6 places to start cutting government
6 places to start cutting government
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot. View the video version of this column atwww.usatoday.com/news/opinion/default.htmor at USA TODAY's YouTube channel at youtube.com/usatoday.
Today: Cutting government.
Cal: With all the hand-wringing about the swelling U.S. deficit, you'd think Washington would get the message. If you're spending more than you're "earning," — or rather, taxing — you need to start cutting. Americans who have to balance their checkbooks get this.
Bob: You just said it, though: have to balance. If you have unlimited funds, as Congress seems to think it does, then it's a financial free-for-all.
Cal: Well, now that the president's deficit commission has been seated, let's send them down the right path: Cut first. And since we're talking about trillions in red ink as far as the eye can see, that means these cuts will almost certainly have to hurt someone.
Bob: Indeed, but it's better that we do it now rather than when — like Greece— a gun's being held to our head.
Cal: OK, so let's get going. Where to cut? I'd begin with a question: Can state and local governments and private industry more efficiently and at less expense accomplish the goals of a Cabinet department or a federal agency? If they can, let them.
Bob: No disagreement there.
1 Department of Education
Cal: New Jersey's new governor, Chris Christie, is trying to reduce the size and cost of state government. If he succeeds — and I believe the mood in that state is for revolutionary reform — New Jersey could be a model for the rest of the country, including Washington. These include, but are not limited to, removing tenure for incompetent teachers and cutting their bloated pensions, which were a gift to the unions in exchange for votes for Democrats. So No. 1, let's start with cuts at the Department of Education.
Bob: I am one liberal who believes this department spends too much money on national programs like No Child Left Behind that are best addressed at the state level. I could easily support cutting that department in half, with the savings going to the states — ideally starting with higher salaries for teachers.
Cal: So perhaps the great Ronald Reagan was right, after all, when he talked of eliminating the department.
Bob: Let's not get carried away!
2 Department of Agriculture
Cal: Ideally, I wish it were possible for the federal government to perform only those tasks specified in the Constitution and leave all the rest to the states, as specified in the 10th Amendment. But I realize that won't happen, so next up: the Department of Agriculture, which has roughly one employee for every 15 farmers. You think we could find some fat there?
Bob: Absolutely. Between 1996 and 2002, federal subsides to farmers have grown to $121 billion. In recent years, 72% of those subsidies went to huge corporate agribusinesses and the largest privately owned farms. So you have a symbiotic relationship between government and big farmers, but the American people are left holding the bill.
3 Faith-based initiatives
Cal: The government should not be collecting money to fund religious groups. Let's leave that to the churches. As such, I'd do away with any federal money going to religious organizations. This brainchild of President Bush, while noble in its intention, is an unnecessary intrusion by the government into something that ought to be the exclusive preserve of "religious" people whose allegiance is less to Washington than to a higher authority.
Bob: Right on. In 2004, the White House "faith czar" under Bush announced that $40 billion in federal funds were then available to religious groups. President Obama has embraced this concept, even as he has tried to put his own mark on it. For many reasons — fiscal, religious and otherwise — this program needs to end.
4 Future bailouts
Cal: I was opposed to all the bailouts — from banks to GM and Chrysler— which were begun in the Bush administration and continued in the Obama administration. The threat of failure with no bailout is the best insurance that people will make better decisions and take fewer risks. As long as the prospects for a federal bailout exist (under the "too big to fail" scenario) corporations will take risks they otherwise might not take.
Bob: I didn't like bailouts either, but the reality was that the domestic auto industry, long a mainstay of American manufacturing, would have been left with only one company (Ford), not to mention the loss of hundreds of thousands of auto manufacturing jobs. AIG particularly irked me, but had it gone under as the largest insurance company, the world may well have been thrown into a depression. I agree on bailouts of the big banks. Goldman Sachs received billions in 2008 from taxpayers and announced record profits last year. Outrageous.
Cal: Well, let's agree on this — no more bailouts. Let's make sure businesses large and small realize once again that if you risk it all, you can lose it all. The government should be there to protect the people, not to redirect the people's money.
Bob: Close enough, though I'd say no more bailouts unless it's an absolute national emergency. And even then, only as a last resort.
5 Defense Department
Bob: I know that Republicans always harp on Democrats for cutting defense spending, but when you're talking about a piece of the budget pie this large, it has to be on the table when you're talking about cuts.
Cal: I'll buy that.
Bob: The Defense Department will receive $534 billion in this fiscal year. And billions are wasted each year on unnecessary defense programs — see the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet — which are not reasonable in a post-Cold War era.
Cal: I completely agree. A balance must be found between necessary weapons systems for our strong defense and pork for members of Congress interested in defending their seats.
Bob: The key in selling defense cuts is letting the American people know that less is sometimes more. Losing the next whiz-bang fighter jet won't make us less safe.
6 Entitlement programs
Cal: I've saved the best for last: If we have any real hopes of getting our spending under control, we have to — have to! — cut entitlement spending.
Bob: As the Obama administration has suggested, billions of dollars are lost each year simply to waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These can and should be cut. As for the granddaddy of entitlements, Social Security, the time has come to increase the age for payments to 70. When the program was launched, the intention was not to dole out 30 years of benefits. But as we live longer, that's often the case. We should also means-test so that wealthier retirees get less.
Cal: Reagan, with the help of Democrats, had the courage to tackle Social Security reform in the 1980s. But where are the courageous politicians today when it comes to such meaningful reforms and substantial cuts in government?
Bob: Good question.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... titialskip
