How might the new Congress avoid the “do-nothing” trap and prove to the American people that they heard the message and actually provide solutions that limit the growth of government and decrease the federal deficit?
I sat at lunch the other day with a friend, and last weeks election came up. The Republicans won, he said, but so what? Now they actually have to do something. They have to prove that they actually have something to offer other than obstructionism. They’ve got to show they can actually cut the deficit and the federal spending that they campaigned against.
“But how are Republicans going to cut the budget? They’re just as vested in programs and entitlements as the Democrats.”
It’s a fair question. Now that Republicans have a seat at the table, what are some of the public policy options they have available to them? Will they remain a “Party of No” or will they produce solutions that respond to voters’ desires for smaller and more accountable government?
Here are two options.
1. A “do-nothing” Congress. There are those out there who would respond to my friend’s assertion that the GOP will only cause grid-lock with “So what? That’s great!” They don’t want Congress to create any new programs or expanding entitlements, at all, and with Congress and the President at loggerheads, a “do-nothing” Congress is a very viable solution for them. In addition to just preventing the expansion of growth, there is also the idea that after doing so much over the last couple years, the country needs time to digest what Congress has done, to absorb new regulation, and see what works and what doesn’t.
Here’s how Stephen Bainbridge put it, after making a comparison of an anaconda swallowing a deer:
Over the last two years Congress has done more in the way of economic regulation than it had in decades. In many cases, we have no idea how these new laws will work in practice. We know there will be unintended consequences, we just don’t know what they’ll be.
This is the case for Congress to step back and do very little in the way of new economic regulation while the government and the economy digests the changes of the last 2 years. Repeal stuff that we know or learn doesn’t work, when politically possible, but certainly the new House GOP majority needs to keep saying no to new regulations of business
Dave Hoffman, referring specifically to the financial regulation and the health care reform act, adds his two bits:
I am myself still trying to figure out what the 111th Congress did to innovation and entrepreneurship. Will health care portability enable more small business risk-taking, or will regulatory costs bury main street? Does Dodd-Frank’s anti-systemic risk and derivative trading apparatus meaningfully increase liquidity and/or transparency, or does it simply drive bad actors into tighter tangles & more shadowy corners. It seems obviously true to me […] that very little of Dodd-Frank was empirically tested before its adoption. Similarly, although health care economics & behavior is a deep and richly mined field, HCR itself is already creating unanticipated effects as the market & consumers react to the unfolding of the State’s new & multi-tentacled regulatory arms.
And, he adds,
It strikes me what business really need over the next two years is certainty. This (nothing more but nothing less) are the rules of the game you will play under. Good or bad, we’re sticking with it for a while to see what happens. Take regulatory change off of the table[.]
2. Slash the Budget. Like cutting back on your junk food intake while preparing for a marathon, cutting the budget will hurt. But, it’s going to make you faster, leaner, and healthier. And so it will for the American economy.
How about MEDICARE? Created in 1965 for the nation’s poorest and sickest individuals, the best of intentions went into creating what was then, in 2010 dollars, a $9 billion program. Today, the Department of Health and Human Services has estimated the total cost of Medicaid to top half a trillion dollars and, since states are required to kick in part of the cost, 20% of states’ budgets. Recent studies have even found that in some procedures, Medicare recipients may actually receive worse care than people with no health care insurance at all.
Reform it. Recommends Peter Suderman:
[S}top the matching grant funding process, in which states receive federal money for each Medicaid dollar they spend—creating an incentive for ever greater spending. Instead, the program should be funded by federal block grants indexed to the rising cost of health care. Better yet, scrap the program entirely in favor of a temporary assistance program that doesn’t create long-term dependency. That may sound radical, but the alternative is to perpetuate the ugly and unsustainable status quo, in which we devote ever more resources to a program that fails both taxpayers and patients.
Looking at the inherent incentives in the program and finding ways to decrease the dependency is a great way to start, and I believe can reduce waste, corruption, and inefficiencies. It’s politically touchy, but it could make all the difference.
Limit involvement in foreign wars. “War–what is it good for?” Since the end of World War Two, the United States has been involved in one conflict after another. Without entering into a debate about whether participation in those conflicts was in our interest, the fact remains–they are expensive, they are destructive, and they engender ill-will towards the United States around the world. Serious consideration should be give to how to decrease US troop levels abroad while still maintaining strategic military superiority world wide. Congressional Budget Office projections for the 2012–2020 costs of the wars Afghanistan and Iraq range from $274 billion to $588 billion, and that includes a draw down from current levels, and that does not include the costs of providing veterans benefits over the next thirty years.
End federal education spending. Why do we have a Department of Education, anyway? It’s common knowledge that no one knows the needs of children better than their parents, and the further educators get from that level of involvement the less useful education policy proves to be. Put it in Washington, D.C., the home of “one size fits all” solutions–like No Child Left Behind–and you can expect that it will be a cost far greater than the return.
Lisa Snell notes that:
The feds’ largest education program, Title I, which costs $16 billion a year, has failed to come anywhere close to its goal of helping disadvantaged kids in high-poverty schools close the achievement gap. Head Start, at $8 billion annually, duplicates many other federal, state, and local early education programs without adding to their effectiveness; a January 2010 gold-standard study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that by first grade not one of more than 114 academic and behavioral tests indicated a reliable, statistically significant effect from participating in Head Start. The $1.2 billion in funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers that provide after-school care should be eliminated too.
Return education spending to the states. Cut the Department of Education out of the budget, and let states determine what works best.
End defined-benefit contributions. Right now, when the average voter wants to prepare for retirement, they save, often in the form of a 401k. A public employee, on the other hand, gets a pension paid for by the voters. Public employees are making more than ever, on average more than the private sector. So why not save the tax payers a bundle of money down the road and make them pay for their own retirements, too? Why pay them twice–once while they are working and again after they are retired–for work that is already paid above average?
End agricultural subsidies. The Depression ended over seventy years ago, but many of the agricultural subsidies meant to help farmers struggling through it are still in place.
Says Kathrine Mangu-Ward:
Farm subsidies and price supports offer something for people of all political stripes to hate. They distort markets and spark trade wars. They make food staples artificially expensive, while making high-fructose corn syrup—the bogeyman of crunchy parents, foodies, and obesity activists everywhere—artificially cheap. They give farmers incentives to tamper with land that would otherwise be forest or grassland. They encourage inefficient alternative energy programs by artificially lowering the price of corn ethanol compared to solar, wind, and other biomass options. School lunches are jammed full of agricultural surplus goods, interfering with efforts to improve the nutritional value (and simple appeal) of the meals devoured by the nation’s chubby public schoolers.
And the beneficiaries are not small local farmers, either. They are giant corporate conglomerates. They are subsidy that our country no longer needs.
Repeal the Stimulus. Yeah. That’s right. Much of it hasn’t even been spent yet. As of September, $301 billion is still sitting unspent. Rather than waste it on unnecessary spending, let’s save it. “A quick, merciful end to the dysfunctional stimulus program could save as much as $300 billion, taking a sizable chunk out of the projected $1.5 trillion deficit.” Anthony Randazzo.
How’s that for a start?
(h/t to Reason.com where a lot of these ideas can be found in more detail.)
- The New Congress: How Will Gridlock Affect the Economy? (dailyfinance.com)
- What to expect (washingtonmonthly.com)
- Is Anyone Serious about Cutting the Deficit? (cbsnews.com)
- The Case for a Do Nothing Congress (professorbainbridge.com)
- Can You Hear Me Now? GOP Leaders Vow to “Listen” to Voters, Pursue Smaller, Less Costly Government (blogs.abcnews.com)
- Beyond Repeal And Replace (forbes.com)