Where Have All The Deficit-Cutters Gone?

From time to time, both Republicans and Democrats express concern about the out-of-control accumulation of federal debt and the annual federal budget deficit.  Republicans raise the issue when they want to get elected.  Democrats raise the issue when they want to stop the GOP from cutting taxes.

But in reality, and for years now, no one in either party has done anything meaningful about the ever-growing national debt.

Consider what’s going on now.  Republicans have been laboring over a tax bill for months, and are supposed to get it through Congress and to President Trump this week.  Of course, tax relief is an easier political sell, as rates paid by various constituencies, and backroom deals, get cut.  But where are we on spending?  Well, the House Republicans apparently want to “temporarily” extend spending for most agencies at current levels, with a $650 million increase in defense spending.  In the Senate, where Democrats hold the balance of power because of the filibuster, Democratic leaders say that we need to have equivalent increases in defense and non-defense spending.  Oh, and there’s this, too:  we’re facing another one of those stupid self-inflicted shutdown points, where some government activity will stop unless a spending bill is signed into law by Friday.

So let’s take stock here.  The House Republicans want to hold spending steady, except for an increase in defense spending — i.e., increase spending.  The Senate Democrats want to increase defense and non-defense spending — i.e., increase spending.  And our elected representatives have conveniently maneuvered themselves into a position where they can say that they need to cut a deal that will no doubt increase spending in order to avoid a partial government shutdown.  And by the way, there is absolutely no sign of the kind of thoughtful review of the thousands of ongoing government programs and subsidies and agencies to determine whether they are truly needed and should be modified or eliminated outright — which is what truly committed and rational deficit-cutters would be trying to accomplish.

Gee . . . I wonder why Congress’ credibility with American voters is so low?

The Costs Of A Porous Border

We’re learning more about the costs — direct and indirect — of the mass influx of unaccompanied minors and other illegal immigrants across our southwestern border, and the news is becoming more and more concerning.

At a closed-door briefing with members of Congress earlier this week, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson disclosed some of the direct costs.   According to members of Congress who attended, Johnson said the federal government is spending between $250 and $1,000 per day, per child, to house and feed the minors.  When you are talking about more than 57,000 unaccompanied minors already in the country and needing assistance — and U.S. officials predicting that another 30,000 will cross the border by September — you don’t need a calculator to see that the ongoing and future costs are enormous.

As everyone knows, our federal government is cash-strapped.  Some people may say we’ve been racking up huge budget deficits for years, and these costs will add just a little bit more to those deficits.  That reaction ignores the reality of our financial situation.  Every dollar of our deficit is financed through the issuance of U.S. government bonds and notes.  Do we really want to have to issue more bonds and notes to pay for these services, and pledge the full faith and credit of our country for them?  With our current budget situation, the inescapable reality is that we will be borrowing more in the future to pay the interest on these bonds and notes — which means that we’ll be paying directly out of pocket for our border problems for years to come.

There are indirect costs as well.  The U.S. government can’t house all of these minors on military bases, and already we’re seeing governors and mayors raising questions about whether these minors are coming to their states and communities — where they will need more housing, and food, and medical care, and attention.  Who will pay for it?  The NIMBY (not in my back yard) phenomenon is in full swing.  Pennsylvania’s governor has expressed concern about whether the illegal immigrants have infectious diseases, says there should be enough room on military bases in Texas and Arizona to house them, and wonders how he will pay for the needed services if they are sent to Pennsylvania.  Officials in other states are saying that the federal government has resettled some of the immigrants in their states without providing adequate notice to local authorities.  And officials in cities as far away from the border as New Bedford, Massachusetts are concerned that an influx of impoverished, non-English-speaking immigrants will further strain governmental and school budgets that are already stretched to the breaking point.

A Massachusetts sheriff recently said, “we are all border states now.”  There’s some truth to that.  It’s becoming increasingly clear that our porous border is creating huge problems for communities and states across the country.  As we figure out how to deal with these unaccompanied minors, we also need to pay attention to the root cause of the problem — a border that sometimes seems to be little more than a line on a map.  We can’t afford to pay $250 or $1,000 a day to care for every child that crosses illegally into our country, and we also can’t afford the security risks of a border that permits them (and adults, too) to do so.  The Obama Administration and Congress need to figure out how to close that border and do it before the costs and consequences become overwhelming.

Time For Another Crisis!

It’s been at least two weeks since the impending “fiscal cliff” disaster was avoided at the last minute.  That means it’s time for our grossly dysfunctional, leaderless government to stumble into crisis mode, again.

This time, the deadlines are in March and April, and one of the key issues is the debt limit.  The debt limit now stands at $16.4 trillion — that $16,400,000,000,000 — but that staggering sum is not enough for our debt-ridden, spending-obsessed, deficit spending-addicted country.  At a press conference yesterday, President Obama said Republicans should just raise the debt limit, without insisting on spending cuts.  We’re not a “deadbeat nation,” he said, and the full faith and credit of the United States should not be a “bargaining chip.”  If agreement on raising the debt ceiling can’t be reached, he says, Social Security and veterans checks might be delayed.

It seems awfully early in the game to play the Social Security card and scare seniors and veterans.  Unfortunately, they aren’t the only ones who are frightened by another crisis brewing.  This morning, global markets are stalling due to concerns about the debt limit, and the ratings agency Fitch says if the debt ceiling issue isn’t resolved promptly America’s credit rating could drop.

At his press conference, the President said he was willing to talk about spending cuts to stabilize the debt, but that such spending cuts should be discussed separately.  We’ve heard that song before, but cuts never get made, programs never get eliminated, and trillion-dollar deficits go on and on.  For all of his talk, talk, talk, the President has shown no willingness to take the courageous spending reduction steps that truly are needed to get our debt problems under control.  Like Wimpy, the President would rather promise to pay us Tuesday for buying him that hamburger today.  After four years, however, the bill hasn’t been paid, and there is no sign it will be paid.

I think Republicans have concluded that, deep down, President Obama would be perfectly comfortable to let the spending and big deficits continue until he leaves office, and that is exactly what will happen if he isn’t forced to sit down at the table and bargain.  If the Republicans see the debt ceiling as a fail-safe means of forcing some hard negotiations with the President that produce real progress on federal spending and the deficit, the President has only himself to blame.

Proposing A “Secretary Of Business” Is The Last Straw

President Obama wants to be seen as friendly to business.  He’s recently touted the idea of creating a “Secretary of Business” — a new, Cabinet-level position that would “consolidate” different federal agencies that deal with business and trade issues and create “one-stop shopping” for regulatory oversight.

This one proposal, I think, reflects President Obama’s deeply held view of the world — and why I must conclude, regrettably, that he will never truly grapple with our soaring budget deficits and federal debt, which I believe are the two most crucial problems facing our country.

In the President’s view, if business is struggling, we need to create a new government position to address the problem and shuffle existing agencies in a bureaucratic reorganization to try to “streamline” regulations.  His reflexive solution to all issues is new government positions, new government agencies, and new government initiatives.  If he needs to burnish his credentials with the business world, he thinks the proper response to to create a new government regime that shows that he cares.

President Obama has been our President for four years.  He’s seen our economy flounder, witnessed the loss of huge numbers of jobs and the departure of millions of disappointed job-seekers from the job market, watched our deficit and debt skyrocket, and heard complaints about excessive regulatory burdens, crony capitalism, and taxes stifling business investment and growth.  The fact that he nevertheless believes that he would aid business by creating a “Secretary of Business” who would help businessmen navigate through the thicket of federal regulations, and assist companies as they seek federal loans and grants and other assistance, speaks volumes about his fundamental mindset.  He’s not going to change if he’s elected to a second term.

If, like me, you believe that we need to eliminate Cabinet-level positions and federal agencies, not create them, if you believe that we need to reduce federal regulations, not hire new federal employees to assist overwhelmed businessmen in dealing with those regulations, if you believe that we need to cut spending, not maximize opportunities for people to get more federal loans and aid, how can you vote to re-elect President Obama?

Like Federal, Like State

We tend to talk a lot about the federal debt — and for good reason! — but there are reasons for concern on the state level, too.

A recent report on the amount of debt at the level is very sobering.  The report looked at regular debt, the 2013 fiscal year budget gap, outstanding unemployment trust fund loans, unfunded benefit liabilities, and unfunded pension liabilities, and showed that for all of the proud words of the governors who spoke at the Republican and Democratic conventions, many states are drowning in debt.  California is in the worst shape, with a stunning $617 billion in debt, followed by New York ($300 billion), Texas ($287 billion), Illinois ($271 billion) and New Jersey ($258 billion).  Ohio, unfortunately, stands sixth with $239 billion in debt.  The state in the best shape is Vermont, with only $5.8 billion in debt — less than 1/100th of the amount owed by California.

In all, states are laboring under a crushing $4 trillion in debt.  It’s just another reminder that the flood of red ink is found across our country — and that it’s high time we start doing something about it.

A Few Thoughts On The Paul Ryan Pick

I’ve been off the grid, so I didn’t think much about Mitt Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate until today.  As we were driving home, Russell, UJ, and I listened to a replay of Meet The Press, which featured the all-too-predictable conservative and liberal shouting match about whether Ryan’s budget plan will gut Medicare and destroy the student loan program — among other issues.

Of course, it’s too much to expect that any political debate these days could be done at a reasonable decibel level, without yelling or over-the-top metaphors.  Nevertheless, I thought the discussion (if you can call it that) itself said something about the selection of Ryan.  Rather than arguing about whether the pick would help Romney politically in this state or with that constituency, the commentators were talking about something of actual substance — the budget, our debt problems, and how we deal with them.  How refreshing it would be if this election actually involved consideration of those crucial, meat-and-potatoes issues, rather than phony, grossly overheated topics like whether the evil Bain Capital caused a woman to die of cancer!

I think our exploding debt is the most important issue we face.  I therefore applaud anything that gets our country to focus on its budget problems and the hard choices we need to make to actually address those problems.  I recognize that my fellow citizens might disagree with my views on how we should address those issues — but that’s what elections are for, aren’t they?  If the selection of Paul Ryan causes President Obama and Mitt Romney to lay out their plans on taxes and spending and the deficit in sharp detail, and the election becomes a referendum on those plans, I think our country would be much better off.

For these reasons, Romney’s selection of Ryan is a positive thing for us all.  I hope we’ll be talking more about Ryan’s budget, and other fiscal issues, until Election Day.  For now I say, let the debate begin — and let’s see if we can’t have that debate in a civilized way, shall we?

Eight Months, And $844,500,000,000 More In The Hole

The Treasury Department has announced that our federal government, in May, racked up a deficit of $124,600,000,000 — $124.6 billion.  That brings the deficit for the first eight months of the October 1 to September 30 fiscal year to $844,500,000,000.  I use the full numbers because the long strings of zeroes better convey the colossal scale of the spending hole that we continue, relentlessly, to dig for ourselves and the Americans of future generations.

The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that this year’s deficit will be $1,170,000, 000,000 — $1.17 trillion.  That breathtakingly huge number comes on the heels of the $1,300,000,000,000 deficit in the last fiscal year.  Our deficits topped $1,000,000,000,000 during each of President Obama’s three years in office.

No rational person can believe such deficits are sustainable or that it is a good idea to go farther into hock without doing anything about it.  Yet that is precisely how our federal government has responded.  Where responsible people would be cutting non-essential programs, reducing payrolls and salaries, developing rational revenue policies, and taking the practical, meaningful steps necessary to bring revenue and spending into balance, our government does . . . nothing.

There’s plenty of blame to go around.  Congress has shirked its responsibility to pass honest budgets and specific spending bills, administrators have wasted tax dollars, and huge segments of the American public have an apparently insatiable appetite for federal benefits and perks.  But I have grown sick to death of President Obama’s constant attempts to dodge his share of the blame for the ignominious failure of the government that he — and he alone — heads.  Successful Presidents are able to lead and work within our political system to deal the issues of the day.  President Obama, in contrast, throws out unrealistic budgets that don’t even receive the votes of members of his own party in Congress and then blames his predecessor — the one who left office more than three years ago — for our mounting debt problems.  Meanwhile, the spending and deficit binge continues.  I don’t view President Obama’s approach as quality leadership.  In fact, I don’t view it as leadership at all — and if a President doesn’t lead, he has failed on the most fundamental part of his job.

Many of us have known people who appeared to live well beyond their means.  We wonder how it can continue, and then, inevitably, the crash comes and the entire house of cards collapses with awful results.  If you’ve seen that scenario, you can’t help but be uneasy about the direction in which our country is heading.  The many zeroes in those trillion-dollar deficit numbers are like the lead weights on the chains binding Marley’s ghost, dragging us slowly and inexorably downward to a fate we fear will be filled with terrible consequences.

The Race Rolls On, And The Big Issues Linger

The Republican presidential primaries, already seemingly endless, roll on.  With Newt Gingrich’s big win in South Carolina, the race is in disarray.  Gingrich is on the rise, Mitt Romney’s shield of inevitability has been dented, and Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are hanging on.

The focus now moves to Florida.  As has come to be the pattern, that means another debate tonight (No!!!!!!), lots more negative ads, and probably some new revelations before Florida goes to the polls on January 31.  We’ll hear lots of buzz words and scripted retorts and talking points, but what we probably won’t hear is much substantive talk about exactly how the remaining contenders are going to tackle the budget deficit.

You can argue about how we select a President in our country, and whether beginning with states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina makes any sense.  The early primary voters never seem to share my perspective on the big issues of the day, but perhaps that is just a reminder that ours is a large and diverse land where people have many different views.  In Iowa, social issues always seem to take center stage.  In South Carolina, the votes for Gingrich seemed to be motivated, at least in part, by anger — anger at the news media, and anger at President Obama — and a desire to select a candidate who, the voters believe, will cut the President to ribbons in debates.

Social issues just aren’t on my radar screen, I’m not mad at the news media, and scoring debating points with glib jabs at the President isn’t important to me.  Instead, I just want to hear how specifics about the candidates will cut our spending, balance our budget, resolve our debt issues, and get our economy growing again.  Those are the issues that are most important to me and, I think, most important to our country.  Maybe — just maybe — some Floridians share that view.

Europe Is Still There, And Its Problems Are Getting Worse

In America, we have the ability to just ignore the rest of the world now and then.  When the news from abroad is too depressing, we turn it off and focus on more interesting American things instead, like a celebrity scandal or  the new iPhone or a weirdly viral YouTube video.

I think most Americans have tuned out the debt crisis in Europe.  It has been going on forever.  There’s no end in sight.  Lots of different, faraway countries are involved. The Europeans appear to be dealing with it.  So why should we care?  Look, a squirrel!

On Friday Standard & Poor’s cut the credit ratings for the debt issued by nine European countries.  France, Europe’s second-largest economy, lost its AAA status, Italy’s debt is now rated the same as that of Kazakhstan, and Portugal’s debt is down to junk bond status.  Even worse, it looks like Greece won’t be able to reach agreement with its creditors, which would mean that the latest Eurozone effort to address the Greek debt crisis would fail and Greece would be facing default and bankruptcy in March.

In the modern world, the economies of countries are connected in countless ways.  We sell lots of good and services to Europe; if its economies crash, those markets vanish and American businesses will suffer.  American banks, mutual funds, and investors have purchased the sovereign debt of European countries and would experience huge losses in the event of defaults.  And, of course, Europe’s current predicament is just a peek at America’s likely future if we don’t deal promptly with our governmental debt problems.  European countries that are saddled with enormous debt are now at the mercy of ratings agencies, creditors, and faceless bureaucrats at the International Monetary Fund.

So, we can be distracted if we choose — but Europe is still there, and its problems are, too.  They may be our problems soon, if we don’t start paying attention.

Giving Thanks — And Ignoring The Falling Dominoes

We Americans have many reasons to be thankful this year, and one of the reasons is that we aren’t Italy — yet.

I’ve written before about the debt problems in Europe.  Things keep getting worse there.  The dominoes are slowly falling and threatening to knock over larger and larger economies.

The latest country to teeter on the brink is Italy.  Today it offered six-month debt obligations, and had trouble selling them even at an unsustainable 6.5 percent interest rate.   The financial markets obviously feel there is significant risk that Italy will default, and therefore they require an ever-higher interest rate to compensate for that risk.

Why should we care, here in the U.S. of A.?  Because the same thing could happen to us.  At some point, our debt load could pass an as-yet-unknown, magic threshold that makes investors feel insecure.  Once the investors start to demand high interest rates as a result, our problems with balancing the budget get immeasurably worse.

It’s boring and depressing to think about such things.  That’s why President Obama doesn’t focus on our debt problems, and Congress is happy to ignore them, too.  We’re whistling past the graveyard, and in the meantime the spending and debt accumulation continues without any let-up — and the dominoes in Europe keep toppling.

Giving Thanks For Our Political Leaders

This Thanksgiving week, I’d like to give special thanks for our political leaders.  At this time of national challenge, we are blessed with a political class whose spirit of self-sacrifice, personal courage, and intestinal fortitude compare favorably to those of our Pilgrim Fathers and the Signers of the Declaration of Independence.

