The Fine Print on the Republican Budget Cuts

March 3, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (7)

There’s a picture of House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Whip Kevin McCarthy that ran in the papers after their White House budget luncheon. They’re standing behind microphones. Eyes glinting. Jaws set. Confident, with maybe just a hint of pride.

And why not? Working together, they've come up with something anyone would be proud of: a Ho Ho.

You know the Hostess Ho Ho. It beckons to you from the snack aisle at your local 7/11. By all appearances, it's some kind of snacking miracle. Chocolate. Cake. Creamy filling. It’s the founding fathers of desert-y goodness all wrapped up into one marvelous package.

Or is it? Turn the package over. There, in the small print... What’s Sodium Stearate? Monocalcium Phosphate? 13 grams of fat. Et tu, Ho Ho? You have betrayed me. [See a roundup of Republican political cartoons.]

That’s the House Republican spending proposal. Not the stopgap measure, the $61 billion. Its Heaven-knows-what nastiness wrapped up in tasty, distracting rhetoric. I call it junk food politics. Here’s why:

To begin with, the proposal doesn’t do anything meaningful to cut spending or reduce the deficit. It won’t put us on the course to a balanced budget: Cutting $61 billion this year does little to dent an expected $1.6 trillion deficit. It won’t even do much to close the budget hole created by the tax cuts that were extended in December—those increased the deficit by $801 billion, or around $740 billion more than the proposed cuts will save. And it doesn’t touch the prime drivers of the deficit: no cuts to Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. Defense spending actually goes up. All that Republican talk about getting the budget back in balance? So far, it’s nonsense. [Check out a roundup of cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

What are Republicans really up to? Look at the actual cuts. $752 million cut from nutritional programs for children and pregnant women. $1 billion cut from Head Start programs. Almost $6 billion cut from Pell Grants. Those cuts won’t help balance the budget, but they will hobble programs Republicans have been trying to kill for years.

In the past, taking on something like Head Start carried political risks. On the one hand, it gave Republicans the opportunity to cut something that doesn’t benefit the people who typically vote Republican. No downside there. But on the other hand, no one wants to say they’re against helping poor kids go to kindergarten.

Republicans hope today is different. They, like just about everyone else, have read the public mood. They see an electorate simmering with an almost unprecedented level of anger at government. They understand that if ever people are going to let you cut government programs first and ask questions later, it’s now.

The challenge for Republicans moving forward: Where’s the tipping point? You can see the Republican caucus grappling with that very question. Head Start, special education, Pell Grants—ok, those programs service relatively small, less vocal constituencies; in this environment, maybe they can be cut without too much trouble. Social security? Whoa. Not yet. [Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

We should have a robust debate about how tax dollars are spent in this country. We earn the money. We should have the final say about how the government spends it. If Republicans think we shouldn’t fund Head Start, it is perfectly valid for them to say, “We shouldn’t fund Head Start.”

But they’re not saying it. Instead, they’re gambling that as long as they keep the public’s attention focused on cuts writ large, rather than the specifics of what they are cutting, they can get away with a lot of cuts that they might not otherwise be able to make.  

They may be right. There’s a reason the picture on a Ho Hos package isn't a bunch of lard. Or a clogged artery. You wouldn’t eat it if you knew what was in it. And that chocolate sure does make the Polysorbate 80 go down easier.

But here’s the thing about junk food, whether it’s politics or a snack cake: You can only eat so much of it before it makes you sick.

Tags:
Kevin McCarthy,
Eric Cantor,
Republican Party,
John Boehner,
deficit and national debt,
politics,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

We need to have serious debate in this country as to what we want to keep funding and what needs to be turned over to the churches, private businesses, etc... I think because we have never had an honest debate about the budget and just what and how much money we do pay for things that we really don't know what we are dealing with to solve this problem. It would be nice if when they think about cutting something that they have a solution or an alternative that could serve as a replacement. When former President Bush tried to privatize social security all hell broke loose. Everybody wants to cut everything that they don't need or use. Unfortunately, we have created such a dependent society that snatching away things over night is not going to solve any problems. There are plenty of things that the government funds that we need to ask ourselves is it something we as a society want to continue funding? If not we should be able to express that to our Representatives and go from there. I don't agree with them just making the decisions on their own without any public debate.

Marvice of CA 10:42PM March 10, 2011

$ 4 billion in cuts to new law allowing 2 week extension. Is that a FIRST ???

Pens were saved when barry signed I believe. I think Republican leaders should have gotten a pen. I wonder if CNN carried the signing. Will it be mentioned by authors here ?

Mark T of OR says “Repeal the Reagan/Bush tax cuts, get out of these wars that are hurting our country more than any terrorist attack could.”

W R O N G:

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Was true for Kennedy, Reagan, and Newt/Clinton as well.

Bill Hedges of MO 7:41PM March 03, 2011

Anson Kaye is right, there SHOULD be "robust debate" on how our tax dollars are spent. In its place we have political intrigue and blatant attempts to mislead the easily fooled. Why? Political agendas would have to be be compromised if not trashed by the "loyal opposition." And that, as we all know, is a no-no since politics is about the politicians, not about us.

Let's imagine for a moment, though, that "robust debate" could come about. Where might it start?

Genuine honesty would dictate, I should think, first leveling with voters on why there is so little being offered or said about our $1 trillion annual expenditure on that broad category of five called "National Security." Now, there's one area ripe for cutting since it's well known we, the world's biggest debtor nation, spend on national security more than the rest of the world COMBINED. Our projection of power everywhere (700+ military installations around the world?), and our willingness to engage repeatedly in military operations and outright wars, nation building, and foreign aid designed to gain the cooperation of other countries is very expensive. Why no discussion or open, "robust," debate in view of the fact that budget cuts are about to fall on those least able to bear them and programs perhaps more important than unexplained extravagance on "National Security." It's time for people like John Boehner and Eric Cantor to stay the ax before wielding it carelessly and, especially, before justifying the exclusion of National Security from open scrutiny in the quest for spending cuts. There's irony in the fact that National Security and the federal deficit are BOTH currently over $1 trillion a year in a budget of $3.5 trillion. We need honesty, Republicans, not just open season on spending not especially to your liking. On second thought, "robust debate" would be the honest way, wouldn't it?

Ron W. Smith of UT 1:28PM March 03, 2011

Anson Kaye

Anson Kaye

Anson Kaye, a senior vice president at the democratic advertising firm GMMB, is a former chief of staff on Capitol Hill with extensive campaign experience, most recently as a key member of the Obama 2012 media team. Follow him on Twitter @aewk.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement