Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

Washington Examiner

 

'Fiscal Cliff' Deal Needs Spending Cuts

December 04, 2012

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Finally, a plan to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that includes spending cuts.

On Monday, Republican House Speaker John Boehner proposed cutting $900 billion in entitlement spending and $300 billion in discretionary spending over the next decade. Boehner also suggested $800 billion over the next decade in higher taxes, but importantly not through higher tax rates.

Even the scheduled, dreaded budget cuts due on Jan. 1 will not cause spending to decline in real terms -- it will continue to grow steadily even if we go off the cliff. That’s because congressional spending cuts for a given year are not subtracted from the prior year’s spending, but from a budget projection that grows on autopilot. And entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will grow without interruption. That explains how Congress can claim to cut spending over 10 years, yet produce a series of budgets in which spending increases.

But there are many options for real budget cuts.

Though the Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years, the House has passed one. It cuts $5 trillion over the next 10 years and reduces outlays to 20 percent of GDP by 2015. The House proposes cuts to food stamps and farm programs, as well as the sale of some federal assets and a merger of America’s 49 job training programs.

Separately, the Republican Study Committee, headed by Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has put forward detailed plans that would cut spending further than in the House budget and balance the budget in five years without raising taxes. These proposals deserve serious consideration. The proposed RSC budget sets discretionary spending at $931 billion in fiscal year 2013, slightly less than the amount in the fiscal 2008 budget, $933 billion.

To get there, the RSC budget eliminates funding for several programs whose functions need not be provided by government, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (savings: $4 billion over 10 years), the National Endowment for the Arts ($2 billion saved), and the Economic Development Administration and the Legal Services Corp. ($4 billion saved). The National Labor Relations Board would be merged into the Department of Justice.

The RSC budget contains lists of agriculture subsidies that are ripe for elimination, adding up to $55 billion over 10 years. It proposes privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (savings: $43 billion) and ends the concept of too big to fail (savings: $32 billion). It suggests raising federal employees’ pension contributions to private-sector levels.

Most importantly, the RSC tackles entitlement programs. Costs of Social Security and Medicare increase with people’s life expectancies, and changes have to be made to keep the programs solvent. For those 55 and younger, the RSC proposes to gradually raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 and the Medicare eligibility age to 67.

Both the House budget and the RSC suggest transforming Medicare beginning in 2023 into a premium support program, with competing plans, like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Seniors would choose from government-approved insurance programs, and wealthier seniors would pay more for coverage.

Finally, in the realm of the ridiculous, the Export-Import Bank recently asked for comments, due Dec. 18, on a proposed $100 million loan to fund Boeing exports to South Korea and China, and another $100 million loan, with comments due Dec. 14, to fund Boeing exports to the United Arab Emirates. Why can’t Boeing handle the financing of its own exports?

Federal government outlays have grown to unprecedented levels over the past four years. As we approach the fiscal cliff, it’s time to cut spending back to historical levels.

Original Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/fiscal-cliff-deal-needs-spending-cuts/article/2515052

 

 
PRINTER FRIENDLY
 
LATEST FROM OUR SCHOLARS

5 Reasons Janet Yellen Shouldn’t Focus On Income Inequality
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-20-14

Why The Comptroller Race Matters
Nicole Gelinas, 10-20-14

Obama Should Have Picked “Ebola Czar” With Public-Health Experience
Paul Howard, 10-18-14

Success Of Parent Trigger Is Unclear­—Just As Foes Want
Ben Boychuk, 10-18-14

On Obamacare's Second Birthday, Whither The HSA?
Paul Howard, 10-16-14

You Can Repeal Obamacare And Keep Kentucky's Insurance Exchange
Avik Roy, 10-15-14

Are Private Exchanges The Future Of Health Insurance?
Yevgeniy Feyman, 10-15-14

This Nobel Prize-Worthy Economist Figured Out How To Destroy Terrorism
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-15-14

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494