Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Text Size

Site Search powered by Ajax

Republican Phonies

RepublicanFor freedom’s sake, divided government beats monolithic government. Even a casual look at recent history confirms that truth. Therefore advocates of freedom will gladly accept bitter partisan rivalry if that’s what it takes to arrest the growth of Leviathan.

Come January we will have divided government. But does that mean anything more than a holding action? Will we see any significant reduction in government spending, regulation, and privilege?

It’s unlikely. The first, obvious, reason is that those who say they want to shrink the state will hold a majority in only one half of the legislative branch. That’s may be good for stopping initiatives, but without a change of heart on the Democrats’ part, mere control of the House of Representatives is not enough to alter the status quo.

There’s another reason: the House Republican majority is not serious about cutting government spending. Even for most Tea Party types, talk about cutting fades badly when it gets down to specifics. The allegedly fearsome cleaver-wielding Republicans have their eyes on only $520 billion out of a nearly $4 trillion federal budget. That’s one-seventh of the federal spending appropriated in the current fiscal year.

Some budget-cutters.

Why are they so timid? One reason is that they have taken so-called mandatory spending off the table, at least in the near term. This is essentially entitlement spending, the level of which is determined by how many people qualify for the programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps — plus interest on the national debt and government salaries. All told, it accounts for well over half the budget, 63 percent.

So we’re left with only the 37 percent that is called discretionary spending. But we’re not really left with it because, with rare exceptions, Republicans say they will not touch military and homeland-security spending. Out of a total $1.415 trillion in discretionary spending, fully $895 billion falls into these two categories. The total is actually more than that. Economist Robert Higgs says that when other military-related spending scattered throughout the budget is counted, the full amount exceeds $1 trillion.

Now we’re left with only $520 billion eligible for cutting, about 14 percent of the entire budget. If that were cut in its entirety, the deficit in the current fiscal year would “shrink” to $747 billion. (It’s now projected to come in at $1.267 trillion.) But of course the Republicans are not promising to cut 100 percent of “discretionary nonsecurity” spending. They only talk about an across-the-board cut amounting to $100 billion. Out of $3.834 trillion!

This is worth getting excited about, tea partiers?

Let’s face it: There will be no substantial budget cutting if spending on the American Empire is ruled off limits. War, overt and covert, is expensive. Invasions and occupations are expensive. Maintaining close to 1,000 bases worldwide is expensive. Empires are bloody expensive.

In other words, war hawks cannot also be budget hawks. War hawks always end up budget mice. There’s no way around it. When will Republicans learn this? Do they really want to?

“But what about our security?” they will ask. This is something else they have their heads in the sand about. It could not be more clear that America’s so-called national-security apparatus for the last half century has made us more vulnerable and less secure. American presidents couldn’t have been more effective if they had deliberately tried to make a billion and a half Muslims hate us. Contrary to those who think history began September 11, 2001, U.S. regimes have long pursued policies in the Middle East and Central Asia that have brutalized the Muslim world and cultivated a seething passion for revenge. That explains (though does not excuse) the terrorism against civilians that government officials now say they must spend so much to stop. The threat was created by American policy, and it can be ended by changing that policy to the Washington-Jefferson foreign policy of nonintervention. That will not only make us safer, it also will save the taxpayers money.

It’s time for some honesty from the Republicans. Either give up the empire and the conceit of “American exceptionalism” or give up the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility. Stop playing the American people for fools.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe via RSS or Email:

How to Survive Your Summer Vacation

We look forward to it for mo...

Read More

Talking to Rouhani: Is Trump shooting from the hip or following a script?

Trump’s surprise announcement ...

Read More

Trump Proves Mises and Hayek Right

Ludwig von Mises showed how ...

Read More

Putin’s Puppet

It was quite a shock to see ...

Read More

Iran: Another U.S. War of Aggression?

I am getting that Iraq deja ...

Read More

Science, Magic and Truth

Science and magic cannot be pu...

Read More


Thanks to all of our supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an independent press!

Enter Amount:



Login reminder Forgot login?


Subscribe to MWC News Alert

Email Address

Subscribe in a reader Facebok page Twitter page

Israel pounds Gaza

Thailand cave boys

Capturing life under apartheid