A Modest $500 Billion Proposal

[Arrian]

You are getting wrapped up in the trade deficit numbers and assuming that because we import a lot we are not producing anything. This is not the case, we simply consume our own manufacturing output ourselves and then some.

I don't actually think that's where the misconception comes from. It's about jobs. Our manufacturing output has remained stable. Jobs (by which I mean relatively well compensated jobs in manufacturing) haven't.

...

I haven't looked at Senator Paul's proposed cuts yet, but I'm interested (as $500B strikes me as a serious number, rather than blather about cutting foreign aid, "waste and abuse" and other things that add up to pocket change). I expect to find that he's taken an axe to programs liberals like and largely spared those that conservatives/libertarians (not that those are the same thing, especially on budgetary issues) like (read: military, agri subsidies). I will be pleasantly surprised if this is not the case (or at least overly so).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

This is generally good stuff:

For those who take issue with any of the spending cuts I have proposed, I have two requests:

First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.

Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?

Except the bit about the state/local level. One might prefer that for various reasons, but not really for fiscally conservative ones. It's not like states and municipalities do things for free. If he's claiming that states and municipalities are significantly more efficient than the Feds, I don't know what the basis is for that. My gut reaction is that in at least some cases it would be the opposite...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Some thoughts... (I've quoted stuff that jumped out at me)

AGRICULTURE....................................... .....$42,542,000,000. (30%)
The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.

DEFENSE........................................... ............$47,500,000,000. (6.5%)

EDUCATION......................................... .........$78,000,000,000 (83%)
Only the Pell grant program survives.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..............$26,510,000,000. (26%)
Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion.

STATE............................................. ......................$20,321,000,000. (71%)
Note: Massive foreign aid cuts. All international commissions and organizations are defunded.

EPA............................................... ...............$3,238,000,000. (29%)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION...............$4,723,000,000. (62%)

Seems to me that defense gets off very light here. Some of these others, in comparison, don't look good to me. Then again, I don't have a good handle on what each of these federal agencies/programs do - it's possible that they are unnecessary. For instance, we'll continue to teach school kids w/o the federal department of education. Is getting rid of it a good idea? I don't really know.

I think slashing the CDC and FDA budgets is a bad idea, and generally feel the same way about the EPA. The State Department looks like it gets hit with a sledgehammer. Why, exactly? I'm not ruling out the idea that cuts can be found in that area of the budget. But 71% of their current budget, really? Compare and contrast to what Senator Paul says in the article quoted in the OP re: defense. And yet... 6.5% cut to defense, 71% cut to State. Hmm.

Also, it is unclear to me whether the proposed agriculture cuts involve getting rid of subsidies as well.

Those cuts that I would undo or lessen, I'd transfer over to the military budget. Also, I think it might be a good idea to phase at least some cuts in over time, rather than insta-cutting. Basically, anything you intend to keep around.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Trust a Republican to want to ream education - it's not like they're too bright in the first place...

[Arrian]

Note: education is the US is mostly funded at the local & state level, MOBIUS. It's not quite that simple.

That said, the reason I think that defunding/abolishing the Dept. of Ed is such a popular idea on the Right is that they fantasize that this will mean less of those darned libruls forcing schools to teach evilution.

-Arrian

[Az]

How about this:

I will go back in time
...

Deal?

Ok, what is the noncompliance fee?

[giblets]

I expect to find that he's taken an axe to programs liberals like and largely spared those that conservatives/libertarians (not that those are the same thing, especially on budgetary issues) like (read: military, agri subsidies).

You were right!

[Arrian]

Ah, Cato's piece on this provides some more detail for me:

Second, the Department of Energy, which is becoming a chief source of corporate welfare, would be zeroed out. Paul would eliminate subsidies for all energy industries -- from fossil fuels to so-called “green” energies. He notes that the government’s interference in energy development should be ended and the free market allowed to “start taking the reins.”

So the subsidies are included, at least wrt Energy. Good. Hopefully the same is true for Agriculture.

Finally, Paul would chop a quarter of the Department of Health and Human Service’s budget, although he doesn’t take on Medicare or Medicaid. He is reportedly at work on separate legislation that would address Medicare and Social Security. Because Paul’s proposal is focused on immediate cuts, his decision to tackle the big mandatory spending programs separately shouldn’t be viewed as a cop out.

Heh.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Note: education is the US is mostly funded at the local & state level, MOBIUS. It's not quite that simple.

That said, the reason I think that defunding/abolishing the Dept. of Ed is such a popular idea on the Right is that they fantasize that this will mean less of those darned libruls forcing schools to teach evilution.

-Arrian

Not that simple no, but when you link it to the local and state level, there strikes me as a startling correlation that virtually all the states that you'd generally think of as being full of people having the greatest ignorance return Republicans. That vast swathe of the Mid-West springs to mind.

The poorer the education and higher the general ignorance = greater likelihood to vote Republican.

It's just one of those simple truths...

[Arrian]

The Mid-West isn't really that problematic in that regard. Try the Deep South instead, and you're closer to the mark.

-Arrian

[HalfLotus]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1102....mc_id=FBK_NPG

Without government involvement, there would be little R&D at all...

JM

Funny little thing at the end of that article:

"The pharma industry is deciding its core capabilities are marketing and dealing with regulatory bodies," says Judy Slinn, a business historian at Oxford Brooks University, UK.

Why invest in R&D when you can lobby a few congress critters and get billions from taxpayers? Big Pharma has been doing it for years.

[Jon Miller]

It is because without 'subsidies', there is no reason to do R&D. So lobbying the government to keep your 'subsidies' is crucial for anyone doing R&D.

BTW, as far as it goes, patents are 'subsidies'.

What needs to happen is for a change in how intellectual property is dealt with, with government being the primary consumer.

JM

[HalfLotus]

It is because without 'subsidies', there is no reason to do R&D.

Right, because inventing useful and profitable products never made anybody money.

[Jon Miller]

Right, because inventing useful and profitable products never made anybody money.

Not so much when there isn't patents, ie government subsidies.

JM

[Agent Sox]

I wonder how much of our budget is spent on guarding dry lake beds in the middle of Nevada.