Opinion: The GOP Won't Cut Spending, and That's a Good Thing

(Nov. 15) -- Throughout the 2010 campaign, there was perhaps one issue that united all Republicans -- and even many Democrats: the need to cut federal spending to trim the country's growing budget deficit.

But anyone who thinks a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives is going to really cut spending and balance the budget ... well, don't get your hopes up.

Politicians and voters love to complain about government spending in the abstract. But in reality neither group really wants to make the difficult choices to do anything about it.

If you don't believe it, consider for a moment what Republicans have already said is off-limits from the budgetary ax.

Social Security? That's a no-go and, considering that Republican gains on Election Day were largely because of strong senior turnout, cuts in old-age pensions seem highly unlikely. So there goes one-fifth of the budget.

How about Medicare and Medicaid, which consume about 21 percent of federal spending and are the fastest growing entitlement programs? Not only have Republicans rejected spending reductions, they have actually pledged to undo what they claim were Medicare cuts included in President Barack Obama's health care reform overhaul. So instead of reducing this part of the budget, Republicans want to increase it. In fact, by one measure this "fix" would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, add $455 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

What about defense and its 20 to 23 percent share of the budget? A few Republicans have indicated a willingness to look more closely at Pentagon spending. But Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif. -- who will likely be the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- made clear this week he's opposed to giving the Pentagon a haircut "in the midst of two wars." Others say they want to exempt national security spending from near-term reductions.

So if the GOP is really interested in reducing spending, where will the money come from?

The only thing left is the 25 percent of the budget that serves not only as a social safety net for millions of Americans, but funds programs that have strong public support -- education, law enforcement, transportation, unemployment benefits, student aid, national parks, scientific research, etc. Not only would these cuts make little dent in a $1.4 trillion deficit, but in the midst of an underperforming economy and nearly 10 percent unemployment, they would be incredibly heartless and deeply misguided. Such steps would only serve to prolong the economic misery of millions of Americans.

But a big part of the problem is that the electorate demands greater fiscal responsibility and then recoils at any effort to cut programs that affect them and angrily rejects any effort to raise taxes to pay for them. Or it falsely believes that the path to balancing the budget is by getting rid of administrative waste in government. If it were that easy, one would imagine that it might have happened by now. But of course, it isn't.

The simple fact is that is that the only group of Americans more averse to actual spending cuts than politicians ... is voters. And once the public gets whiff of specific spending cuts, support for such measures will likely diminish (which is no doubt why Republicans are loath to identify a single program they want to excise).

A September Washington Post poll found that when voters were asked if they wanted their congressman to "fight for more government spending" to create jobs at home or cut spending, "even if it means fewer jobs in your district" by a 57-39 margin voters chose more government spending.

The reality is that cutting government spending involves difficult trade-offs and they are ones that no one in Washington (or across the country) really wants to make.

But given the state of the economy today that's actually a good thing -- taking government spending out of the economy would do far more harm than good and would do absolutely nothing to create jobs or spur growth.

If anything, the persistent sluggish economy calls for increasing spending in the near term and devoting the money to the critical infrastructure, education, innovation and health care challenges that are eroding America's economic competitiveness.

In today's political environment, that's about as likely as me playing shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. But at least keeping federal coffers open is about as much as we can hope for in the near term.