By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, September 15, 2016
With apologies to David Koch, there is almost nothing in
this world as insignificant as a Libertarian party vice-presidential nominee,
though Libertarian party presidential nominees come pretty close.
That being said, I have long admired former Massachusetts
governor William Weld, the ex-Republican who has joined fellow ex–Republican
governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. I don’t admire
him enough to vote for him: His ignorant and barbaric stance on abortion alone
is disqualifying, but add to it his lamentably limp-wristed attitude toward the
Second Amendment and his contribution to the Libertarian party’s shockingly
gutless new consensus on the matter of religious freedom and you have one half
of a ticket that would not even merit serious consideration if not for . . .
everybody else running for president and vice president in 2016.
But say this for William Weld: He’s honest, and he has a
sensibly wry perspective on both government and himself. When Ted Kennedy
criticized him as being an out-of-touch trust-funder — Ted Kennedy, this was —
Weld responded with theatrical indignation that his family had arrived in
Massachusetts “in 1630, with nothing but the shirts on their backs and 2,000
pounds of gold.” He is a bit like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Yankee
WASP with a genuine sense of duty.
If Bill Weld cannot tell the truth about balancing the
federal budget, then no one can.
And Bill Weld cannot tell the truth about balancing the
federal budget.
In an absurd interview with MarketWatch, Weld insists that he and Johnson would submit a
balanced federal budget within 100 days of taking office. How? Part of the
Johnson-Weld program is Libertarian party wish-fulfillment, heavy on closing
military bases, domestically and, presumably, abroad. We might close as many as
20 percent of them, he conjectures, without doing very much damage to our
military capacity. He is probably right about that, but that would not have
much of an effect on the federal budget. That is because growth in military
spending, like most of the rest of growth in government spending, is driven by personnel, not by infrastructure, mainly
by paychecks,
health-care benefits, and pensions. Never mind the number of military
personnel we have, compensation spending per capita in the armed services has
risen more than 40 percent since 2001, from an average cost of $88,000 per
military employee in 2001 to $125,000 and climbing by 2012, according to a
Bipartisan Policy Center study. With all the money we spend on aircraft carriers,
bombs, and bases, more than a third of all military spending is personnel
compensation, and the majority of that is cash compensation rather than medical
benefits and the like. Military medical benefits and pensions alone account for
more spending than does the discretionary budget for any federal department
save the Department of Defense itself and the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Weld says that we should address the deficit by adopting
a zero-baseline approach to budgeting, as many of the states do. Because the
states cannot run deficits for general operations, they all effectively use
zero-base budgeting, whether they recognize that or not. But the federal
government can borrow money for general operations, hence our current fiscal mess.
And the idea that we’re going to zero-base Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid spending is — to use the technical poli-sci term — nuts.
Presidents, in spite of our consistently shallow
political debates, do not have all that much effect on budgets — the decision
to appropriate and the decision to tax, and hence the responsibilities for
deficits and surpluses, belongs to Congress. The president can certainly stand
in the way of reform, as Barack Obama has, and he can through his power to
effectively dominate the agenda in Washington establish certain budgetary
priorities. But, in the end, it is legislative reform that will be necessary to
rationalize our spending, which is dominated by a handful of programs and
outlays: national defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other
health-care subsidies, and interest on the debt.
One of those — interest payments — is in effect
impossible to cut. (The federal government could in theory default on its
interest payments, but that is a cataclysmic prospect we need not think too
much about right now.) The rest are very difficult to cut for political
reasons. None of them is within the command of the president of the United
States.
Weld, for his part, pours well-deserved scorn on Donald
Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton for their flat refusal to take seriously the
need for entitlement reform. But even the doughty Libertarians — who, let’s
face it, do not actually have anything to lose, politically speaking — are
knee-deep in wishful thinking when it comes to fiscal reform.
There is no way to cut spending without hurting anybody,
or without hurting people we do not desire to hurt. Those government jobs are
held by our fellow citizens, by our family, friends, and neighbors, and they
are going to set up a cacophony of lamentation and gnashing of teeth when we
start letting people go, reducing their pay, reducing their pensions, and
reducing their health-care benefits. Those entitlements are received not in the
main by malingering disability fraudsters but by our grandmothers and
grandfathers, and they are going to wail when we reduce their benefits — and so
are the retirement-community developers, cruiser-ship operators, airlines, and
other oldster-oriented businesses that have made massive investments based on
false beliefs about what Americans’ real standards of living in retirement are
going to look like 20 years hence. And we are either going to have a lot fewer
soldiers, sailors, and civilian administrators or we are going to pay them a
lot less — not because we do not value their work, but because we cannot afford
to continue as we have been.
We are not going to solve our fiscal problems by closing
some military bases, eliminating foreign aid, or cutting redundant federal
jobs-training programs. Eventually, we will have to cut where the spending is.
No comments:
Post a Comment