Two things stand out in the Republican spending cut proposal. First, most of these cuts are counterproductive, at least in terms of growth. It doesn't mean much to save $4 billion in Amtrak subsidies and high-speed rail grants, when the result is shakier public transport and reduced economic input from areas that rely on regular rail service. Likewise, in terms of future output, you don't actually "save" much by cutting funding for applied research at the Department of Energy. A
Second, Republicans are presenting the proposal as a solution to our fiscal woes, when the truth is that our long-term budget problem has more to do revenue, health care and the economy than it does with non-defense discretionary spending (since Republicans refuse to touch the government's largest pot of discretionary spending).
To repeat a point, our deficits come from a handful of policies: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the massive Bush-era tax cuts, and measures to combat the economic downturn. The GOP plan reduces spending, but it does nothing to combat growth in health care spending or deal with the fact that we're operating with a revenue shortage. And indeed, some cuts -- like the proposed ones to Fannie, Freddie, and Medicaid funding for states -- would further damage the economy and make deficit reduction that much harder.
That said, the GOP plan is useful for discussion. Republicans have given us their vision of smaller government, and Democrats can show how it would be terrible for everyone.
-- Jamelle Bouie
