House GOP Proposes Hundreds of Billions in Useless Budget Gimmicks
Eric Cantor (R-VA)
CNN reports on House Republicans’ efforts to get serious about cutting the budget:
The House Republican leadership upped the ante Thursday in the ongoing debate over the size and scope of the federal budget, unveiling a proposal to cut spending by $375 billion over the next five years. [...] President Barack Obama “challenged us to come up with budget savings, and today House Republicans encourage him to not only look over our proposed … common-sense taxpayer savings, but to join our effort,” House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said in a statement.
It turns out, however, that there’s no real proposal here. Instead, “The bulk of the GOP’s proposed savings would come from capping non-defense discretionary spending at the level of inflation.”
A blanket cap in spending is not a good idea. For one thing, it’s incredibly indiscriminate. For another thing, it’s oddly un-inclusive. If we’re just going to reduce outlays in an arbitrary, across-the-board way, why should defense and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid be left off the table? Well, presumably they don’t want to cut the defense budget because they think it’s important. But isn’t the FBI important? Prisons? If Medicare’s important, isn’t the CDC important? What would be helped by slashing Pell Grants? When the Obama administration proposed $17 billion in federal spending cuts, the announcement was generally met with mild derision at what a small share of the overall pie that is. But the point is that they found $17 billion dollars worth of cuts that there are actual reasons to believe are worth making. It’s easy to generate a high headline number by being arbitrary. But it’s also easy to do devastating damage to the country.
A much better AP story gets that there are only about $5 billion a year in actual cuts here. And just to piss me off personally, one of the the specific items they want to cut is federal support for bicycle routes. I’ll be the first to admit that not that many people use a bicycle as their primary means of conveyance, but there are about fourty times more of us than George Will realizes, and we’re using a commuting method that’s good for the environment and helps reduce traffic congestion for everyone else. Conservatives seem to have decided that bicycles are funny and un-American, like Puerto Rican food and volcano monitoring, but I don’t really see what their reasoning is.
28 Responses to “House GOP Proposes Hundreds of Billions in Useless Budget Gimmicks”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 4th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Actually I think seeing you ride a bike would be pretty hilarious.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Just to clarify: There are currently forty times as many bicyclists as George Will thinks there could ever possibly be, even if policies to increase the number of bicyclists beyond present levels were put in place.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Conservatives seem to have decided that bicycles are funny and un-American, like Puerto Rican food and volcano monitoring, but I don’t really see what their reasoning is.
You wouldn’t want to think too hard about it, because the answer is probably some combination of the fact that liberals like bikes and bicyclists are a vulnerable minority on the road. And you know how conservatives feel about vulnerable minorities and things liberals like…
June 4th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I support bike routes, but why is this something the federal government should be doing? Can’t local governments make these decisions? I know that transportation generally crosses state boundaries and therefore have a federal role, but for bike paths this seems less likely. Yes I live in Cincinnati and you can bike from where I live in Ohio to Kentucky, but it really does seem like these issues aren’t going to be handled very well by the federal government. The federal government can do research into best practices and gather data on safety of course, but that is not the same as building bike routes.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Is that a photo caption I see up there? What next, graphs with labeled y-axes?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It is indeed hilarious that the Republican party has gotten themselves into a situation where by far the most bloated and wasteful spending in the government (defense) is the one they’ve hitched their wagon to, any other meaningful spending cuts are very politically unpopular, and their party doctrine prohibits any tax increases to raise revenue. They’ve put themselves in a position where they don’t have any idea how to even be on the same planet as fiscal solvency (even less so than their supposed fiscally irresponsible opposition).
God help us if they ever get back in power, though.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“Useless budget gimmicks” is not the same as “not a good idea”.
Post title = fail.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Let’s think of the issues that would be ameliorated by a society that was more orientated around bike commuting/transportation, than our existing paradigm which is focused on the automobile.
Spending on bike lanes, makes bike commuting more appealing to people who would otherwise take the car. There would be significant returns on such an investment.
1. cheaper housing (from higher density housing and less (ex)urban sprawl.
2. less obesity -> significantly lower health care costs in the aggregate
3. less reliance on fossil fuels -> less reliance on the middle east for energy and greater ability to tackle climate change.
Eric Cantor is a douche.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The AP version of the article is hilarious. Third paragraph points out that in the past the Republicans have proposed eliminating the Department of Education. Second-to-last paragraph quotes Cantor saying that they aren’t going after the DoE this time.
Also, there’s this: “the party has padded its own estimate by assuming $317 billion over the next five years from limiting non-defense agency budgets to inflation-adjusted levels that Obama is sure to reject.” The programs that they were actually willing to single out and cuts they were willing to take responsibility for making added up to only $23 billion over five years, so they also threw in a cap on everything.
