he works with the Rs for the betterment of government, he stands a better chance of getting re-elected.

[John]

He won't be in a tough spot with you and I. But he will be with the douscheoise on his left. Unless the Republicans give him meaningless changes, his supporters are never going to stand for Obama giving away their piece of history that they lost their House majority over. They will Johnsonize his ass through a primary challenge if he does. But, if Obama stands his ground, he kills himself with independents.

[TrickyVic]

""But he will be with the douscheoise on his left. ""

Isn't he already?

[P Brooks]

community development subsidies ($15 billion), public housing subsidies ($9 billion), urban transit subsidies ($9 billion), and foreign development aid ($18 billion).

And none of the money involved finds its way into the pockets of friends and supporters of Republican legislators, does it?

*I'm for cutting all of it and then some, but it won't take long for the enthusiasm to fizzle once the telephones start ringing.

[John]

Some of it does. But most of it finds its way into the hands of Democratic supporters, which is why the Democrats will fight to the death to preserve those programs even though they are a small part of the overall budget.

[James Ard]

Three useless departments come to mind. Education, Labor and Commerce. Then 25% of defense spending and we're starting to get somewhere.

[TrickyVic]

I'm curious if the high speed rail projects will fail, or if the Rs will back them.

[Jason]

My money's on the R's backing them.

The R's are, by and large, supply-side Keynesians.

[John]

That is not a supply side program. Cutting taxes is supply side. Spending is demand side.

[nfl jerseys]

hous