‘Unthinkable, Draconian’ Spending Cuts

Townhall.com ^ | January 28, 2013 | Tad DeHaven

[Kaslin]

It’s my job to advocate for spending cuts. It’s a job I’ve been doing in one form or another for over a decade. If I’ve ever experienced a victory, it must have been a pretty small one, because I can’t recall any.

So why do I persist?

For one, I’m a naturally optimistic person. And fueling that optimism is the press. I’m constantly reading about the possibility of spending cuts, and those articles usually say that the cuts would be major … or massive … or severe … or even draconian! The possibility sends a thrill up my leg.

Alas, the “draconian” spending cuts invariably turn out to be not-so-draconian after all. In fact, it’s often the case that reporters are talking about smaller spending increases rather than real spending cuts. Other times, the cuts are likely to only be temporary or come after years and years of increases.

In today’s example, a National Journal article reports that the “unthinkable” could happen: the fiscal 2013 sequestration cuts—just reduced and postponed by the fiscal cliff deal—might actually go into effect March 1^st as scheduled:

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate appear to be coming to the same conclusion on spending, namely that once unthinkable, draconian cuts designed to force a more reasonable compromise may be much harder to undo than anyone ever imagined.

How “draconian” would these “unthinkable” cuts be? About $85 billion. To put that in context, the federal government will spend around $3,500 billion ($3.5 trillion) this year. The deficit alone is likely to approach or exceed $1 trillion (the federal government has run a deficit in excess of $1 trillion for four straight years).

If that’s draconian, what would the press call cutting enough spending just to balance the budget?

As we’ve been trying to demonstrate at DownsizingGovernment.org, spending cuts would be good for the country. I encourage journalists who cover federal policy to check out the site to see what real spending cuts are all about. It might cause you to have to find new adjectives to use to describe what Republicans and Democrats are really doing, but you’re readers would be better served—especially the wild-eyed optimists like me.

[joe fonebone]

we need to stop rewarding laziness and stupidity...

when people build their homes or locate their businesses on the beachfront in a major hurricane area, why do my tax dollars assist them in rebuilding their homes and businesses, only to have them destroyed again, so we can pay to have their homes and businesses renovated once again...

provide tents to sleep in, clothing and food on a temporary basis, but they can pay to rebuild their own damn homes and businesses, or simply choose to locate somewhere else...

[silverleaf]

Somehow the US government was not in “draconian” straits in 2007- let’s go back to 2007 spending level for every agency

Especially EPA and Education

After all, since 2007 the democrats declared withdrawal from the war in Iraq, almost everyone except GM paid back their TARP - with interest and now Barry is pulling out of Afghanistan

so he has Bushs “unfunded” war bonus plus a tax increase on the rich to spend on holder’s people

[silverleaf]

Somehow the US government was not in “draconian” straits in 2007- let’s go back to 2007 spending level for every agency

Especially EPA and Education

After all, since 2007 the democrats declared withdrawal from the war in Iraq, almost everyone except GM paid back their TARP - with interest and now Barry is pulling out of Afghanistan

so he has Bushs “unfunded” war bonus plus a tax increase on the rich to spend on holder’s people

[Georgia Girl 2]

If the EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Educ, and HUD were shut down tomorrow the average American wouldn’t notice any difference in their life.

Another real savings would be to shut down the TSA and let go of 60,000 useless workers. The airlines and the municipal airports are far more capable of providing their own security.