Two views on balancing the budget

Esquire today presented a very interesting left-right juxtaposition: two articles by former senators Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) about balancing the federal budget. Here is Hart's article and here is Packwood's.

So who's right? Well, neither. Or both. Hart understandably decries the failure to regulate financial markets. Hart also correctly points out that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined with the Bush tax cuts were not good for the deficit. Given that both the wars and the tax cuts have continued for more than a decade, at this point they are responsible for a huge chunk of the federal debt.

Now, the Bush tax cuts, by themselves, were not a bad idea. Hart's biggest mistake is his refusal to acknowledge that tax cuts can stimulate the economy--a strategy that is part of Keynesian economics and worked undeniably well under both Reagan and JFK. The problem is, if you cut taxes you need to restrain spending, and Bush did exactly the opposite. Here's an idea: pass a law that requires a tax increase for any military operation that continues longer than 10 days. That will keep deficits down, and it might make the trigger-happy contingent of the GOP (which thankfully seems to be in decline) less likely to push for war.

Packwood's article discusses the worrisome increase in total federal spending, with a particular emphasis on entitlements. He is right on there: unless something is done to stop the runaway growth of entitlement spending, deficits will explode in the next few decades. However, by failing to discuss anything besides entitlements, Packwood exemplifies a certain conservative myopia. If the GOP focuses too much on slashing entitlements and leaves everything else alone, they will lose election after election. It would almost take a Vulcan to not see it as unfair for seniors and Medicaid patients to have to make all the sacrifices. While restraining entitlements are essential, fiscal conservatives need to be just as willing to consider things like dismantling the American empire, eliminating foreign aid, cutting federal payroll, closing tax loopholes, and probably--in a decade or two--raising taxes in some form.

The rise and decline of the welfare state

As this Weekly Standard article explains very well, most of the core programs of the welfare state were established in the 1930's or 1960's, times when the life expectancy in America was well below 70, and lifesaving but expensive treatments for cancer, heart disease, and organ failure were still somewhat rare. At the beginning, entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare were the result of good intentions and the knowledge that the costs would be relatively low. They had no way of knowing that one day it might get too expensive. Perhaps more importantly, they had no way of knowing that any attempt to deal with increasing costs by limiting benefits or raising the minimum age would be rejected out of hand by leftists as "greedy" and "mean."


This quote at the end of the article provides a good summary of the issue:

"Pensions and access to health care remain social goods that a decent society will try to provide to its people. But goods are not rights."

The distinction between social goods and rights is an important one. It is important for an advanced society to ensure some minimum standard for its people, such as a minimum wage, a standard workweek, and basic/emergency health care. But these are not rights, and when people begin to insist on equal health care or generous benefits for all, they find that it soon becomes prohibitively expensive. 

If the Debt Ceiling is Not Raised, We Can Still Survive. We Can Even Keep Social Security and Medicare Untouched.

A great article from American Thinker that shows one possible way to balance the budget if the debt ceiling is not raised, without defaulting, and without cutting Social Security, Medicare, or military pay. And since we're talking about this year's spending, with revenues already in, any revenue increases would be irrelevant here.

A couple key numbers:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that FY2012 revenues (starting Oct. 1, 2011) will be $2.6 trillion. That is more than the federal government spent in any year prior to 2006.

Since 2006, federal spending has risen to $3.7 trillion, a mind-boggling 29.5% increase in spending.

How does this author balance the budget? For one thing, he cuts defense spending to 2005 levels, while leaving military pay untouched. He also eliminates foreign aid (why do we still give foreign aid?), cuts Medicaid back to 2005 levels, eliminates federal income security programs (welfare, food stamps, etc) except for disability and unemployment, and eliminates the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. He makes the point that neither department existed prior to 1980. Also, he points out that Department of Energy spending totaled only $429 million as recently as 2005, but has grown 50 times bigger in the past 5 years as a result of Obama's "green initiatives."

Do I like everything about this plan? No, I'd tweak the numbers a bit. I'd probably make modest cuts to Social Security and/or Medicare through means testing, preserve funding for federal financial aid to college students, and keep income security at 2005 levels instead of eliminating it completely. But the point remains: Even in a worst-case scenario where the debt limit is not raised, we can avoid Armageddon.