Spending Cuts We Can Live With

5/6/2009

This is going to be a difficult post/topic to write about without offending everyone.

So, I'm going to ask a question up front so that you'll participate in this thought experiment with me rather than have this post sound like a crazed attack on entitlements and programs that seem geared toward progress and empathy:

Since we can't continue to run a budget deficit indefinitely, what are some areas of government that we could/should cut back on or say farewell to (either permanently or temporarily until the economy improves)?

This question goes out to all political affiliations, not just Libertarians who are in favor of cutting just about every federal program there is...

Here are my top two, I'd love to hear yours as well.

1. War
At a trillion dollar price tag, so far, our efforts in Iraq (in particular) have become some of the most costly in the history of the world. So whether you believe our presence in Iraq is justified or not, we can't afford it any longer and we need to pull much of our resources out of that area before we find ourselves in Vietnam, the sequel.

2. The Space Program
If you recall from my previous post, I really do like the space program. I like Cable TV and Internet access, too- but they are obviously expenses that I could do without in my own home when finances get tight. Although there are a lot of scientific advancements and excitement surrounding the Space Program, it's not imperitive to our success as a country. So, I'd cut back (at the very least).

Jamie link

5/6/2009 01:04:01 am

This post makes me smile. I love it when conservatives come up with constructive suggestions for how to cut the budget rather than just railing against the democrats who put it together. Anyway, your top two are my top two as well, if I was forced to talk about total program elimination rather than reform. But both of them are also political suicide.

The space program has a huge impact on the economy of a swing area of a swing state (FL) and it seems that very few politicians are willing to take the side that says it should be eliminated. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan is an even bigger political nightmare. It creates a perfect opportunity to blame Obama if we (or our allies) experience another terrorist attack, and to say that he's made America less safe. When John McCain suggested that he'd freeze all spending except for defense spending, this point was illustrated quite clearly.

While my mind tells me pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan and freezing spending on the space program are two of the quickest ways to cut down the size of the budget, I see reform of expensive budget categories as a more likely scenario. This would mean healthcare reform, defense spending reform, education reform (how is it that we spend more per student than countries with much better intellectual performance?), closing tax loopholes -- the list goes on.

In this political climate, the proverbial scalpel seems to be a more sensible tool than the hatchet, at least for those who have much to lose.

Nathan link

5/6/2009 01:19:04 am

Jamie- I agree that the scalpel is probably a better tool than the hatchet. It will be the END of any President when he decides to completely cut a program.

And it's hard to do that anyway, because you've always got to deal with the fact that cutting a government program also cuts the people employed by that program, adding to the unemployment mess we've got here in the US.

Of course, the opposite extreme doesn't work either (meaning that we should employ every citizen in "government roles"). Overly zealous communist countries did that in the 20th century and it lead to hunger rather than balance.

I'm sure there is some sort of fair solution that we can come up with eventually. Let's just hope that we find that safe middle ground before we run out of money!

Jamie link

5/6/2009 01:49:23 am

Aren't we already out of money? ;-)

Nathan link

5/6/2009 01:58:15 am

Yes.

(and no)

Our net worth as a country is more than our national debt and spending. But I can't imagine selling off my family to China if they want to collect!

David Rusenko link

5/7/2009 07:21:57 am

We certainly have some tough budget questions ahead of us. My favorite to inject into a conversation is this:

"We are nearing a time (if we haven't reached it already) where we can significantly extend human life, but at a cost that we can't possibly afford for every single individual in the country. Extending life for a year by delaying the progress of a terminal disease might be possible, but it might cost millions of dollars. We can not afford to spend millions of dollars for the majority of individuals in the country.
Our current policy is to not allow any action or decision that ends human life, and it's a tricky tightrope walk between action, inaction, and inability through lack of insurance. But insurance can't afford to pay out more than we pay into it.
Are we going to be able to successfully come to grips with an inequality in health care?"

From the way I see it, we can either:
(a) Accept inequality in health care
or
(b) Accept that health care will be a much larger expense -- perhaps our largest.

Let's not even get started on social security as a major budget concern. At least that has the potential to be fixed.

Nathan link

5/7/2009 08:22:12 am

David, that's an absolutely wonderful conundrum!

And I think it goes back to the idea of rights- A great question to ask here is whether or not healthcare a human right or if its a really nice thing that we should strive for.

That will probably help us decide whether the government should be involved in providing healthcare or if we need to privatize it completely (or do away with it altogether)...

Enzo

5/10/2009 05:19:23 am

We are facing a financial crisis not because of defense spending (which is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government), but because of entitlement spending (which, ironically, is not). Not only do Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures total significantly more than defense spending, they're also hard wired to increase every budget cycle. Social Security is now at the point where the annual surpluses have shrunk to nothing, and we are now beginning our fall off the cliff where the federal obligations now exceed the revenue from payroll taxes. The surpluses of the past generations were diverted to other government spending, not saved, not invested for this day. We are headed for a national fiscal train wreck unless we dramatically restructure those programs.

I vote for Sweden's model, which is pretty much a government mandated 401K system.

Comments are closed.

Don't Panic

Spending Cuts We Can Live With

About Nathan