I'm not going to like this post. I'll reflect on it and wonder how I wrote it. I'll wonder if I was lacking oxygen to the brain or if the residual effects for DC Brau's Ghouls Night Out carried over into the day after drinking it.
Guys, David Brooks wrote a column that makes sense. Please pick your jaws from up off the floor. I still have a couple bones to pick, but on the whole I like what I read. Mr. Brooks wants a "dream Obama" who would end the endless back and forth of the size of government and the individual versus the collective. Instead, Mr. Brooks would like this dream Obama to get past size and speak plainly that in 2013, the government isn't going away, and that the size of the government isn't nearly as important as the intelligence of the government.
Brooks wants his dream Obama to advocate to change the benefits regime of wealthy, elderly people and transfer those savings to the youth of America in a variety of existing programs that could use the resources. He wants dream Obama to institute a value-added tax and use the revenue to make a $100,000 income tax exemption and lower corporate tax rates. Mr. Brooks acknowledges doing any and all of this is a big political lift, but he believes "only the president can fundamentally shift the terms" of the debate. There is much to like, but there are some questions outstanding.
First, there are no numbers here and while initial reaction from more liberal minded folks hasn't been to pillory Mr. Brooks, I would be curious how the numbers play out in reality if you made this sort of fundamental change in tax policy in an abbreviated timeline.
Second, we face an environment where a healthy portion see almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government. Part of the reason Obama's second inaugural and the most recent state of the union speech focused so much on the value of government and the shared experience of a collective is because, honestly, that's no longer a settled question in the United States. Beyond debating the size of government, there are questions being raised about its fundamental role. Many of these questions had a broad consensus on both sides for decades. So, in part, Obama has to make this case because it's not a settled case anymore.
Third, I think Brooks overstates the ability of the president to change the terms of the debate. There was, perhaps, a time that was true, but it's not anymore. I'd cite this article about Tea Party glee over the seemingly imminent sequester. There is a happy tone that Congress would almost indiscriminately cut the budgets of departments and that doesn't allow the apartments to shift money around to make the cuts less dire for essential services. (And please don't tell me that BS about how it's just 3% of the federal budget, first off that's a substantial chunk to cut after budgets have been set, second, in actuality, it's ranges from 5.3% to 7.8% just in FY2013 to the affected agencies which is draconian considering budgeted priorities.) Furthermore those reveling in the sequester are already threatening colleagues who might want to strike a deal along the lines the White House has pushed for. Consider this quote from the article:
Barney Keller, communications director for the conservative Club for Growth, said Republicans who don’t support big budget cuts might face primary challenges next year.
“Many Republicans aren’t afraid of losing their job to a Democrat, because of redistricting” that virtually guarantees that GOP lawmakers will hold on to their seats, he said. “But they are afraid of losing their jobs to more fiscally conservative candidates.”
Redistricting and the primary system in this country is a double whammy undermining most any hopes of comity in Congress and greatly diminishing the president's ability to change the terms of the debate. I mean, you have very protected districts that aren't competitive in the general elections, just the primaries, so you have elected representatives captive to the base of their party. In that dynamic, what does it matter if the president tries to change the terms of the conversation? Doing so doesn't imperil that elected representative because his or her primary voters drive the results in the district, not the broader national, or even district mood.
I'm afraid Mr. Brooks will have to remain dreaming about his Obama and the policies and debate he would like that dream Obama to engage in. I think, substantively, Mr. Brooks is on to something but the well of our politics is poisoned and it can't be helped by progress in national polls. It can only be helped by a fundamental rethink of our electoral process.
we face an environment where a healthy portion see almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government.
ReplyDeleteReally? Who believes this? What is your evidence for this statement?
honestly, that's no longer a settled question in the United States.
If you are referring to the size and role of government, when has that ever been a settled question? If you are referring to the value of government, who has ever questioned the need for having one?
There is a happy tone that Congress would almost indiscriminately cut the budgets of departments and that doesn't allow the apartments to shift money around to make the cuts less dire for essential services.
Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen anyone celebrating the fact that the cuts are indiscriminate. Personally, I do celebrate the cuts, but I see them as a second best solution that preferably would be more precise. But in this era of continuously growing government, I'll take federal spending cuts where I can get them.
it's more like 20% to the affected agencies
Source? I have seen 9% bandied about, but not the 20% figure. In any case, I saw the other day that Rand Paul cut spending in his office by over 20% -- $600,000, but who knows, maybe his is the only office in the federal government capable of delivering services with fewer resources and everyone else is already operating at peak efficiency.
