President Donald Trump’s budget issued last week would cut $54 billion from nondefense spending. Budget director Mick Mulvaney did a nice job assembling an array of sensible cuts, as I discuss in this CNN op‐ed and this blog.
Recipients of handouts and pro‐spending activists are not happy with the proposals. But many of Mulvaney’s proposed cuts are for local activities, such as housing and schools. If programs are important, then local governments can fund them with their own taxes, which would be a more efficient, transparent, and democratic fiscal approach.
Some GOP members of Congress are not happy about the cuts either. Republicans generally consider themselves to be fiscal conservatives. But for some members, their oft‐expressed concerns about deficits might be just philosophical musings, not a guide to their actual policy positions:
- Senator Rob Portman (R‑OH) responded to Trump’s cuts by coming to the defense of federal funding for Lake Erie restoration, which he called “critical.” Yet the senator’s official website complains about the federal “spending spree, piling up new deficits onto our massive debt … Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility passes the problem to future generations.”
- Representative Michael Conway (R‑TX) opposes farm subsidy cuts, saying “Agriculture has done more than its fair share” in restraining deficits. (That’s not true—farm aid has risen in recent years). Yet on his website, Conway says, “Our nation is in a budgetary crisis … As a CPA and fiscal conservative, I am committed to working with my colleagues to cut spending and put our fiscal house in order. Congress does not have a blank check; it is vitally important that we balance the federal budget.”
- Senator Lisa Murkowski (R‑AK) complained about the Trump budget as well. She “attacked plans to cut or eliminate programs that help the poor pay heating bills, provide aid for localities to deal with wastewater and subsidize air travel in rural areas like her home state of Alaska.” Yet her website says, “Senator Murkowski believes one of the most essential functions of Congress is to pass a balanced budget that sets a responsible spending plan for federal government services. For too long, the U.S. government has been spending more than it takes in and borrowing large sums of money to make up the difference. To set the nation on a more stable financial path, it is critical for Congress to set sustainable funding levels for the federal government, reduce overall spending levels.”
- House appropriator Hal Rogers (R‑KY) complained about Trump’s proposed cuts to foreign affairs activities. Yet his website says that he will “remain steadfast in fighting against government waste and any bills that increase the government’s reach on your dime.” As it turns out, foreign affairs has greatly increased its reach on our dime, and so Trump’s proposed cuts make a lot of sense.
President Trump recently signed an Executive Order requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one imposed. He should ask members of Congress to be similarly responsible on spending. For each proposed spending cut they disapprove, they should identify and pursue two similar‐sized cuts elsewhere in the budget.
