So writes Jacob Sullum in the face of Democrats wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth at the Republicans’ “mean-spirited” budget cuts:
How else should one greet a New York Times editorial that concedes the federal deficit, projected to be $1.6 trillion this year, is “too large for comfort” but calls $61 billion in cuts “ruinous”? Or a press release from the Every Child Matters Education Fund that deems them “harsh” and “extreme”?
The cuts represent less than 2 percent of the total budget, less than 4 percent of the deficit, and less than 5 percent of discretionary spending, which rose in real terms by 75 percent from 2000 to 2010 and by about 9 percent in each of the last two fiscal years. If the House-approved reductions would be “the largest one-year cuts in history,” as the folks at Every Child Matters say, that is a sad commentary not on Republican cold-heartedness but on the fiscal incontinence of both parties.
Read the whole thing. (H/t: Instapundit.)
Hi Dan,
When Republicans and Democrats seriously take an axe to corporate welfare in the form of subsidies that those corporations receive (as well as the dreaded personal mortgage interest deduction) I find the rhetoric coming from both sides of Washington, in a word–laughable. And for those who have any interest in such issues, checking in with conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute and Hoover Institute, can help bring them up to speed on the damaging effects of such subsidies on the economy in general, and the Federal deficit in particular. Plenty of pork can be slashed there.
The Republicans missed a chance here to “go big”. $61 billion in cuts is nowhere near enough to repair the ruin that Democrats have wrought.
No argument, so far. We should have total separation of Business and State, for the same reasons we have separation of Church and State. Picking winners and losers in the marketplace is not a legitimate function of government, and only havoc results from the government’s interference in matters of industry.
(continued) The NYT, and left-liberals in general, suffer from illogic if not schizophrenia on fiscal issues.
– If a $1.6 trillion deficit is bad, then how can reducing it be “ruinous”? (Unless they mean that reducing it by a mere $61B in spending cuts is nowhere near enough?)
– Or, if spending and deficits at current levels are good, then how can a $1.6T deficit be bad? Why not spend our way up to a $3T deficit, right now?
Make up your minds, chumps. Don’t pretend to wring your hands over Obama’s excessive spending and deficits, but then faint with horror when Republicans propose the mildest of steps to fix it.
I just don’t see how a balanced budgetary-level that was sufficient for ALL our needs in FY-2000 is now so utterly unobtainable or endurable…even allowing for the additional “temporary” war spending. And in saying “war spending” I’m allowing for severally-reduced Iraq and Afghani operations for budgeting-purposes…not the bloated and corrupt levels of current operations. It’s madness that we’re spending 1-million-dollars-a-year per boot on the ground, especially as the troops themselves aren’t seeing but a small fraction of that to support their families.
Hi ILC,
“No argument, so far.”
Cool
Who’s this Every Child Exploited group? Is that some of them No Child’s Behind Left Untouched liberal teachers?
Newsflash: it will get about 20 to 30 times more “mean-spirited”, before it is all over.
Cas, you’re a idiot. Do you even know what “corporate welfare” is? Or more precisely, isn’t?
Here’s an example of corporate welfare – tax breaks for “green energy” projects.
You’re against that,right?
Corporate welfare – don’t forget ethanol subsidies.
I’m all for eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and the like provided the change in revenue-neutral; the last thing we need is for government to soak up even more of the national economy than it currently does (which is a bigger distortion than are tax breaks and subsidies)
Congress needs to adopt zero-based budgeting. Only in Washington would nono-reductions in spending that has increased 20, 30, 40 percent in a couple of years be seen as “draconian”.
Correct. They must also go.
Hi TR,
Boy you like to shoot from the hip don’t you? Our first interaction, and already the insults fly! How about, “what is your take on green projects…?” then wait for a response, before labeling…You might not like my response, but you lose nothing from holding off a little! Please understand that I have been dealing with this issue across quite a few threads, and a lot of these issues have already been explored in some depth. You would be amazed at the number of commentatorst on this site who like subsidies (including the mortgage interest deduction), and not only nominal liberals.
In answer to your first question: Do you? I only ask this because my usage follows that of think tanks like Cato and Hoover. For example, cast your eyes on this: http://www.hoover.org/publications/monographs/27208. It might shock you. It is slightly out of date, but ten years has not made this picture any rosier.
