Some Suggestions for Future Budget Cuts

As I wrote yesterday, I think the government shutdown is stupid. But so long as people are listing things that are no longer operating (that, it follows,we usually pay for), let's see if we can find some things we fund that we can all agree are a giant waste of time and money.

Government social media presence--Twitter, Instagram, etc. Why on God's earth do we pay people to update the First Lady's Twitter account or the White House Instagram feed? I'm sure the WH has a staff photog--and they should for history's sake, I think--but real time updates of what is going on in the Oval Office is no more useful than the pic of what my friends had for brunch on Sunday. At best it's useless, at worst it's propaganda. Chuck them.

The DEA: Seriously, they are worthless. Drugs are cheaper and purer than they've been at any point over the last 20 years. Billions of dollars absolutely and unquestionably wasted, not to mention the lives ruined and lost in the process. Kill it.

E-Verify: Doesn't work, costs a lot of money, is a blatant privacy violation, and is going to cost jobs when false positives reject American citizens from jobs for which they are eligible. This last bit will be due to some administrative snafu, which comes standard with any government program. We don't need a national ID.

Child Soldier Subsidies: No, really. Congress passed a law in 2008 banning financial and military support to regimes that actively use child soldiers. The White House just waived that ban for three countries that use child soldiers on Friday. Here, for once, it's perfectly reasonable to say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

There are plenty more, but even the most strident good government type has to admit we spend too much money on government that ranges from banal to deplorable. Surely we can cut some of this.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Obama's "Plan" and All Its Hollow Glory

Since the NYT put up its paywall, I've been avoiding the site pretty steadily. But someone tweeted this handy little chart explaining the differences in the President's anti-Paul Ryan budget plan.(click to enlarge)

I'll leave it to the Left to demolish Ryan's plan, as they have already on so many occasions. Let's look at this new plan that so many were defending on Twitter today.

Medicare: "The proposal seeks to reduce the growth in Medicare spending, including lowering prescription drug spending "by leveraging Medicare’s purchasing power.""

Translation: 'Leveraging Medicare's purchasing power' is a nice way to say "extortion." When you have a virtual monopoly on medical care for the elderly--a class dependent on drugs--the monopolistic power of Medicare is a blunt tool with which to extort favorable prices from drug companies. These "savings," of course, will be paid for by younger folks who see their over the counter or chronic ailment medicine increase in price to make up for the lost revenue. We have antitrust laws, in theory, to protect consumers from monopolistic practices and price fixing. Of course, when the government does it, it's just fine. In fairness, this "negotiating" with drug companies isn't anything new, it's just going to be accelerated and amplified because of Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit.

Medicaid: "President Obama has asked governors to recommend ways to make the program more efficient. Medicaid spending would be cut $100 billion over the next decade."

Translation: I hope to cut $100 billion, but will let the governor's do the dirty work because I want to shirk responsibility if things go wrong but will happily take credit if all goes well. (cf. "Clinton's" twice-vetoed Welfare Reform of 1994)

Social Security: "Mr. Obama said that, while Social Security is not a cause of near-term budget problems, "both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security.""

Translation: PUNT!

Military: "Military spending would be cut $400 billion over the next 12 years."

Translation: Kinetic Military Actions not pursued = SAVINGS!*

Discretionary Spending: "Mr. Obama proposed cutting $600 billion over 10 years, including $400 billion identified in his 2012 budget proposal."

Translation: I'll make symbolic cuts to maintain the entitlement programs that are actually bankrupting us.

Taxes: "Mr. Obama endorsed the Fiscal Commission's recommendation to eliminate tax breaks to both lower tax rates and reduce the deficit. He called for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for top earners and limiting itemized deductions for them."

Translation: We've shown we can't spend your money responsibly, so we're going to need more of it. Also, the rest of my budget commission bummed me out, so we're just gonna table the rest of that noise.

Again, Ryan's plan has its own shortcomings, but I don't know how much of the 'Twitter base' it rallied on the Right. But to believe this "plan" is anything but obfuscatory rhetoric is just delusional.

*If he's serious about making Defense cuts, great. But he's shown nothing to indicate that he is, indeed there is much more evidence to the contrary, so I won't treat it like it is.

Quote of the Day: When Words Have No Meaning

This requires a little background, so please bear with:

A friend sent me a link to this piece in Forbes about the Founders' "socialized medicine." Ezra Klein at the Washington Post picked it up. One of the MoJo journos I follow on twitter, Nick Baumann, linked to it saying: "Amazing."

Similar to what I commented at Forbes, I tweeted back to Baumann that the law in question dealt with enumerated powers, taxing power and the maintenance of a Navy, so that they fell well-within the proper legal understanding of the Necessary and Proper clause.

Baumann responded in three parts. The one that concerns me is the second one, but his other tweets are here and here. His second tweet, said (with edits for blog clarity):

Ultimately the whole constitutional debate misses the point. We're really arguing about what government should be allowed to do.

This way of thinking probably appeals to many people of various political stripes, but to constitutionalists, beyond the rhetorical subtlety that resembles the effect of a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, it is akin to saying, "We're not talking about speed limits, we're talking about how fast we can make the car go."

The Constitution is more than a parchment relic that represents the Founding principles of our country: it is the explicit grant and, to my point, the limitation of power given to our federal government. To say that we're talking about the scope of government without recognizing its proper, delineated limits is to miss the point entirely.

Legislating is not a grand philosophical exercise on tabula rasa to decide what idea sounds good right now. Unconstitutional laws usually seem like good ideas at the time -- to the pols who implement them, at any rate. Unchecked, the government regularly acts beyond its proper authority in everything from speech to imprisonment to wiretapping and torture. Just because the party in power has a policy preference doesn't make it legitimate or constitutional.

Given my affinity for team sports, I understand the "look the other way" mentality when your team commits a foul and gets away with it. But when every time Team A stretches the limits of Congress beyond it's constitutional bounds, they directly empower Team B to do the same on their own pet issues--essentially, that's how precedent works. How The winners, of course, are the teams--they get more power so everybody's happy. The losers, however, are the rest of us who get screwed by civil liberties violations or dying in excruciating pain.

I am not exaggerating. Ironically, the government's arguments for the individual mandate of PPACA, the health care bill,  rest primarily on Raich, the Supreme Court case declaring that medical marijuana grown in the home for personal use that is legal under state law is somehow regulable under the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution.

In a way, Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales--by way of unconstitutionally prohibiting state-sanctioned medical remedy for chronic pain--forcing Angel Raich and others like her to live (or die) (yes, die) in excruciating pain or leaving them unable to eat because of unabating nausea during chemotherapy could lead to the Dems' triumph in the PPACA litigation.

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi is going to send Alberto Gonzales a thank you note?

Faithful adherence to the text of the Constitution is the best protection for individual rights in the United States. Relying upon Supreme Court justices to be "smart enough" to reach a decision that jives with your policy preferences invites government overreach and the suffering of countless Americans. (see Korematsu) Given the sorry state of medical and insurance pricing, I would never say that government has no role in attempting to remedy our health care system. That said, one cannot responsibly discard the limits of the Constitution for subjectively "good"--or in the opinion of a lot of PPACA supporters, "better than nothing"--policy: torture seems like a "good idea" to some people. Constitutional restraints should mean something.

Years ago, three years after resigning from office, disgraced former president Richard Nixon gave an infamous interview to David Frost in which he said "When the president does it, it's not illegal." This caused an uproar--yet his logic is in lock step with those who wish not to concern themselves with the limits of government.

At what point did disregard for the law move from the profane to standard public policy?

bellum medicamenti delenda est