This afternoon, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels was interviewed on CNBC. Daniels was asked what he would do to help the economy in the USA. He responded that first, we need to make clear that there will be no tax increases and to guarantee tax rates for a few years at least. Second, Daniels suggested a moratorium on new business regulations so that the businesses would know what the government expected of them. Third, Daniels said that allowing business to accelerate the depreciation or even to expense new investments would help in getting some of the cash being held by business into the economy. Fourth, Daniels said that the federal government had to cut spending and move towards a balanced budget. Fifth, he also suggested that the government take a fair and not-predetermined look at the various entitlement programs that suck cash out of government coffers each year. It was a remarkably complete and thoughtful agenda from a man who showed himself to be well versed in economic matters and well grounded in the reality of the economy.
After Daniels answered these questions, there was immediately a comment from one of the pundit/panelists on the show who criticized Daniels for not giving specifics about exactly what portions of the federal budget he would cut. It was the meeting of Democrat talking points and rational thought. Daniels gave a very detailed and complete answer, but according to the resident liberal he did not give enough detail about what is to get cut. I have seen the same performance by the Democrats over and over again lately. It was one of the attacks against the Pledge to America issued by the Republicans; Democrats said that Republicans who called for a reduction of spending to 2008 levels had not given specifics as to what would be cut. The line was also used in the Connecticut gubernatorial debate when Republican Tom Foley said there needed to be a $2 billion cut in spending.
I suppose that the Democrats must have tested this call for specifics with focus groups or they would not all be using it, but I cannot believe that they think it is effective. People are not so stupid that they expect a list of 3261 specific programs to be cut with the amounts of the reductions to come from the mouth of a candidate or a governor in an interview. This is particularly true when they first hear an answer like the one from Daniels where he gives a coherent and detailed strategy for reviving the economy. Eventually, the folks will realize that in contrast to a plan like Daniels', the Democrats have proposed nothing. And that is not a detailed nothing -- it is a general nothing!
This issue also got me thinking about the major cuts that have already been made in government spending. Perhaps the biggest cuts have come in New Jersey where Chris Christie forced through cuts of close to ten billion dollars to a budget of about thirty nine billion dollars. that's right, spending in the Garden state was cut by approximately 25%. In all the coverage of those spending cuts, I do not recall any column or other news story detailing where the cuts were being made. Indeed, the only specifics had to do with teachers' salaries. the teachers' unions were offered a deal where there would be no layoffs so long as they agreed to a pay freeze and a funding of benefit costs with a 1.5% payroll deduction. this is just a small part of the cuts, but it was all that was discussed. In other words, when the cuts were actually made, the Democrats did not discuss individual items; there was no response to the specificity of Christie's proposed cuts. I wonder how many Democrats even know what got cut from Christie's budget.
So, if Democrats will not speak about particular cuts, why are they now clamoring for spedificity? Clearly, it is to give them something to say aside from their own plan for cutting spending. Democrats have no plan to cut spending. Oh, they give the concept lip service, but they never actually make any cuts. Remember Obama's campaign promise to go line by line through the budget to cut the waste? Remember the half trillion dollars of waste and fraud in medicare that was going to fund Obamacare? Nothing has happened on either front; the promise and the law were both a sham.
It is likely that we are going to hear about the need for specificity for some time to come. Indeed, if the Republicans take control of congress, my guess is that the Democrats will make specificity their mantra. Hopefully, the GOP will not let the Democrats set the agenda. Spending needs to be cut -- that can be determined program by program or with a percentage cut across the board. So long as the Republicans act accordingly, they cannot be stopped.
No comments:
Post a Comment