At the rate the federal government spends, it runs out of money on July 31. What programs should be cut to balance the budget and fund the government for the remaining five months of the year? Cutting NASA might buy two days; cutting the Navy could buy fifteen. It seems that balancing the budget may require more than just cutting government programs. What should be done?

____________________

Heritage Experts’ Reaction to Senate Continuing Resolution

Todd Thurman

March 12, 2013 at 5:40 pm

Newscom

The massive spending bill, or continuing resolution, released by the Senate this week continues spending on programs which are inappropriate or wasteful and fails to adopt good policies in many areas. Here’s a rundown of some of the worst offenders in the Senate bill:

Postal Service Saturday delivery: $2 billion. The Senate CR continues—by omission—the prior year’s ban on using the Postal Service’s small appropriation to reduce service levels, effectively mandating Saturday service. This, along with other such congressional restriction, limits the Postal Service’s ability to reduce costs and increases the risk of massive federal subsidies in the near future.

—James Gattuso, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy

NASA Manned Spacecraft: $1.2 billion. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is the new manned spacecraft NASA is developing for exploration of the Moon and Mars and for other purposes. Manned space flight is vastly more expensive than robotic exploration and is largely a public relations showcase for NASA to market itself to the American people. NASA’s budget should be pared back to a tight focus on cost-effective projects to advance its core missions.

—J. D. Foster, Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy

Mark Pryor responds to me concerning Debt Ceiling email (Part 1)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 164)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 163)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 162)

Capitol Tours with Senator Mark Pryor

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 161)

Senator Mark Pryor responds to my email

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 160)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 159)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 158)

What Can Washington Politicians Learn From America’s Moms?

Published on Apr 2, 2013

We asked folks what Washington politicians can learn from America’s moms

Sequestration “Meat Cleaver” Is Really a Scalpel

Tetra Images Tetra Images/Newscom

In his speech yesterday, President Barack Obama referred to sequestration as a “meat cleaver” again, when news reports in fact show that the cuts have been much more targeted and much less devastating than he claims.

“Then, rather than reduce our deficits with a scalpel, by cutting out programs we don’t need, fixing ones that we do need that maybe are in need of a reform—making government more efficient—instead of doing that, we’ve got folks who have insisted on leaving in place a meat cleaver called the sequester that’s cost jobs,” President Obama said.

Before sequestration hit, the White House sounded multiple alarms, predicting widespread calamity and extreme consequences if it was allowed to take effect. However, only about one-fifth of those predictions have remotely come to pass, as reported by The Washington Post.

So what happened instead? Many agencies suddenly found millions of dollars to cut from less-critical programs. Congress helped, too, taking a hard look at unnecessary programs and helping agencies reduce expenses. Sequestration turned out to be not as scary, allowing flexibility between agencies to reach the desired amount of cuts.

“In the process, the ‘meat cleaver’ of sequestration often became a scalpel. It spared crucial programs but cut second-tier priorities such as maintenance, information technology, employee travel and scientific conferences,” says the Post.

That’s not to say there haven’t been some adverse effects. Sequestration disproportionally affects national defense, and military readiness has been hurt by decreases in training. But especially on the domestic side, the President’s warnings rang hollow.

Obama also claimed, “Almost every credible economist will tell you it’s been a huge drag on this recovery.” In fact, the economy has absorbed the cuts quite well. Moody’s says the U.S. economy “has demonstrated a degree of resilience to major reductions in the growth of government spending.”

Additionally, at about 2.5 percent of projected spending over the next decade, the cuts barely even make a dent in overall spending.

“Sequestration barely even slows the growth in spending, let alone cuts any spending out of the overall budget. Neither does sequestration rein in chronic deficits. Sequestration trims only 12 percent off cumulative deficits over the decade, while U.S. debt held by the public continues growing to economically damaging levels,” explains Heritage’s Romina Boccia.

President Obama’s 2013 tax hikes are nearly double the size of sequestration. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concludes that uncertainty over these tax hikes is among the largest factors in depressing job growth. Uncertainty over Obamacare and the Dodd–Frank financial regulation is also hampering growth. If the President wants to help the economy, he should start by taking a “meat cleaver” to his tax increases and regulations instead and work with Congress to resolve the looming spending and debt crisis.

Danny Huizinga is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.

et’s start with Michael Ramirez. You can see why he’s currently leading in the best-cartoonist poll.

Nate Beeler also has a good contribution to the debate. The President is acting like the world is going to end because spending is going to be “slashed” by 1.2 percent, which means – gasp! – that spending will “only” grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

Yet somehow Armageddon has not occurred.

Indeed, the worst possible outcome for Obama and the other statists is that people notice zero negative impact when spending is restrained.

This Steve Kelley cartoon is very appealing to me because it shows the President going after the sequester when the real problem is an excessive burden of government spending.

Last but not least, we have a very good Scott Stantis cartoon.

The Stantis cartoon is particularly insightful because the GOP has won the battle, but the war is not over.

This first cartoon, from Chip Bok, captures his sullen mood.

The second cartoon, by Jerry Holbert, has the same these, showing that the American people have learned to ignore Obama’s demagoguery.

Related posts: