Cantor can’t cut, Obama can

by YankeeJim | June 8, 2010 at 04:01 am
143 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

We can tell them all what to cut and we want cuts.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

A government has limited capacity for change and improvement. Change and improvement take resources to achieve desirable outcomes, and change involves risks. Starting to change something without the resources to see it through often produces worse results than doing nothing at all; deciding what to change must be very deliberate, a product of management science, not art.

 

 If you know that government has a runaway deficit, the place to begin is not to add new programs that increase the deficit without removing current programs that are less productive. That is what President Obama means by requesting an arbitrary 5% is cut. Why 5% and not 10, 15, 20, or 25% when the debt is so high?

 

The issue ultimately comes down to government employment versus private sector employment. When government spending is cut, the result is 1) reduction of the government direct workforce, and more 2) reduction of government contractors’ workforce. This adds to the already high unemployment if the private sector is not growing sufficiently to pick up the slack.

 

Some government work can be eliminated associated with older programs that are no longer needed or that are in declining productivity. All programs have life cycles. Some programs are embedded in the budget as requiring long term sustainment. Therein, some may be hiding and unworthy of this status. Sorting it out requires hard and objective analysis. The process may begin with internal review by individual departments, though ultimately, the OMB or GAO must step in to provide objectivity. All of this should be completely transparent to the public.

 

The big ticket items are far flung wars that we cannot afford and wasteful defense spending to which Robert Gates has already raised an axe.

 

Let’s see what Republican Whip Cantor has whipped up.

 

With exception of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, each item that Cantor’s site identifies below is a drop in the bucket, well below critical mass in achieving the magnitude of meaningful cuts. It reflects conservatives’ attacks on arts, education, and science that I would reject.

 

Yet, the $30 billion savings from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deserves immediate attention, Mr. President.


“Refocus National Archives Activities On Preserving Federal Records
$10 million in Savings in the First Year
($100 Million Over Ten Years)

The National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission are charged with managing Federal records. However, they also spend approximately $10 million a year on grants for state and local governments, universities and other institutions to preserve and publish non-Federal records. While a worthwhile goal, the federal government also spends $167.5 million a year on the National Endowment for the Humanities and $282 million for the Institute for Museum and Library Services which can and sometimes do fund projects towards similar ends. Refocusing the National Archives on its core mission of preserving Federal records would save taxpayers $10 million next year and $100 million over ten years.

 

Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Savings estimated at $30 billion.
Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored mortgage-backing companies, taxpayers have injected over $145 billion into the two companies. Yet Congress still has not considered proposals to reform these companies and recoup taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that absent reform, costs to taxpayer will continue to grow. Taking action to reform these companies now (as opposed to delaying action as some have proposed) by ending their government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure could generate savings of up to an estimated $30 billion.

 Terminate Broadcasting Facility Grant Programs that Have Completed their Mission
$25 million in Savings in the First Year
($250 million Over Ten Years)

In his most recent budget, President Obama proposed terminating the Public Broadcasting Grants at the Department of Agriculture and the Public Telecommunications Facilities Grants Program at the Department of Commerce. The president's budget justified terminating these programs, noting that: "Since 2004, the USDA Public Broadcasting Grants program has provided grants to support rural public television stations’ conversion to digital broadcasting. Digital conversion efforts mandated by the Federal Communications Commission are now largely complete, and there is no further need for this program." ...additionally: "Since 2000, most PTFP awards have supported public television stations' conversion to digital broadcasting. The digital television transition was completed in 2009, and there is no further need for DOC’s program."

 Reduce Spending on Non-Essential and Questionable Research
$3.8 Million in Savings in the First Year
Since passage of the stimulus bill in February of 2009, watchdogs and media outlets have identified countless examples of wasteful, unnecessarily duplicative, and outrageous expenditures. Unfortunately, most of these expenditures only come to light after the money has been spent. This is particularly true in the area of research grants. Examples of grants made with stimulus funds about which questions have been raised after the grant was awarded include: a study on why young adults use malt liquor and marijuana in combination ($389,357); the impact of alcohol on the “hookup” behavior of female college coeds ($219,000); studying whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol ($8,408); developing a program for "machine-generated humor" ($712,883); studying methamphetamines and the female rat sex drive ($28,900); studying the tension between privacy and features in online social networks like Facebook ($498,000); testing how to control private home appliances in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts from an off-site computer ($787,250); developing the next generation of football gloves ($150,000); examining the division of labor in ant colonies ($950,000); and studying the Icelandic Arctic environment in the Viking Age ($94,902). While we cannot recapture money that has already been spent, this proposal would reduce funding dollar-for-dollar at each agency that approved the grants described above.

 Consolidate and Reduce Funding for Federal Advisory Committees
$34 million in Savings in the First Year
($170 Million Over Five Years)

In 2008, the Federal government spent $342 million on 917 active Federal Advisory Committees. These committees had nearly 64,000 total members. Many of these committees are duplicative. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts spent $1.3 million on two separate advisory panels, both of which makes recommendations to the NEA chairman. At the U.S. Geological Survey, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee actually recommended the creation of the National Earthquake Prediction Council. Now taxpayers fund both committees at a cost of nearly $200,000 a year. These earthquake committees are in addition to a third committee run by the Department of Commerce that costs taxpayers another $43,000. In 2005, the Department of Interior even created an advisory committee to advise it on dog management at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Three years later, this committee cost taxpayers $41,000. Consolidating existing advisory committees and with a goal of reducing overall funding by 10% would save taxpayers $34 million next year and $170 million over five years.”


Advertisement

Comments (0)

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from