As for “green” projects. To the extent they are a boondoogle, that is the extent I dislike them. I have made clear (on other threads) that the two exceptions where I think subsidies may be useful, would be in the case of the worst off in society, or, in the case of a positive externality, where increased output corrects that inadequate level of production and consumption. This is especially attractive if a good case can be made that such subsidies are short term only, to help an industry achieve economies of scale so that industry can lower its cost structure to compete on its own. Even so, within a timely period, if an industry can’t make it on its own without a subsidy, it has no business asking for ongoing government handouts, and the subsidy should be withdrawn.
Also, “ethanol” from corn subsidies are just bloody awful… and it hurts the worst off by increasing food prices; a two for one on economic inefficiency and economically regressive policy.
Cas,
With all due respect, who died and made you the moderator of reason?
All taxation promotes or discourages a government determined “value.” We tax the heck out of cigarettes, but lack the testosterone to ban them. We promote ethanol and wonder why corn prices have squeezed the hand-to-mouth poor extra hard.
Here’s a proposition: Let’s have a flat tax. No deductions, no waivers. To please you, lets put it on all corporations. No deductions, no waivers. Now, Cas, lets also eliminate all welfare. The poverty stricken get full jail house care in fenced campuses. If you can not make your way in open, tax paying society, you are compelled to throw yourself on the mercy of the state. If the state finds you drug addicted, the state will take you out of circulation. If you have demons, no more homelessness, you get the state campus plan. If you can’t make your payments and pay you flat taxes, you go to the state campus and work at “public service” to earn your state keep. Neither a borrower nor debtor be, pay your flat taxes and remain “free.”
Any questions? Any problems with this?
#11 You might try getting to the point and save the hifalutin bloviations for somebody who might give a damn. And I think you might find, if you didn’t expend so much energy on sounding more important than you really are, that Cato is Libertarian rather than Conservative, as you keep ASSerting.
Hi TGC,
“that Cato is Libertarian rather than Conservative, as you keep ASSerting”
And Hoover? Is that libertarian? Are you asserting that? Did you even read the article? Do you have any idea of the level of government largesse out there in subsidy land and how problematic it is to our economy?
Finally, what are the real differences between libertarian and conservatives on the political and economic sides, TGC? I can dig it that social conservatives and libertarians might take issues with each other, but economically? What are the big differences, in your opinion?
As for “hifalutin”, well, I am trying to be clear. Sorry that irritates you.
Hi Heliotrope,
A flat tax could work. It depends on how it is set up.
The return to the 19th century poor houses seems a little too retro for me.
However, I am willing to play with you on this, so, here are some questions for you:
Under your suggested plan, what happens if I decide to drop out of the “pay tax and be free” world you have set up? What if I choose a third way? After all, would your system allow me to make my own way, make my own living, without entering the “money economy”? In other words, would I be allowed to just live a “homeless existence, if I wanted to, as long as I didn’t ask anything from the state? You are not especially clear on this, and it could be easily inferred that being homeless or really poor just gets you a one-way ticket to a “state campus.” Is that right? Before I can comment sensibly on your plan, I would really need to know what would constitute “liberty” in your envisaged society, and what its limits are.
Ah, the “exceptions” being. The argument is fatally flawed because of its hidden, and wrong, premise that YOU WOULD KNOW a “good case” for government intervention. And that so would a majority of wise and enlightened voters, politicians and bureaucrats who would of course go along with you to do only good things.
History demonstrates the contrary. In spades. Gee, what’s that saying about the Road to Hell?
No, the only way around it is to consciously strive for total separation of Business and State. Government is there to enforce criminal law (including laws against fraud and racketeering), thus protecting people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Enforcement should be as close to “impartial” as is humanly possible, thus creating a level playing field. Other than that, government must leave business completely alone – NO exceptions.
Other than impartial enforcement of criminal law, intervention/regulation always create more problems than they solve – and it turns out that regulators are congenitally incapable of grasping it, which is why their answer to their repeated and consistent failures is always to propose more regulation:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/03/03/peter-foster-one-flew-over-the-regulator%E2%80%99s-nest/
http://brunoleonimedia.servingfreedom.net/Mises2010/Papers/IBL_Mises2010_Tasic.pdf
typo – “Ah, the ‘exceptions’ -begin-.”
