Gene Epstein devotes his latest “Economic Beat” column in Barron’s to detailing problems associated with both the House and Senate federal budget proposals. Epstein urges a more radical approach.
HERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM with both plans: They cut parts of the federal budget, but fail to eliminate entire programs that may be worthy of such. One advantage to cutting whole programs: It greatly diminishes the chance they will rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes, whereas simply trimming programs greatly increases the likelihood they will revert to their former, bloated selves. Also, cutting out whole programs saves more money.
Cato Institute fellow Chris Edwards, editor of DownsizingGovernment.org, notes that even the Ryan plan would cut out almost nothing. Edwards proposes instead that Ryan don Arnold Schwarzenegger garb and become the budget terminator. “Good prospects for termination, with rough annual savings, include farm subsidies [$22 billion], energy subsidies [$17 billion], public housing [$7 billion], community development [$14 billion], and federal K-12 education subsidies [$56 billion],” he says.
That totals $116 billion in a year, and well above $1 trillion over 10 years. Also, none of it includes reductions in elderly entitlement programs.
And what about areas where the federal government’s role is better assumed by the private sector? Here Edwards would include privatizing the Postal Service, air-traffic control, and Amtrak, for which there is precedent among other nations.
Hence our radical message for dealing with the federal budget: When in doubt, cut it out. Let’s give more power to the people.
