Over the next several weeks, Congress faces a tough debate over the 2012 budget. My back of the envelope calculation indicates that the country must cut $500 billion per year out of the budget if it has any hope of remaining solvent in the long term. I do not think that Congress is up to the challenge – they have been unable to cut $60 billion out of last year's budget, which is yet to be approved. And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, groups facing funding cuts are re-defining their marketing message to pander to the concerns of the conservative right. Specifically, Legal Services Corporation, a nonprofit that provides legal assistance to the poor, has been emphasizing that its programs exist to carry out the Founding Fathers’ desire to create fair courts. They cite the preamble to the Constitution. The House voted to reduce the corporation's $394 million appropriation for 2011 by $70 million dollars, but 68 Republicans joined with 191 Democrats to vote down a proposal to cut all funding. More community action programs are lined up behind them.
No matter how empathetic one is to social causes, the money does not exist to fund them. We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar Congress spends. Second, in many cases I do not think that some of these activities are even constitutional. That said, Congress should eliminate funding that the country cannot afford, provides no return on investment, and / or is clearly unconstitutional. For example, included in this category (by way of example, but by no means inclusive) are: (1) elimination of foreign aid to countries who consistently vote against us at the UN and want to kill us, (2) funding that goes to the World Bank / IMF, (3) funding to National Public Radio, and (4) funding that goes to the National Endowment of The Arts. For me these would be straight forward decisions, but apparently not for Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, who keeps a grand piano in his office. Perhaps instead of having the public support NEA, he should simply give concerts in his office. And if he supports NPR, I suggest that he help the public out by personally giving more money to this endeavor.
Last, I do not think any Congressional Republican should entertain visits from George Schultz, who has been asked by the United States Institute of Peace, a federally-funded think tank, to ask Congress to restore its $42.7 million funding in 2011, all of which was eliminated by the House in February. Apparently the group's charter does not allow it to raise private funds: perhaps it should.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
