By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, March 02, 2017
Populism does not mean putting the American people first.
Populism means telling the American people whatever it is they want to hear,
even if it is bull and everybody knows it.
The courtiers and scribes spent the evening after
President Donald Trump’s big speech to Congress engaged in increasingly absurd
metaphysical speculation over the nature of what it means to be “presidential”
and the degree to which Trump has achieved this. Never has so much gibberish
been uttered by so many over a reflexive adjective.
And there were exclamations of surprise: “He came out
against . . . bigotry!” Well, raise my rent. What did you expect him to do,
endorse the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries? End Black History Month by saying,
“Hey, you know what, Joe Biden was right: We do want to put you back in
chains!”
Preposterous nonsense. But that is what we must expect
from our increasingly ceremonial presidency. Who applauded? Who didn’t? Who was
the first to stop clapping? What does it mean? It is difficult to imagine a
self-respecting people’s consenting to be governed by these people, and to be
condescended to by their sycophants.
Trump was, as expected, light on policy details. It is
hard to blame him.
But I’m up for the challenge.
Nobody wants to be the first to offer any policy
specifics, because there are only two kinds of policy specifics: Those that are
transparently unserious and those that are unpopular, at least among some
constituency. Nobody is volunteering to put the bell on the cat.
But what did Trump offer instead?
One, a promise to significantly reduce taxes.
Two, a promise to significantly increase spending.
Trump wants to increase military spending by $54 billion
next year. He has proposed some offsetting cuts — and good for him on that
count — focused largely on the State Department and diplomatic programs. These
cuts are unlikely to be enacted by Congress and are opposed by many current and
former military officials, who view them as a necessary complement to traditional
military operations. There is room to cut at State and in USAID, but it is not
obvious that a cut of 30 to 40 percent in these programs is in the best
interests of the United States right now.
But even if we cut these to nothing, we still wouldn’t
save enough to pay for what Trump is proposing in the way of tax cuts and a $1
trillion stimulus bill that nobody is calling a “stimulus” bill. (Republicans
have learned to say “infrastructure” with straight faces.) If you think
Republicans are going to suddenly get serious about deep and permanent cuts to
the federal apparatus, consider that Trump’s new secretary of energy, former
Texas governor Rick Perry, famously wanted to shutter the department entirely .
. . until about a month ago, at which time he experienced a change of heart.
This is going to be aggravated by Trump’s consistently
repeated refusal to do anything about federal spending where the spending
actually happens: in the entitlement programs.
If you refuse to touch entitlement spending (Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and are intent on increasing military
spending (which, arguendo, may actually need to be done) then you have put
about 80 percent of the federal budget beyond the reach of any budget-cutting
exercise.
Thanks to congressional Republicans, the deficit is today
much smaller than what it was during the reign of the triumvirate of Barack
Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, but we still run a deficit. The
Congressional Budget Office projects that under current law — which is to say,
even without Trump’s proposed $1 trillion stimulus — federal spending will grow
by about 60 percent in the next ten years, driven largely by the parts of the
budget that nobody wants to touch: entitlements. Federal spending as a share of
GDP is expected to remain higher than its average over the last 50 years. If
Republicans should decide to get rid of the unpopular parts of the Affordable
Care Act (the taxes and individual mandate) and keep the popular ones (the
subsidies), then you can expect that number to get even worse.
And much of this assumes that the interest rates on all
that federal debt stay at levels that are by historical standards unusually
low. A return to the historical average would mean a Pentagon-sized hole in
federal finances, and there is no reason to believe that the average is the top
limit. The CBO doesn’t think those rates are going to remain low: It already is
projecting that interest payments will double (as a share of GDP) over the next
decade.
Beyond this gross fiscal irresponsibility, what did Trump
propose? A lot of federal commissions and blue-ribbon task forces writing a lot
of reports. That and another expensive new entitlement: paid
maternity/paternity leave.
Some Republicans no doubt will insist that the deus ex
machina of economic growth will solve this problem. It won’t. Remember that
expected future GDP growth already is included in the calculation of those
unfunded liabilities (not only for the federal entitlements but also for
state-level pensions and other obligations), meaning that growing our way out
of that problem would require unexpectedly high economic growth not for a year
or two but for many decades. Politicians always promise that they know how to
make growth happen, but betting the nation’s future on that prospect would be
indefensibly irresponsible.
A much more responsible course would be to take modest
steps today to prevent the need for much more radical steps in the future. We
cannot do that if we’re taking the great majority of federal spending off the
table.
Populism is telling the people what they want to hear.
Leadership is telling them what they need to hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment