About 10 years ago, arch-conservative Grover Norquist revealed the impetus behind the Bush tax cuts. “My goal,” he said, “is to cut government … down to the size where we can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
I cite this fine display of candor because it’s notably absent from what Congressional Republicans are saying now. But it’s nonetheless applicable to the course they claim reflects the will of the American voters
First, they adamantly insist that all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. Also that even more wealth must be exempted from the estate tax. These measures, of course, increase the deficit — though the “middle class” tax cut extensions the President also wanted made up the largest part of the impact.
Then the Republican-controlled House adopts new rules that will exempt further tax cuts from budget discipline. At the same time, it subjects all spending increases to new constraints, requiring that they be offset only by spending cuts.
A good way to “cut the government down to size,” but no way to reduce the deficit.
The House Republican leadership also reaffirms its pledge to roll back federal spending to the pre-Recovery Act level. At this point, that would seem to entail $60 billion in immediate cuts, plus an additional $40 billion beginning in October — assuming Congress passes a Fiscal Year 2012 budget on time.
Not good enough, says the Republican Study Committee, representing a majority of Republican House members. We want discretionary spending, i.e., the spending Congress annually approves, rolled back to the 2006 level and frozen there until 2021. Except for Defense — the single biggest chunk of discretionary spending.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the RSC plan would ultimately cut non-defense appropriations 42% below what the Congressional Budget Office says would be needed to maintain the Fiscal Year 2010 funding level, with adjustments for inflation.
No way this much could be cut without decimating key government programs — especially because it’s a sure bet that not all programs would get hit with that 42%.
Such drastic spending cuts aren’t needed to address the long-term deficit. Nor would they do so. As this nifty interactive pie chart shows, all non-defense discretionary spending accounted for just 15% of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget.
Nearly 60% was mandatory spending, i.e., spending that Congress doesn’t vote on each year. And nearly 70% of that was for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Enter Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future. As the Economic Policy Institute explains, the Roadmap aims to “dismantle Medicare and Medicaid,” replacing them with vouchers that would increasingly fall short of health care costs.
Also cut Social Security benefits while partially privatizing the system. This, says EPI, would mainly benefit wealthier Americans, who would also gain from drastic shifts in the tax burden — so drastic that millionaires would pay taxes at lower rates than middle-class families.
Death knell for what’s historically been our progressive federal income tax system.
These are not deficit-driven conservative proposals. They’re as revolutionary as the Tea Party’s name. Because they would radically define what we the people — well, most of us people — have come to understand as the federal government’s responsibility “to promote the general Welfare.”
The depth of the cuts, combined with the re-engineering of social insurance programs would shift that responsibility to state and local governments. But they have neither the resources nor the budgetary flexibility to assume it — even if they want to. And current evidence suggests some don’t.
Bottom line is that the House Republican majority, seconded by Republican leaders in the Senate, would roll up the safety net and roll back the clock to the nineteenth century, when poverty, education, public health and the like just weren’t any of the federal government’s business.