The Washington Post: Bad budgeting from House

Republicans
Monday, February 21, 2011
THERE ARE smarter ways to cut government spending and dumber ways. Then there is the House
Republican way - arbitrary, shortsighted and self-defeating.
The Republicans are insisting on cutting spending by $61 billion for the rest of this fiscal year. Why that
number? Because lawmakers have determined cuts of that magnitude make sense for the budget and the
economy? No. The arbitrary number derives from an arbitrary campaign pledge to cut $100 billion in
discretionary spending from the level President Obama requested. House leaders say that the $61 billion
below 2010 spending levels fulfills that pledge.
It makes little sense to focus entirely on discretionary, non-security spending, which accounts for a small
slice of the budget. At the same time, such spending has increased significantly in the past few years.
This category cannot be exempted from cuts. But cuts of the magnitude in the House Republican
proposal would be unwise, especially when the economic recovery is still faltering. In one indication of
how excessive these reductions are, consider that the original proposal put forward by the Republican
leadership envisioned $35 billion in cuts. These reductions would be even more disruptive because one-
third of the fiscal year has already elapsed. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that
non-security discretionary spending would be cut by nearly 14 percent. But spreading that over the
remainder of the fiscal year would mean slashing spending by an average of 24 percent.
This is no way to cut a government. Policymakers need to figure out what government requires to operate
and budget from there - not lop off arbitrary sums. As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates put it,
'"Suggestions to cut defense by this or that large number have largely become exercises in simple math,
divorced from serious considerations of capabilities, risk, and the level of resources needed to protect this
country's security and vital interests around the world.''
The top priority must be public safety, here and abroad. When Mr. Gates says that the Republican budget
falls short of what he needs, he has the budget-cutting bona fides to be taken seriously. Likewise,
slashing the State Department's humanitarian aid budget by 41 percent is not in the long-term interests of
the United States.
As shortsighted as these national security cutbacks are punishing cuts to domestic agencies that protect
public health and safety. If anything, the Food and Drug Administration is underfunded; the Republican
budget would cut funding by $241 million below 2010 levels and $400 million below the Obama
administration's 2011 request. The financial crisis underscored the importance of effective regulation, and
the recent financial services law imposes new responsibilities on agencies such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission; instead of providing new
money for the agencies to do their jobs properly, the Republican budget would cut $25 million from the
SEC and an astonishing $57 million from the CFTC, one-third of its budget. Meanwhile, cutting $285
million from the Internal Revenue Service's enforcement budget is the ultimate in penny-wise, pound-
foolish budgeting. More enforcement would bring in more revenue.
In an era of eye-popping deficits and severe budget constraints, some worthy programs - federal funding
for the arts and public broadcasting, for example - may become unaffordable luxuries. Other programs
that serve the poor or most vulnerable may face painful cuts. But at the least government has to be
funded so that it can perform its core responsibilities. The House GOP budget fails even this basic test.