I’m thankful for politicians who haven’t let the need to reassure nervous financial markets or the selfish concerns of Americans whose retirement savings accounts will be depleted by wild stock market plunges distract them from their crucial campaigning and fundraising.

I’m thankful for the President and Members of Congress who wisely decided to discard old-fashioned political processes and delegate all deficit reduction efforts to a “supercommittee.”

I’m thankful for the members of the “supercommittee” who rolled up their sleeves and had a few meetings and hearings before calling it quits.

I’m thankful for the far-sighted Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to accept a decrease in our national credit rating in order to stand up to the unreasonable expectations of the ratings agencies.

I’m thankful for the Members of Congress whose intuitive understanding of economics is so great that they have been able to increase their personal fortunes while serving the public good.

I’m thankful for a bold President who recognizes that the most crucial question to be answered when addressing any important issue is how to ensure that others will be held strictly accountable for the ultimate failure.

I’m thankful for those perceptive Democrats and Republicans who have finally come to realize that most Americans want to shrug off the weighty mantle of global leadership and be more like Greece.

Finally, I’m thankful for those enlightened political leaders who recognize that every single federal program, every single federal job, and every single federal tax exemption, deduction, and loophole is absolutely essential to the future of our Republic and cannot possibly be eliminated or changed in any way.

With leaders such as these, is there any doubt that our great nation can squarely meet and overcome whatever challenges might confront us?  The turkey is going to taste especially good this year.

Who Is This Guy? (The Time And Timing Side)

One other point about President Obama’s April 13 speech on fiscal policy struck me, and that was the whole question of time and timing.

The budget savings numbers cited by the President in his speech all were based on a 12-year period, rather than the 10-year period typically used in long-term budgeting.  For example, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget, which the President sharply criticized in his speech, uses a 10-year period.  Why did the President use a 12-year period?  Because he wanted to say that he proposed roughly as much in deficit reduction as the Ryan plan, and a lot of the “savings” anticipated by the President occurs at the end of his 12-year period.  In my view, this is the kind of numbers gimmickry that shows a real lack of seriousness about the deficit issue.

Another interesting time and timing issue was raised when the President talked about a “failsafe” that would be part of his plan.  The President stated:  “But just to hold Washington — and to hold me — accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe.  If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy -– if we haven’t hit our targets, if Congress has failed to act -– then my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.  That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.”

I don’t follow this logic.  The “failsafe,” whatever it will be, isn’t triggered until 2014 — three years from now, after the President’s first term has long since ended.  Why would the possibility of actions in three years hold the President, or anyone else, “accountable” now, and why would it be “an incentive for [politicians] to act boldly now”?  With an election looming on the near horizon, and the parties already bickering and name-calling about just about everything, why would a distant, post-election deadline have any impact at all?  If a “debt failsafe” really is a good idea, how about invoking it now, so that voters can hold politicians “accountable” the way they should be held accountable in a democracy — through having to explain and justify their decisions in the election that is less than two years away?

President Obama’s fiscal policy is predicated on the notion that our continued deficits are a serious problem that must be addressed.  However, the time frames set at the end of his speech don’t seem to match the urgency expressed at the beginning of his speech.  Instead, the President seems to want to defer making the tough decisions that should be made immediately, while at the same time using words like “accountability” that test well with focus groups.  To me, that seems more like electioneering than leadership — and that is another reason why I found the President’s speech so disappointing.

Who Is This Guy?  (The Revenue Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Health Care Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Defense Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Spending Side)

Who Is This Guy? (The Revenue Side)

The next part of President Obama’s approach to the budget deficit, outlined in his April 13 speech, addressed what he called “tax expenditures” and “spending in the tax code.”   At the outset, he said he regretted agreeing to extend “tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans” only a few months ago, but explained that he did so “because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.”  He added that “we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society” and declared:  “I refuse to renew them again.”

The President next said the tax code is “loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions.”  He agrees with “the goals of many of these deductions, from homeownership to charitable giving,” but “we can’t ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.”  He then called for “limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.”

Finally, he said “we should go further,” and Congress should “reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple — so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.”  The White House fact sheet that UJ linked to recently phrases the issue more bluntly — it says: ” the President is calling for individual tax reform that closes loopholes and produces a system which is simpler, fairer and not rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it.” (The emphasis is in the fact sheet itself.)

