Posted 9:32 pm Saturday, February 18, 2012
New Budget Proposal Doesn't Cut Spending
Wow! Those 210 “cuts, consolidations and other savings” in President Barack Obama's proposed FY 2013 sure sound like a lot. But as the Cato Institute points out, they total only $24 billion in a $3.8 trillion budget.
The administration is certainly proud of the document, though.
“To rebuild our economy and strengthen the middle class, we must create an America where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” the budget's introductory page reads. “We need to win a race to the top for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. That means investing in areas like education, innovation, and infrastructure that are critical to giving every American an opportunity at success and creating a strong economy that is built to last.”
It even makes a nod to conservative principles.
The administration is certainly proud of the document, though.
“To rebuild our economy and strengthen the middle class, we must create an America where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” the budget's introductory page reads. “We need to win a race to the top for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. That means investing in areas like education, innovation, and infrastructure that are critical to giving every American an opportunity at success and creating a strong economy that is built to last.”
It even makes a nod to conservative principles.
“To be competitive in the 21st Century, the United States cannot afford to be weighed down by crippling budget deficits, ineffective programs that waste tax dollars, and Government spending that lacks accountability,” it reads.
But on closer inspection, the cuts are insignificant and ideologically confusing.
“The administration proposes to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Automotive Technology program for savings of $16 million,” Cato's Tad DeHaven reports. “However, the proposed cut doesn't reflect a sudden desire to end federal ‘green' subsidies to car manufacturers. Instead, the administration says ‘other Federal programs are better positioned to research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy a broad suite of advanced vehicle technologies.'”
Those technologies do not include ones that actually work, however. Subsidies for “green energy solutions,” including cleaner cars, remain in place.
But on closer inspection, the cuts are insignificant and ideologically confusing.
“The administration proposes to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Automotive Technology program for savings of $16 million,” Cato's Tad DeHaven reports. “However, the proposed cut doesn't reflect a sudden desire to end federal ‘green' subsidies to car manufacturers. Instead, the administration says ‘other Federal programs are better positioned to research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy a broad suite of advanced vehicle technologies.'”
Those technologies do not include ones that actually work, however. Subsidies for “green energy solutions,” including cleaner cars, remain in place.
“The administration proposes to cut funding by $226 million for fossil fuel subsidies administered by the Department of Energy,” DeHaven adds. “These subsidies should be eliminated. But they should be eliminated along with all energy subsidies because the federal government should stop trying to pick winners and losers in the energy market. Unfortunately, it appears that the administration is really only interested in scoring political points with the ‘green' crowd.”
Other “cuts” send similarly mixed signals.
“The administration proposes to cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Service's Community Services Block Grant program from $679 million to $350 million,” DeHaven says. “The administration cites reports from the HHS inspector general and the Government Accountability Office that ‘have documented failures in program oversight and accountability.' However, instead of proposing to completely terminate it, the administration says it's going to fix the program and basically apologizes for having to cut it to meet discretionary spending caps.”
In the same way, “The administration proposes to save a whopping $3 million by terminating the U.S. Department of Agriculture's public broadcasting grant program. The administration correctly points out that the program is duplicative of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, the CPB would get another $1 million in funding for an overall budget of $445 million. In other words, the proposed cut would have practically no effect on the federal government's subsidization of PBS and NPR.”
The bottom line is the proposed budget does nothing to truly cut spending.
“The administration's relatively paltry savings would still leave the budget with a projected deficit of $901 billion for fiscal 2013,” he concludes. “And the deficit would only be smaller than last year because the government is projected to take in more revenue — not because the government would spend less.”
Fortunately, there's every indication the budget proposal is essentially dead on arrival. Governing without a budget isn't ideal, but this proposal isn't a better way to do business.
Other “cuts” send similarly mixed signals.
“The administration proposes to cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Service's Community Services Block Grant program from $679 million to $350 million,” DeHaven says. “The administration cites reports from the HHS inspector general and the Government Accountability Office that ‘have documented failures in program oversight and accountability.' However, instead of proposing to completely terminate it, the administration says it's going to fix the program and basically apologizes for having to cut it to meet discretionary spending caps.”
In the same way, “The administration proposes to save a whopping $3 million by terminating the U.S. Department of Agriculture's public broadcasting grant program. The administration correctly points out that the program is duplicative of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, the CPB would get another $1 million in funding for an overall budget of $445 million. In other words, the proposed cut would have practically no effect on the federal government's subsidization of PBS and NPR.”
The bottom line is the proposed budget does nothing to truly cut spending.
“The administration's relatively paltry savings would still leave the budget with a projected deficit of $901 billion for fiscal 2013,” he concludes. “And the deficit would only be smaller than last year because the government is projected to take in more revenue — not because the government would spend less.”
Fortunately, there's every indication the budget proposal is essentially dead on arrival. Governing without a budget isn't ideal, but this proposal isn't a better way to do business.