Hi ILC,
“The argument is fatally flawed because of its hidden, and wrong, premise that YOU WOULD KNOW a “good case” for government intervention.”
I grant that it would be hard. You raise an important objection, for which there is plenty of support. But I believe there may be cases where government intervention works. I think, for example of the “Four Tigers,” who followed an export substitution strategy after WWII. They used government intervention to support industries till they could stand on their own feet with economies of scale. It worked as a strategy. So, it can be done. That is why I made my caveat–a time limit for support. If it doesn’t work within a reasonable time framework, get rid of it.
“Government is there to enforce criminal law (including laws against fraud and racketeering), thus protecting people’s rights to life, liberty and property.”
I think you might also grant national defence as an additional thing that government can provide. One might want to add more generally the provision of public goods (e.g., other non-excludable public goods) to the mix. Please note I am thinking of Smith here…
ILC,
It will take some time to work my way through the Tasic paper. What do you want me to focus on as a basis for possible discussion?
Did I say it? If I didn’t say it, I’m not asserting it.
Then speak plainly and to the point. Eschew obfuscation. One wonders who you’re trying to impress with your loquaciousness.
HI TGC,
Again, I am sorry I irritate you, but what you call “loquaciousness” is for the most part, trying to cover bases that commentators on this site are immediately going to critique robustly as not having been covered. That is the way it works here. Unfortunately, there are a lot of ins and outs with the topics discussed here, and I am not usually interested in pithy talking points. And yes, part of it is STYLE, TGC. Again, my apologies.
So TGC,
Since Hoover is a conservative think-tank, what say you about their take on subsidies for corporations, aka, corporate welfare?
Well, that’s something. Thank you.
“Well, that’s something. Thank you.”
You are very welcome.
It should be possible to debate Cas without the insults.
All very interesting, but most of the comments here miss the point and ignore the post.
The bottom line is that we are spending ourselves into oblivion. $1.5 trillion deficits at the federal level are unsustainable. Many states, huge ones like California and New York among them, are in trouble.
For the Democrats to whine over a proposed $61 billion in cuts shows how out of touch with all concepts of reality they are.
Sure, there is some good news, but just barely. With the recent victory over the teachers union, Wisconsin is headed in the right direction. New Jersey and Virginia (where I live) dodged a bullet when our citizens came to their senses and elected fiscal conservatives, but the jury is still out on what will happen in Ohio.
Accusing Republicans of “hypocrisy” over “corporate welfare” (as if Democrats don’t vote for subsidies too) is all very entertaining but conveniently avoids discussion of these facts.
As do almost all of the comments here.
Hi TR,
“Accusing Republicans of “hypocrisy” over “corporate welfare” (as if Democrats don’t vote for subsidies too) is all very entertaining but conveniently avoids discussion of these facts.”
From the article: “that is a sad commentary not on Republican cold-heartedness but on the fiscal incontinence of both parties.”
From the first post: “When Republicans and Democrats seriously take an axe to corporate welfare in the form of subsidies that those corporations receive (as well as the dreaded personal mortgage interest deduction)[.] I find the rhetoric coming from both sides of Washington, in a word–laughable.”
Both Dems and Repubs vote for corporate and other subsidies (which worsen the deficit). E.g., Repubs voted recently to keep billions for the oil industry (and last time Dems had control, they didn’t get rid of them either), even when oil companies have record profits. These various subsidies are worth roughly twice the 61 billion the Repubs want to cut and the Dems are resisting. Does the prospect of a cut of $120 billion excite you, even a little?
Isn’t that relevant to the two main points raised by the article (i.e., 61 billion is chicken feed; and, Dems and Repubs in Congress are not really serious about this; if you want add the derision at Dem intransigence, be my guest)?
I note that it is the Establishment moderate Republicans (Snowe [of course], Collins [of course], Scott Brown, Dick Lugar, Chuck Grassley) who are the ones sustaining the Culture or Cronyism. The Tea Party upstarts (Rand Paul, Mike Lee) and the hardcore conservatives (Tom Corbun, Jim DeMint) are the ones who are serious about dealing with the deficit.