The Drama Over, Time For Smart Budget Cuts: Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R) Oklahoma
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578344534093602790.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Since 2002, total federal spending has increased nearly 89% while median household income has dropped 5%.
Now that budget sequestration is under way, it looks less like the fiscal apocalypse that had been predicted and more like a long-overdue intervention with politicians who are addicted to borrowing and spending.
I agree with President Obama that sequestration’s across-the-board rather than specific cuts are a “dumb” way to reduce spending. That is why I voted against the plan two years ago. But if sequestration is dumb, it’s even dumber not to cut spending at all.
Cutting spending can be a powerful pro-growth strategy, but the outcome of sequestration depends on how the administration chooses to cut. Not all dollars are spent equally: The Obama administration’s decision to spend federal dollars studying how cocaine affects the reproductive habits of Japanese quail didn’t multiply anything other than quail.
Shifting money to working families from quail research—and thousands of other frivolous expenditures—would mean fewer government workers furloughed. The $181,000 quail study alone could prevent 62 furloughs. If the federal government stopped sending unemployment checks to millionaires, it could save $14.8 million a year (according to IRS data) and prevent 5,103 furloughs. Smart savings would mean that single moms and others on a tight budget don’t have to work as much to finance wasteful government spending—and can keep more of their own money to spend, fueling economic growth in the process.
Sequestration will force cuts to waste that wouldn’t otherwise be cut. The administration has claimed that its hands are tied and terrible things will happen, yet its warnings seem calibrated to sound scary but not too scary. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that cuts to air-traffic control will force flight delays but won’t compromise safety or cause air disasters.
He can avoid both with smart cuts. I sent him a letter this week detailing $1.2 billion in savings that would more than cover his $600 million shortfall. He could start by curtailing subsidies for “Airports to Nowhere” that serve fewer than 10 passengers a day. The department also has $34 billion in unobligated funds lying around that could help prevent delays and disasters.
The same is true of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Instead of forcing Americans to spend more time in airport screening lines, she can find savings in the wasteful grant program that gave America an underwater robot for Columbus, Ohio, and a BearCat armored-personnel carrier to guard a pumpkin festival in Keene, N.H. (population 23,000). Trimming this $830 million grant program by just one third could avoid Transportation Security Administration furloughs entirely.
But if cabinet secretaries insist on using furloughs, they could start by furloughing employees who already don’t bother to show up for work. In a 2008 report, I found that the 3.5 million hours that federal employees were AWOL in 2007 could be used to screen 1.7 billion checked bags, or enough to avoid security delays for nearly four years.
Another source of potential savings is duplication of federal services, which accounts for $364 billion spent every year, according to the Government Accountability Office. Washington spends $30 million for 15 financial-literacy programs run by 13 separate agencies. Taxpayers also spend $3.1 billion on 209 separate science, technology, engineering and mathematics education programs across 13 agencies. Why not fund one good program in these areas instead of dozens that don’t work and waste money?
The longer this fight drags on, the harder it will be for the administration to pretend it can’t find savings. After all, what is dramatic isn’t the size of the sequestration cuts but recent increases in government spending. Since 2002, total federal spending has increased nearly 89% while median household income has dropped 5% and median wealth has dropped 23%. In other words, while families have been doing more with less, government has been doing less with more.
If President Obama believes he doesn’t have the flexibility to set budget priorities, all he has to do is ask Congress for more leeway. Forcing working families to bear the brunt of Washington’s refusal to use discretion in spending cuts is economically indefensible and morally reprehensible. The president should instead work with Congress to make smart cuts that will strengthen the nation and its families.
Comments are closed.
