Across-the-board cuts are always a bad idea

To avoid making decisions, politicians and executives often talk about across-the-board cuts.  Not only are the cuts a bad idea because they rarely include politicians' and executives' salaries and perks, but because the cuts often include both the essential and the frivolous.

Let's take a family example.  Dad gets a wage cut because the execs decide there should be across-the-board cuts.  Now should Dad decide his family should have across-the-board cuts?  Is he going to cut the mortgage payment?  Is he going to take the bus instead of driving?  Probably neither.  Is he going to cut the kids' milk budget and his beer budget by the same percentage?  If he wants to invest in his kids' futures, he better cut his beer budget a lot and leave their milk budget the same.

Efficiency vs. effectiveness - a pair of similes

Too often we see "efficiency" required of government, meaning government spends more money than the writer thinks appropriate.  We rarely see "effective" applied, meaning that the government did something with the desired results.

This morning's Duluth News Tribune's "Our View" used "efficiency" and "effective" in the same sentence with regard to a study to be commissioned to compare a few cities' expenses and services.  It can be a difficult task because of several variables, like hilly and narrow vs. flat and compact.  See "Our View: Collect data but get proper perspective, too".

While thinking about the article, I came up with a pair of simile's regarding automobiles.  A car sitting in the garage is efficient but not effective.  It doesn't use any fuel at all, but it is not taking anyone anywhere.  A four-wheel drive vehicle plowing through snow is effective but it is very inefficient.  It gets people to their destination but it uses a lot more fuel than it would normally.

Cut spending? Whose responsibility?

I can't find a direct quote, but many Republicans seem to be blaming President Obama for "runaway spending".  But is he spending money that Congress did not authorize him to spend?  I haven't seen any such criticism.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all
Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time." - U.S. Constitustion, Article I, Section 9

So, if President Obama is spending money or borrowing money for which he had no authorization, I haven't seen any such specific complaint.

Republicans in the House are stating that the people sent them to "cut spending".  But one could also say that the people gave the President another term and elected a predominantly Democratic Senate to "increase spending".  Either case overs implies the myriad of reasons people have for voting for particular candidates.  In fact, I would call any claim of "mandate" or a specific mission hubris.

If the Republicans are really serious about cutting spending they would simply pass a budget to their liking.  One would hope they would also cut Federal spending in their own district, but fat chance of that.  Now the next trick would be to get the Senate to go along.  If they could do that, then there would be a budget bill to send to the President.  If he vetoes it, then the House and Senate will need enough votes to override the veto.  These probably don't exist.

So, adults would determine what they can agree on and get that in the budget.  But many in Congress grandstand to please their "base" rather than do some real work for all of the people.

But we shouldn't complain too much.  The government was designed this way over two hundred years ago.

A "real" Republican stands up

David Stockman was director of the Office of Management and Budget during Ronald Reagan's first term.  He wrote a sharp criticism of current Republican thinking in "Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan", New York Times, 2012-08-13.

Among other things Stockman points out that for all the budget cutting in "entitlements", Ryan wants to fund the "warfare state" with a budget twice what Eisenhower thought was sufficient to contain the Soviet threat, adjusted for inflation.  Stockman writes that we have no real credible threat from any "advanced industrial state" and that Iran is benighted but irrelevant.

You might not agree with everything Stockman wrote, but you'll find his thinking is more in tune with reality than what currently passes for conservatism, that is, conserve the entitlements of large corporations and their "right" to raid the Treasury and the pockets of savers.

Stop minority government, vote!

This is the gist of a letter I wrote to the Star Tribune.  You can find it free for about a week at http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/123663169.html.