These remarks are, commendably, more specific than the President’s remarks on spending and health care.  He wants to raise the current tax rates on high income earners (by not “extending” those rates) and he wants to “limit” deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.  It is interesting that the President now regrets a decision he made only a few months ago, but it is even more interesting that he seems to equate “income” with “wealth.”  The federal income tax only addresses “wealth” if the wealth produces taxable income.  The notion that individuals who are taxed at the highest tax brackets are all “millionaires and billionaires,” as the President suggested, is preposterous.  Instead, many of those people are simply productive workers in two-income families — small business owners, professionals, and so forth — who are reaching the peaks of their earnings potential while at the same time they are putting their kids through college and trying to save for retirement.  The notion that such people are “the wealthiest Americans” who have somehow gamed the system is ludicrous.

I’m all for making the tax code simpler and fairer — but does anyone really think President Obama is well positioned to do so?  His health care legislation is already producing volumes of regulations that are of breathtaking complexity.  And this is not a President who has shied away from advocating tax breaks and incentives for causes that he agrees with — like green energy.  A better course, I think, would be to get away from deductions altogether.  I’d like to see an end to special tax treatment of donations to charitable and religious organizations and the non-profit political groups, right and left, whose vile advertising makes TV watching during the election season so revolting.  Our tax policy should not encourage such groups.

And consider the intemperate language of the White House fact sheet quoted above.  It actually suggests that our federal tax system is “rigged in favor of those who can afford lawyers and accountants to game it.”  Does the President honestly believe that the federal tax system that he has presided over for two years is “rigged” and “gamed” by “lawyers and accountants”?  If so, why hasn’t he done something about it before now?

Who Is This Guy?  (The Health Care Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Defense Side)

Who Is This Guy?  (The Spending Side)

Time For The President To Act Like A President

The more I read about President Obama’s proposed budget, the more disappointed I am.  I agree with the thrust of this editorial from the Washington Post:  the President has refused to make the hard choices, and instead is proposing phony “cuts” and using budgeting gimmickry to achieve the illusory “savings” he and officials in his administration are claiming.

I heard parts of the President’s press conference and was even more disappointed.  The President sounded like he was being coy and was engaging in maneuvering, rather than actually leading.  He is trying to position things so that Republicans make the hard choices, and he doesn’t take any political risks.  What kind of leadership is that?  If we have a President who is not willing to lead, what does that say about his qualities as a President?

I would guess that most Americans consider our ridiculous, seemingly unending deficit spending to be the most significant domestic problem facing our country.  The President should be tackling that problem — but he hasn’t, and by all appearances he won’t.  He obviously doesn’t consider our rapidly mounting, crushing debt to be sufficiently serious to command his attention or to warrant his expenditure of any political capital.  It really makes you wonder — if President Obama isn’t willing to lead on the most important domestic issue of the day, why did he run for President in the first place?

Another Demonstration Of Why Balancing The Federal Budget Is Such A Huge Challenge

ABC News had an interesting story today that demonstrates why cutting spending and balancing the federal budget is so difficult.

The story is based on an email sent out by an unnamed Democratic staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee that will address the Labor and Health and Human Services budget.  The email set up a meeting with hundreds of lobbyists who support programs that fall within that budget and encouraged them to band together to oppose cuts to that budget.  The article quotes the email as saying that “[o]ne thing everyone should be able to agree on now is that a rising tide lifts all boats,” and that a higher budget allocation “improves the chances for every stakeholder group to receive more funding.”

Don’t you just love the phrase “stakeholder group”?  It aptly captures the reality of the out-of-control federal budget, where every bloated federal program is strongly supported by some interest group that has a huge stake in continuing to get funding for their pet program.  And now, thanks in part to the efforts of committee staffers who in reality are beholden to those interest groups rather than to voters, legions of K Street lobbyists will be hired and funded and encouraged to band together to stoutly resist the funding cuts that are essential to restoring some form of fiscal sanity to the federal budget.  The mind reels at the prospects of legions of lobbyists descending on Capitol Hill and of the legislative logrolling, campaign contributions, and stealthy cloakroom deals that will define the budgeting process during this Congress as a result.

Those of us who are interested in reducing the budget deficit and the federal debt shouldn’t kid ourselves.  The people and entities who are dependent on federal programs are highly motivated, well-funded, and will do whatever they can to see that efforts to cut spending are blunted and frustrated at every turn.