On Cutting Spending and Investment
Mark at Pseudo-Polymath links to this post on Rand Paul’s ideas for cutting the budget, using the line: “Someone is forgetting that the left prefers social entitlements to science programs.” I think Mark has a good point, but not the best point.
This illustrates one of the reasons I oppose across-the-board spending cuts. Some argue–and I understand their point–that since we can’t seem to cut spending point by point, the only way to proceed is with a general spending freeze. I would suggest, rather, that a general spending freeze won’t solve the problem; it just lets us pretend, because after the freeze, we still won’t have the courage to go after the real spending problem, which needs to be done program by program. I don’t see the courage on either side of the aisle to accomplish that mission.
There are things the government does well, and there are things better done privately. Of the things the government ought to be doing, there are better and worse ways to accomplish those goals. This includes military, security, and law enforcement spending, which Republicans often hold sacred. It includes choosing which moral issues deserve to be enshrined in law and just how much we want to spend enforcing those positions.
On the other hand, it includes looking at social programs to determine which ones are actually accomplishing their stated goals, not to mention asking whether the stated goals are likely to be accomplished at all.
Science spending, in the right areas, is particularly important for our future, as is education spending. We could save huge amounts in social spending if we had a better educational system. How much of reforming our educational system involves spending more money, versus changing the structure or spending our money more intelligently, is another issue.
Right now I’d merely like to suggest that if we want to both shrink the deficit and grow the economy we will need to look carefully at spending point by point. A freeze, unless it is immediately followed by such a reevaluation won’t do the job. And people on all sides of the aisle will need to be prepared to sacrifice things they love, especially if careful evaluation shows their favorite programs aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
I like to suggest specifics, which the politicians rarely do. I’d also like to congratulate Rand Paul on giving specifics, even though I disagree with some of them, for the same reason. Amongst the things we need to ditch I would include almost all of public campaign financing. I don’t think it has made politics any cleaner. It certainly hasn’t made it more civil. It has only made it more costly. Add that to the suggestions I made earlier. There are more!
Related articles
- Rand Paul: End ‘welfare’ to Israel (politico.com)
- Rand Paul, the “Great No-Compromiser”? (reason.com)
- The incredible shrinking spending cuts (washingtonmonthly.com)
- Obama Spending-Freeze Pledge Criticized as ‘Deficit Preservation’ – Fox News (news.google.com)
