National Review Online
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Ahead of his address to a joint session of Congress on
Tuesday, President Trump has released the first details of his broad budget
goals for fiscal year 2018, the headline-grabbing element of which is a
proposed 10 percent increase in defense spending. To offset this additional $54
billion for the Pentagon, the president is recommending across-the-board cuts in
as-yet-unspecified discretionary-spending programs.
The specifics are still forthcoming, but the president’s
budget preliminaries suggest that his fanciful campaign promises — to solve the
nation’s pecuniary woes by targeting “waste, fraud, and abuse” and cutting
foreign aid — have not been adapted to fiscal reality. It’s still in the
earliest stages, but his plan portends a significant increase to an already
massive federal debt.
It goes without saying that the federal government is
chock-full of waste. Bureaucracies are beset with bloat — duplicative or
ineffective programs, overstaffing, and more — that can and ought to be
trimmed. However, deep cuts to the EPA, the Department of Education, the
Department of State, and the rest, which the White House’s budget outline
partly relies on, are not only politically unrealistic but also unlikely to
balance out the administration’s proposed spending.
Beyond the $54 billion heading to the Pentagon — which is
welcome after the neglect of the Obama years — the president continues to
promote large-scale infrastructure spending. On Monday, meeting with several
governors at the White House, he promised: “We’re going to start spending on
infrastructure — big.” (On the campaign trail, Trump proposed $1 trillion in
roads, bridges, and more.)
Again, where the money is to come from is anyone’s guess,
especially as the White House and congressional Republicans pursue tax cuts. If
reports are accurate, the administration seems to be predicating its budget on
optimistic annual growth projections.
In reality, the specter looming over America’s financial
prospects is not waste or foreign aid. Foreign aid amount to $42.4 billion per
year, or less than 1 percent of the federal budget; but some of this aid is in
the interest of the U.S, and not the uniform waste the president sometimes
suggests. The graver menace is our entitlement programs, which at present
constitute 60 percent of federal government spending; they are expected to
reach two-thirds of federal spending within a decade. The president’s budget,
though, is designed to protect the largest of those programs — and not just
from cuts to benefit levels, but from any cuts at all. This is silly. Ensuring
that Social Security benefits are paid out at expected levels (for many current
beneficiaries, a sudden cut would be untenable) should not mean that the Social
Security Administration is exempted from budgetary oversight.
What is ultimately needed, of course, is long-term
entitlement reform. Until Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and our host of
other unsustainable programs are reconfigured, the country will continue adding
to its debt burden.
From what we know so far, though, the administration is
proposing no change in the trajectory of the federal budget. In the meantime,
an increase in (disciplined) defense spending and an aggressive approach to
administrative excess are fine priorities. But without setting itself to the
country’s most pressing financial problems, the White House will never succeed
in making its math add up.
No comments:
Post a Comment