The other day I noted that the budget cuts agreed to last week contained lots of familiar faces. Many of the agencies and programs getting a trim were also cut in 1995 in a rescissions package put together by Gingrich Republicans. In the fifteen intervening years, federal spending exploded across the board, which means that an occasional trim job doesn’t accomplish much if the goal is to limit government.
The reason why is that if the scope of government activities isn’t curtailed, the cuts will be short‐lived. As long as the agencies and their programs remain, special interests won’t stop agitating Congress to continue, or more likely, increase, funding.
A recent article in The Hill reports that lobbyists are already hard at work:
Groups that advocate for everything from more foreign aid to bolstering the nation’s transportation system saw several of their favorite government programs suffer deep spending cuts in the fiscal year 2011 budget deal.
With millions of dollars now axed from what they consider key federal initiatives, groups are planning to redouble their efforts and lobby to restore as much funding as possible in next year’s budget.
(Note to reporter: A lot of adjectives could be used to describe the spending cuts. “Deep” is not one of them.)
A fellow who lobbies for foreign aid argues that cutting it won’t balance the budget and that “We need to be planting the seeds for future economic prosperity around the world.” It’s true that even eliminating foreign aid wouldn’t balance the budget, but every little bit helps. But what’s striking is his arrogant pronouncement that “we” (taxpayers) need to be forced by the federal government to send our money abroad for the causes he fancies.
A lobbyist with the National League of Cities is relieved that the GOP didn’t get the small cut in local handouts that were originally proposed, but is nonetheless concerned about the “anti‐spending climate in Washington”:
‘We’re talking about staff layoffs at the city level. Cities are also going to have completely reorganize their budgets mid‐year and prioritize some things out.’
‘In this environment, the numbers from fiscal year 2011 might be the new baseline but our message isn’t going to change,’ Wallace said. ‘We’re focusing on those local programs that create jobs and spur economic growth.’
Cities prioritizing spending? Heaven forbid. Suck more money out of the private sector in order to save bureaucratic deadweight in local government? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for economic growth to me. (See here for more on the problems with federal subsidies to state and local governments.)
Then there are the transportation lobbyists. These folks would probably argue that a giant escalator to nowhere would be a wise use of taxpayer money:
Dean’s group is lamenting spending cuts made to the high‐speed rail program, transit security grants as well as funding for “fixed guideway” projects, which include commuter trains, cable cars and ferryboats among other public transit systems.
For the fans of The Simpsons who didn’t catch the escalator reference, see this link for my feelings on government‐funded rail projects. (Fans and non‐fans should check out these essays on urban transit subsidies and high‐speed rail.)
In Washington, it’s the squeaky wheel that gets greased. Lobbyists for government programs exist to make sure that Congress hears their wheel squeaking. Yes, the deck is stacked against those who are forced to foot the bill, but if taxpayers want federal agencies and their programs to get more than a trimming every fifteen years or so, now is the time to make a lot more noise.