I'm starting to see preemptive arguments from interests groups along the lines of: "cutting expenditures for [X] isn't worthwhile because the total cost of [X] is such a minimal part of the federal budget. I think I've seen that from farm groups, the food movement, and groups worried about NEA and NEH. I suspect it will be a popular meme as we move into the budgetary furor between Obama, Dems, and the new Republican House.
The argument is, of course, utter nonsense. Nonsense at least in a good government sense. If X is a program worth doing at some level, it's worth doing at that level. If not, it can and should be cut back to whatever level makes it worthwhile, which could be zero. How big a program is in comparison to overall expenditures is meaningless. The problem is we can't agree on the "worth doing" and "some level". The rhetoric of the argument invites us to recognize the problem and move on to some other program of perhaps a bigger size. It's the converse of what I think Sen. Russell Long said: "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree".
What it means is we'll likely have some across-the-board cuts: spread the pain around. It's not the best way to administer, but it works in a democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment