Over the last two months, I have spent a great deal of time pointing out that political rhetoric over "big government" is one of the most dishonest, and utterly phony aspects of American political discourse. For example, the difference between long-term social spending proposals in a the FY 2006 budget, which self-proclaimed right-wing ideologue Tom DeLay declared was "peak efficiency," and that proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was only 3.21% of GDP. Further, most of that difference actualyl caem from increasing health care costs and more people receiving unemployment benefits. The actual proposed differences are under 2% of the economy.
Yesterday, two self-proclaimed proponents of "fiscal responsibility," House Republicans and the Blue Dogs, did a good job of emphasizing just how dishonest and phony this debate really is.
First, in response to a challenge from Presidetn Obama to find more spending cuts, House Republicans produced a comprehensive list of only $23 billion. Further, those cuts were spread over five years:
Responding to a challenge from President Obama, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are offering up a roster of more than $23 billion in spending cuts over the next five years.
The proposed cuts, which were to be sent to the White House on Thursday, bear little resemblance to the dramatic proposals Republicans unfurled when they took over Congress 14 years ago.
In a budget of $3.55 trillion, and an economy of $14.73 trillion, these cuts represent 0.13% of federal spending, and 0.03% of GDP. If you are looking for a big argument over the size of government, you ain't going to find it from House Republicans. Their proposed cuts would make almost no change in the size of government whatsoever. Even The National Review is surprised at how little difference they are actually proposing.
Both the trigger mechanism and the prohibition on using Medicare rates are "moderate" ideas, but they're not ideas that promote the coal of fiscal austerity. They do the reverse. Which is fine. Politicians don't need to make austerity priority number one at all times. But this reality ought to be an important part of the context as this debate plays out. Blue Dogs are basically saying they want to put aside one of our best available tools for cost control, while progressive members are fighting for measures that will keep total outlays in check.
The top priority for the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs in health care reform is that public insurance plans make sure that the government spends as much as possible when paying health care providers. That's some real fiscal conservatism for you.
The entire "big government" and "cut spending" debate is utterly phony and rotten to its very core. I wish more reporters would start to question the honesty of this entire debate. Chris Matthews, often criticized online, is actually one of the few media figures I know who does so.