“Padding” is increasing your estimate by 10 percent. Increasing your estimate by 1300 percent isn’t padding, it’s deciding you’d really rather do a different job.
P.J. O’Rourke, in a budget-balancing exercise, once voiced the idea “you can take 10 percent off the top of anything” and called it the “O’Rourke Circumcision Principle.” Apparently the Republican leadership has had a 1300 percent circumcision.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Rather than proposing, for example, the elimination of the Education Department, as they have in the past, Republicans are suggesting killing a program that pays for building sidewalks, bike paths and crossing guards as part of the Safe Routes to Schools program. That would save $183 million a year.
Crossing guards, really? I’m sure making the plan completely risible was really worth that last billion or so on the bottom line.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“Useless budget gimmicks” is not the same as “not a good idea”.
Post title = fail.
Which is why Matt spent the entire post explaining why the proposal, in addition to being a gimmick, is not a good idea.
Or did you come here to argue that capping everything except defense spending is a good idea? It certainly is about the only economic idea I’ve ever heard out of a Republican in the past year.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“But it’s also easy to do devastating damage to the country. ”
Ah yes, because merely maintaining the federal budget at constant dollars would do “devastating damage.” Almost akin to a nuclear holocaust, hyperinflation, or an influenza pandemic.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
If they actually did this, local school districts would be applying for Pentagon and DARPA grants in order to close budget holes. And their congressmen, Cantor and Pelosi alike, would probably make sure they got those grants approved…
June 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Which is why Matt spent the entire post explaining why the proposal, in addition to being a gimmick, is not a good idea.
No, he spent the entire post saying why he doesn’t think it is a good idea. And nothing about it being a “useless gimmick”, which it isn’t. Hence, the post title is weak.
Or did you come here to argue that capping everything except defense spending is a good idea?
Yes. Defense is already too low; it needs to be increased, including to increase the size of the armed forces (as has been proposed by various Democrats like John Kerry). I’d cut Medicare too, though.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Um, you guys just don’t get it. They are not cutting things like healthcare and free cell phones for people who spend all day selling drugs and collecting their government check. They want to take the current level of spending and limit it’s growth to inflation. Now I understand most of you think that cap = cut but I hate to break it to you but you need to go back to 2nd grade.
They are not saying take away the 100 billion a year we give to people to stay home and think about finding a job..they are saying we’ll keep the 100 billion a year in there but next year you only get to increase it by say 3 billion. So this year you get 100 billion, next year if infation is 3% you get to spend 103 billion. If the year after inflation is 2% you get to spend 105.06 billion and so on. That does not equal a cut..it just means you cannot wake up and decide ‘You know this year I’m going to give free money to more people…let me spend 150 billion’
Class over
June 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Terry,
Which program would you be referring to? You wouldn’t be just talking out of your ass would you?
June 4th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“Defense is already too low” — too low for what? For Pete’s sake, 45% of defense spending worldwide is spent by the US.
The smarter thing to say would be to insist that the US military get more bang for its bucks. Shady Pentagon contractors have become the stuff of legend, and I imagine that cracking down hard on the worst of their business practices would free up a huge sum of money. Unleash the forensic accountants on the Raytheon corporation and see what they find. It’s not at all impossible that the Pentagon’s budget could be cut significantly while still finding enough money for that new infantry division/aircraft carrier you’re jonesing for. There’s that much waste — disagree?
Example: a projected $600 million dollar cost overrun on the next American aircraft carrier due to the fact that they started building the carrier before properly testing the new EMALS catapult design. (that’s in addition to the $11B budget for building the carrier) For some reason it will be the taxpayers and not the incompetent contractors footing the bill. That’s just one example.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“Defense is already too low” — too low for what? For Pete’s sake, 45% of defense spending worldwide is spent by the US.
Someday soon we may need to take on Red China and Trinidad-Tobago simultaneously.
June 4th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I use a bike as my primary transportation. Also, 1) I stay on the sidewalk as much as possible 2) I use my hands as little as possible (I have a health condition that tends to get aggravated if I rest my weight on the handlebars;in fact this booklet about it says not to ride a bike if your condition is bad, which advice I stopped following for a year or so before I hit upon the riding-around-with-no-hands idea, which has the added benefit of being good for building up torso strength, which is good for my condition, and for improving my balance, which is good, too, so it’s win-win, assuming I don’t get myself killed, and 3) speaking of which, I don’t use a helmet (I own a helmet, but I don’t like it; I do think about wearing a helmet sometimes, though).
