And I thought that Bush was cutting spending to the poor and all these
welfare people were starving. Seems like a bunch of hooey... We're
spending more on the poor and unfortunate that ever before. And poverty
continues to rise. But liberals like to throw money at problems that they
know will never be solved - keeps their voter base up...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021301091.html
Welfare State Stasis
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; A19
Spend a moment studying the adjacent table. It illuminates why another of
our annual budget battles -- begun last week, when President Bush submitted
his fiscal 2008 proposal -- seems so fruitless and (yes) repetitious. Every
year we hear complaints about accounting gimmicks and unrealistic
assumptions. There's a ferocious crossfire of charges and countercharges.
Hardly anything ever gets resolved. Budgets almost always remain in deficit
(41 out of 47 years since 1960).
The table shows the rise of the American welfare state. In 1956, defense
dominated the budget; the Cold War buildup was in full swing. The welfare
state, which is what "payments to individuals" signifies, was modest. Now
everything is reversed. Despite the war in Iraq, defense spending is only a
fifth of the budget; so-called entitlement payments to individuals are
almost 60 percent -- and rising. In fiscal 2006, the federal government
spent almost $2.7 trillion. Social Security ($544 billion), Medicare ($374
billion) and Medicaid ($181 billion) dominated. There was $199 billion more
for payments to the poor, including the earned-income tax credit and food
stamps.
Almost no one wants to slash these programs. They have huge constituencies;
they're popular. Paradoxically, their invulnerability and size also protect
much of the rest of the budget. Look again at the table. After payments to
individuals, defense spending and interest on the debt (which must be paid),
only about a seventh of the budget remains. Many of these remaining programs
are widely supported. Does anyone really want to end the National Institutes
of Health at $28 billion? Or how about the $41 billion we spend to support
federal courts, prosecutors and police (the FBI, DEA, Border Patrol)?
Of course, some programs are wasteful, ineffective or outmoded. My favorite
example is Amtrak, which serves a tiny number of passengers, is concentrated
in the Northeast and costs $1.3 billion annually. But politically, ending
such programs is hardly worth the trouble. The bad publicity of antagonizing
aggrieved advocates -- here, railroad buffs and maybe environmentalists --
is too high for the small savings. In a nearly $3 trillion budget, even 10
Amtraks are a footnote.
The welfare state has made budgeting an exercise in futility. Both liberals
and conservatives, in their own ways, peddle phony solutions. Cut waste, say
conservatives. Well, network news reports of $20 million federal programs
that don't work may seem -- and be -- scandalous, but like Amtrak they're
usually mere blips in the total budget. For its 2008 budget, the Bush
administration brags it would end or sharply reduce 141 programs. But most
are microscopic; total savings would be $12 billion, or 0.4 percent of
spending. Worse, Congress has previously rejected some of these cuts.
Liberals have their own cures. Cut defense, some say. Okay. In 2006,
military spending (including the war in Iraq) totaled $520 billion, slightly
less than Social Security. If it had been halved, the savings would have
just covered the deficit ($248 billion). Little would be left for new
programs. Raise taxes on the richest 1 percent, say some. Okay. The richest
1 percent pay about a quarter of all federal taxes. In 2006, that was about
$600 billion. To cover the deficit would require about a 40 percent tax
increase. Needless to say, neither proposal is politically plausible.
Annual budget debates are sterile -- long on rhetoric, short on action --
because each side blames the other for a situation that neither chooses to
change. To cut spending significantly, conservatives would have to go after
popular welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare. To raise
taxes significantly, liberals would have to go after the upper middle class,
a constituency they covet (two-thirds of all federal taxes come from the
richest fifth). Deficits persist, because neither side risks its popularity,
and, indeed, both sides pursue popularity with new spending programs and tax
breaks.
It might help if Americans called welfare programs -- current benefits for
select populations, paid for by current taxes -- by their proper name,
rather than by the soothing (and misleading) labels of "entitlements" and
"social insurance." That way, we might ask ourselves who deserves welfare
and why.
We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But
most Americans don't want to admit that they are current or prospective
welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve
whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made.
Americans do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political
leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and
the budget situation intractable.
DD