Anyone watching last week's debate over the Republican budget resolution would
have experienced déjà vu, as the debate bore a depressing
similarity to those of previous years. Once again, the Republicans claimed
their budget would cut spending in a responsible manner, while Democratic opponents
claimed the plan's spending cuts would shred the safety net and leave vital
programs unfunded. Of course, neither claim is true.
The budget does not cut spending at all, and in fact actually increases spending
by $1.5 trillion over ten years. The Republicans are using the old DC trick
of spending less than originally planned and calling that reduced spending increase a
$5.1 trillion cut in spending. Only in DC could a budget that increases
spending by 3.5 percent per year instead of by 5.2 percent per year be attacked
as a "slash-and-burn" plan.
The budget also relies on "dynamic scoring." This trick is where the budget
numbers account for increased government revenue generated by economic growth
the budget will supposedly unleash. The claims are dubious at best. Of course,
reducing government spending will lead to economic growth. But real growth
requires real cuts, not this budget's phony cuts.
As important as reducing spending and balancing the budget is, focusing solely
on budget numbers ignores the root of the problem. The real problem is that
too many in Washington -- and the nation as a whole -- refuse to consider any
serious reductions in the welfare-warfare state.
I have always maintained that the logical place to start reducing spending
is the trillions wasted on our interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately,
there are still too many in Congress who claim to be fiscal hawks when it comes
to welfare spending, but turn into Keynesian "doves" when it comes to spending
on the military-industrial complex.
These members cling to the mistaken belief that the government can balance
it budget, keep taxes low, and even have a growing economy, while spending
trillions of dollars policing the world, and propping up some governments and
changing others overtly or covertly. Thus, President Obama is attacked as soft
on defense because he only wants to spend $5.9 trillion over ten years on the
military. In contrast, the Republican budget spends $6.2 trillion over the
next decade. That is almost a trillion more than the budget's total so-called
spending cuts.
If there are too many fiscal conservatives who refuse to abandon the warfare
state, there are too many liberals who act as if any reduction in welfare or
entitlement spending leaves children starving. I agree it is unrealistic to
simply end programs that people are currently dependent on. However, isn't
it inhumane to not take steps to unwind the welfare system before government
overspending causes a bigger financial crisis and drags millions more into
poverty?
Far from abandoning those in need of help, returning the responsibility for
caring for the needy to private charities, churches, and local communities
will improve the welfare system. At the very least, young people should have
the freedom to choose to pay a lower tax rate in exchange for promising to
never participate in a government welfare or entitlement program.
Last week's budget debate showed how little difference there lies between
the parties when it comes to preserving the warfare-welfare state. One side
may prefer more warfare while the other prefers more welfare, but neither side
actually wants to significantly reduce the size and scope of government. Until
Congress stops trying to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives,
there will never be a real debate about cutting spending and limiting government.