June 4th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“stopped following” should be “followed.”
June 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
[...] $23 billion they actually propose, in the words of Matt Yglesias, would cause devastating damage to the country.” That’s the goal, isn’t [...]
June 4th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“The smarter thing to say would be to insist that the US military get more bang for its bucks.”
Thanks for proving Cantor’s point, Ian. Gee, you think that maybe there’s other systemic fat in the federal budget besides the Department of Defense? Maybe limiting the increase in federal spending to the rate of inflation is easily accomplished when your wiz-bang idea is more broadly applied.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Tommer, I’m afraid you have failed here. See, Ian mentions that “Shady Pentagon contractors have become the stuff of legend.” And then he follows that with a specific example of a single program’s $600 million cost overrun. You merely pretend that this is generally applicable without providing anything even vaguely resembling an example – or coherent thought.
This is why I end up holding “conservatives” and “libertarians” in contempt. They both show this same inability to reason or construct logical arguments.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:23 am
biking on sidewalks with no hands on handlebars, no helmet…
I think that by not resting hands on the handlebars one increases the probability of falling, which would make helmet more sensible…
I guess that I would advise a recumbent bike; perhaps with a front and rear rostrum, and to use the roadway. (Rostrum is my private invention, not implemented yet, to discourage drivers from hitting you).
About getting more bang from the buck in defense spending: we went over it several times. Our allies spend considerably more than our opponents. In the same time, compare France, which can be attacked by Spain, Perfidious Albion, Germans, Belgians, Swiss and Barbary Pirates, and survives with a fraction of our military budget, while we just face Mexico and Canada, so we could actually survive with a fraction of French budget. After all, national survival is the goal, not some abstract “bang”.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:59 am
#22: Thanks for proving Cantor’s point, Ian. Gee, you think that maybe there’s other systemic fat in the federal budget besides the Department of Defense?
In view of the last 30 years or so of giving Defense everything it wants, money is no object, and cutting all other spending at every opportunity, rain or shine, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if 90% or even more of the total “fat” in the federal budget was in Defense.
#24: You overlook (intentionally?) the point that our “Defense” department is not in fact intended for defense. If it were, we could obviously do fine with a tiny fraction of what we have now. It’s actually a Global Hegemony Department, a much more expensive undertaking.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
piotr:
Oh, good, I got a reaction! Thank you!
Yes, you’re correct, to some extent. I’m not entirely sensible. This fact amuses me. However, I will note that I am extremely proficient at steering without my hands; in fact even when I do touch the handlebars, 90% of the steering is done with my hips, and if I need to brake or make a sharp turn, it takes a tiny fraction of a second to reach the bars. Granted, it is possible to imagine a scenario in which that could mean the difference between life and death, particularly if I am insane enough to be doing this sans helmet, but it’s worked out OK for me so far…
June 5th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
dim Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Terry,
Which program would you be referring to? You wouldn’t be just talking out of your ass would you?
————————
Nope here’s a good example. I watched a TV ad the other day for free cell phones to people making under $18,000 a year with 400 minutes a month fully paid for by the tax payer. The only requirement is that you make under $18,000 a year. So I called the number talked to the person on the phone told them I was out of work. They asked me if I was looking for a job I told them when I could look I did, maybe once or twice a week. They told me I was good to go and wanted to get my address to send me the phone. You are not even required to submit proof you are job hunting, they will take your word for it.
Programs like that need either a complete overhaul or need to be removed. I should not be paying people to sit at home and talk on the free phone and service I am giving them.
And that’s just one example or things.
Here’s another. I’m in IT. After the dotcom bust I was layed off for a few months, so I filed for unemployment while I was job hunting. The only requirement was I talk to one company a week…ONE!!! Why is the requirement one a week? If you are serious about finding a job you’ll talk to everyone who will listen. But uncle sam will pay you to sit at home 4 days a week.
Look I have no problem with helping out people who are trying to help themselves…but it’s a fact that a lot of the people collecting my hard earned money have no interesting in getting a job. I had a friend who pissed me off when I found this out..but he was doing a ton of work under the table. He owned his own business and did most of it cash so he reported about 1/10 of what he made. Because of that he was able to get his wife and kids on government health care and food stamps and wic. He was making almost $100,000 a year but because he was cheating he was getting paid by the tax payers. When I found out I told him to drop the freebees or we were done being friends and I planned to report him…it’s people like that that cause the programs to cost too much.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
[...] federal budget needs to grow by so much every year? Matthew Yglesias also makes a good point about needing more targeting in the cuts. If we’re just going to reduce outlays in an arbitrary, across-the-board way, why should defense [...]