Posted on 07/13/2013 6:21:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hark, unless mine eyes are cheated, it appears that the House has passed a bill — on energy and water development — that would spend less money than we spent last year. Indeed, that is the case: The $30.4 billion bill is $2.9 billion less than was appropriated for 2013. If my always-suspect English-major math is correct, that $2.9 billion represents a full 0.08 percent of 2012 federal outlays.
The White House has threated to veto these “draconian cuts.” Seriously — OMB put out a statement calling these “draconian cuts.” Does anybody over there know what “draconian” means?
Among the prize pigs being slaughtered by our beady-eyed Republican friends is a multimillion-dollar national propaganda campaign on behalf of alternative-energy interests, which went down thanks to Representative Tim Walberg of Michigan. It is bad enough that the federal government subsidizes these politically connected energy firms — spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to push their wares as well is a bit much to stomach.
Representative Mike Burgess (R., Texas) offered an amendment that would block federal regulation of refrigerators and incandescent light bulbs, while Representative Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) took aim at ceiling-fan regulations. ARPA-E, the Department of Energy’s answer to DARPA, would see its funding cut by $215 million — that’s millions with an “m,” there, out of a budget in the trillions — and various other programs would be trimmed and consolidated.
Draconian cuts. Indeed.
This is all very good, and it deserves to become law. But it also offers a dramatic illustration of how difficult it is to cut spending without cutting the areas where the spending actually happens. This may be a minuscule cut in terms of overall federal spending, but it’s an 81 percent cut for ARPA-E, and a 50 percent cut for the newly consolidated delivery/reliability/efficiency/renewables program. The people who receive grants and other financial benefits under those programs will howl, and — more important — those who earn their living staffing those programs will fight to the death to avoid the hunt for productive employment in the real economy. That is why spending reductions on those kinds of programs are never really enough: You have to eliminate the program entirely. Conservative populists sometimes get mocked for promising to cut entire cabinet agencies, but, in the long term, that is the most promising model for achieving a healthy fiscal balance.
Obligatory reminder: None of this matters very much without entitlement reform and controls on defense spending. Non-defense discretionary spending, i.e. the stuff everybody promises to cut or cap, is a small part of federal spending.
The Department of Energy, which like the Department of Education is a creature of the Carter administration, does some useful things: For historical reasons, it is entrusted with maintenance of the country’s nuclear arsenal, and it sponsors some worthwhile research. None of which justifies having a cabinet agency to tell us what kind of light bulbs to use. The best course of action would be to turn the department’s defense functions over to Defense and its research functions over to the National Science Foundation and to zero out most of the rest. That’s what real fiscal reform would look like.
Instead, we’ll probably be treated to a veto and drawn-out fight over a minuscule reduction in federal outlays simply because every dollar of federal spending eventually lands in the pocket of somebody with a powerful interest in receiving it. None of that is helped by the Obama administration’s apparent ideological commitment to maximizing the federal government’s control over the U.S. economy and its resources, a project that it pursues relentlessly while wondering why its more excitable critics describe its agenda as socialism.
Yesterday, I wrote about “Obamaphones for millionaires,” the federal program under which telephone companies serving Maui beach developments and Scottsdale golf communities receive subsidies amounting to thousands of dollars per year for every line they install. The comments were predictable: Self-identified conservatives wrote in to assure me that, while they agree that federal spending is out of control, these programs — just these — are really, truly necessary, and that the telecoms receiving those billions of dollars a year in subsidies are totally deserving. Every dollar in spending creates its own constituency, whether it produces cash in hand or a government-funded national ad campaign for your business. Representatives Walberg, Burgess, et al. will have worked a minor miracle if they can make the trivial reductions they have proposed a reality.
— Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for National Review and author of the newly published The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome.
What do you expect from a Harvard Graduate? Ever hear about the Store Clerk at the Express Checkout (20 items or less) at a grocery Store in Cambridge, MA?
Clerk - Hey, idiot are you a student at MIT or Harvard?
College Student - Huh?
Clerk - Either you are a Harvard student and cannot do Math or a MIT student and cannot read.
College Student - Huh?
It must have been Obama!
Is that a joke? Get big government out of our lives.
Oh they’re cutting. Now they’re targeting in-theater hazard pay for our military troops.
I agree that Draconian cuts are in order: let’s KILL useless government agencies and departments. We’ll start with the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services. Shutter them all and let these overpaid, insufferable government drones find out what unemployment is like. These paper shufflers couldn’t get a job at Burger King because that would take too much original thought and effort on their parts.
“The $30.4 billion bill is $2.9 billion less than was appropriated for 2013. If my always-suspect English-major math is correct, that $2.9 billion represents a full 0.08 percent of 2012 federal outlays.”
$2.9 billion is 8.7% of $33.9 billion (the 2012 outlay based on 30.4 + 2.9).
So, yes, his English-major math IS suspect.
This may be a reasonable cut, but let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot by arguing that particular cuts are a hundred times less than they really are.
Sorry. Typo. Meant to type 33.3 billion not 33.9. Otherwise the math is right.
He means 0.08% of the full budget, not of the $33.3B.
$2.9B/0.0008 = $3.625 Trillion
We should cut the parts of the budget that are unconstitutional. The Left will scream bloody murder no matter what we do,so we might as well do something meaningful.
I concur, but how? You got a gaggle here who ‘thinks’ the Const. gives Rights somehow, another group whom think they are ‘owed’ SS/Medicare
I’m afraid it’s a day late/$ short anymore
OK. That makes sense. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.