Taking the freeze seriously
Jared Bernstein tries to sell the freeze:
First, an important note on timing. No one is arguing that we should take our foot off the accelerator today, when the economic recovery remains fragile and job growth has yet to return. In fact, you’ll hear from the President tomorrow night about measures we should undertake right away to jumpstart job creation. In his words and deeds, the President has made clear that recovery comes first. But that doesn’t mean we should wait to start changing the same bad habits in Washington that left a $1.3 trillion deficit on our doorstep when we entered office in January 2009, especially when we can do so without cutting back on our jobs agenda.
Second, a little background on freeze-eology: there are two ways to do a freeze like this: (1) an across-the-board freeze on every program outside of national security; and (2) a surgical approach where overall totals are frozen but some individual programs go up and others go down. In short, a hatchet versus a scalpel.
During the campaign, you may recall that John McCain touted option 1 – the hatchet approach of an across-the-board freeze.
The President was critical of that approach then, and we would be critical of it now. It’s not what we’re proposing. To the contrary, the entire theory of the President’s proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn’t. Under our plan, some discretionary spending will go up; some will go down. That’s a big difference from a hatchet.
On some level, though, the administration can't have it both ways. The category of spending they're going after has traditionally grown at 5 percent a year. Over the three years that the freeze is supposed to last, that's more than $100 billion that won't be spent. That's a lot of money. Moreover, it will be Congress, not the administration, that decides which programs actually get cut and which are preserved, or see their funding increased. And Congress isn't very precise with a scalpel, and they often let pharmaceutical representatives, or local agricultural companies, tell them where to cut.
Additionally, the administration has exempted not only the Pentagon, but also all the members of the Department of Homeland Security, from the cuts. There's a lot of waste in those sectors, but Congress won't be allowed to go after any of it. That means there are fewer bad programs standing between Congress and the good programs.
What the administration has done in proposing a freeze is very different than if they had come to Congress and proposed an elimination of agricultural subsidies. This policy is about a general spending target, not a set of low-value programs. And that made political sense. The administration wanted headlines for its commitment to austerity. They've got them. "You can't afford to do everything that you might have always wanted to do," a senior administration official told The Washington Post. But then they can't also be telling people that this freeze will allow them to do everything worth doing, as if there was no freeze at all.
Posted by: JonathanTE | January 26, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: adagio847 | January 26, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: JPRS | January 26, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.