This question came to me when I watched Tim Pawlenty on the Daily Show last week.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Tim Pawlenty Unedited Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Pawlenty talked about how an eighth grader could see that the Federal government was out of whack. Passing over the point that we don't let junior high school kids vote for a damned good reason, all Pawlenty could talk about was cutting social programs. Jon Stewart asked Pawlenty was willing to see crop subsidies cut. Pawlenty tried to dodge the question and run out the clock, but Stewart didn't let him and Pawlenty finally said, no, he didn't want to cut crop subsidies.
(Stewart also got Pawlenty to concede that one of the reason that the budget deficits are larger now is that the wars have been moved onto the books.)
I've not yet run across a conservative who is unwilling to cut social programs that help people. I've not yet run into one who advocates cuts in the defense budget. Conservatives are all in favor of cutting agencies that monitor the fuckery of corporations but are unwilling to cut law enforcement or prisons.
If you are not willing to cut deeply into programs that are near and dear to your own constituency's interests, then your concern about the budget deficit is just eyewash.
5 comments:
Take at a look at their Contract On American part deux and one will see that what they propose won't even put a dent in the deficit. Amazingly... defense is not one the list. Tea partiers are still just a bunch of useful idiots for the corporations.
Well, if you were to ask me, start with the biggest areas of the budget and look for non-critical things in them.
1 - General defense spending. Can't give any specifics here because I'm not sure what's being spent where but sampling 300-400 troops out to give one an idea what the dumbest programs are.
2 - Iraq. We can quit that business any time for all I care. I'm not so sure about Afghanistan though. I'd be happy to but security experts might see a problem with that.
3 - DEA. Goodbye. Legalize 'em all at the Federal level and tax 'em. Nice thing there is we know exactly what people are willing to pay vs. what it costs and know exactly how high we can tax it before it's worth it for another black market to emerge. Not a huge spending cut ($80 billion a year?) but the tax revenue would be sizable.
Those are just the ones off the top of my head and they're not your typical Republican answers.
But, to give you what was once a typical Republican answer: Kill the Department of Education. Whatever funding that is directly paid to the states today should remain but that office can be staffed by two people mailing checks.
Oh, and I'm totally OK with pretty much gutting the ATF. Just enough to make sure they're getting their taxes and our hooch is safe to drink and I'm happy.
Terrant,
I got really excited when I saw that site and then realize they wouldn't let you pick any item off the budget. Just their tiny stupid examples. Pissed me off.
Justin,
I agree with most of that. But hell, I'm in favor of repealing most of the `34 NFA, for that matter.
If we decriminalize drugs, there are going to be a boatload of private prisons emptying out, as well as many thousands of jobs in law enforcement. The counties that use asset forfeiture as a way of funding their police departments will have to raise taxes. So there will be lots of complaining.
Here is my idea: Any DoD program in which the per unit costs rises more than 20% above the initial projected costs, as adjusted for inflation or deflation, gets axed.
Frankly, I consider all proposals as merely rearrangements of surface problems, not solutions to the underlying problems.
Farm subsides is the glass jaw of "free market conservatives." A quick poll of so-called deficit hawks will confirm that what they really hate is money for the urban poor (read: blacks) and that's all.
Put farm subsidies on the table and they become Communists in the blink of an eye. They're against "social engineering" until you remind them of the Drug War. They're opposed to Federal funding of scientific research...unless it's leading to some kind of weapon. Then Federal spending is an absolute necessity.
Genuine Libertarians oppose the Drug War, farm subsidies, and foreign military bases. They oppose foreign aid to everyone, including Republican pinup girl Israel. They oppose the space program, too. Show me the Republican with the kidney for those kinds of spending cuts and I'll vote for him. Until then their teabaggery amounts to stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
Post a Comment