Certainly the size and the role of the federal government have been and likely always will be debated, but from Paul Ryan's Roadmap to the policy proposals of Sen. Paul we're talking about a wholesale redefinition of the government as it has existed since the 1930s. When you don't try to shore up Medicare, but rather advocate making it a voucher program or when you suggest we cut about 70% of the State Department's budget, you are going beyond the proper size and role of government as it has been understood for the past 80 years.
ReplyDeleteCertainly there are those in Congress who are, like yourself, celebrating the cuts. While I think your celebration is misguided, you can't make the cuts more responsible. Rather, those on the Hill celebrating strike me as a group of Neros.
The 20% was incorrect and updated. But the practical budget cut is greater than the top line of 5% to 7% because we're already a third of the way into the year, which is to say the necessary budget rescission will exceed the top line number by a substantial margin.
As to Sen. Paul cutting 20% of his office's budget I would say it's easy to cut. It's hard to make sure you can still deliver services.
So Paul Ryan's roadmap, which sees the size of the federal government continue to grow by trillions and does not achieve a balanced budget for decades, is evidence "we face an environment where a healthy portion see almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government"? How does that make any sense? Seems to me to be a rather gaping chasm between the rhetoric of barely seeing the need for any government and the reality of proposing one that spends many trillions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteWhen you don't try to shore up Medicare, but rather advocate making it a voucher program or when you suggest we cut about 70% of the State Department's budget, you are going beyond the proper size and role of government as it has been understood for the past 80 years.
No, you aren't. Changing how Medicare is provided is not a challenge to the role and size of government. Even if Ryan's plan was adopted the role of government -- paying for old people's health care -- would be the same, and the size will only grow given that Medicare spending continues to increase under pretty much any scenario. Proposing that Medicare be abolished, now that would be a challenge and notable departure from the status quo.
What is the basis for your State Department claim? Who has proposed this?
As for the cuts, a 9% cut would take these agencies back to the same level as...2009. Why is that not feasible? And you realize, of course, that federal spending even with the sequester continues to increase right? That even with the sequester that the feds will still be spending over $2 trillion more in 2023 than currently?
What is the basis for your State Department claim? Who has proposed this?
ReplyDeleteSee this, citing this. I can no longer find it on the wayback machine but would be happy to send you the pdf via email. In fact, I'll do it right now.
Thanks for the pdf, but I don't see anything in it about the State Department budget (although I do see the bit about international assistance/foreign aid). Perhaps you can direct me to the specific cite?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Jason's DCExile post says that Paul wants to cut $500 billion. Given that the federal budget was around $3.5 trillion when Paul released his place, that's still a long ways away from "almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government."
ugh, "place"=plan.
DeleteThe State Department line item is on page 23.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but Paul's plan lops off one seventh of the federal budget. That is a dramatic redefinition of government breaking with decades of broad, political consensus.
As to Ryan's plan, a voucher system is a change to the role of government because instead of having government provided healthcare, which allows the Medicare to negotiate better rates on procedures, individuals would buy into the private market, which would almost assuredly mean higher healthcare costs. And it would reduce the size because the voucher system, to my understanding, doesn't have a mechanism to account for growing healthcare costs which means the government will be paying less and seniors will be paying more out of pocket. So Paul Ryan's plan would change the role and size of government.
The State Department line item is on page 23.
ReplyDeleteThanks, not sure how I missed that.
Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic
A bit? One-seventh is 14%. Thus, Paul would leave funding at 86% of its current level. Your rhetoric of "almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government" is completely over the top.
instead of having government provided healthcare...
Largely except for the military, government does not provide healthcare. Unlike, say, education where teachers are employees of government, the same does not hold true for doctors. Rather it pays for health care. Paul Ryan has only changed the method by which that payment would occur. The role remains unchanged.
And it would reduce the size
No, it would not. Ryan's plan pegs voucher increases to the consumer price index rather than inflation specific to the health care sector. At its most draconian, Ryan's plan would simply maintain the status quo in expenditure on a per capita basis. Given demographic realities, overall expenditures would continue to grow.
In fact, this really reflects the nature of the debate. Reducing government -- lamentably -- is not even on the table (Rand Paul's plan excepted, but then again AFAIK no bill has been introduced based on his plan, and thus such thinking is restricted to 1% of the Senate). Rather all we are talking about is reducing the rate at which government grows.