Why we should use the Meat Axe on the Budget.

As we watch the interminable debates among GOP contenders, and spend our time talking about the latest gaff of one or the other, we are diverted from the very serious debt debate that is allegedly taking place again behind closed doors.  It reminds me of Rome in the heyday of lions being fed Christians as a diversion from Cesar's shenanigans in the marble halls of power.  What ever happened to transparent, participatory democracy?  With a Super Committee deciding our fate why go through the charade of electing hundreds of congressman?  Why not just admit that we are being governed by an incompetent oligarchy?  Well groomed, personable, articulate, experienced, secretive, ineffective and incompetent.  Impressive interchangeable individuals, but an incompetent self-perpetuating aggregation.

Earlier this year (February 14, 2011), I argued for taking a meat axe to the budget.  Cut the entire budget - absolutely everything - no exceptions - none - by a fixed amount and leave the implementation of where to apply the cuts to the people who run each of the various programs.  By leaving the actual implementation of the cut to the bureaucrat closest to the action, we would, in the majority of cases, get the most intelligent decision-making possible.  These are the folks that actually understand what is fat and what is sinew in the programs that they manage.  While obviously less than ideal, I continue to believe that it is the best approach.  It has the one quality that makes it practical - it is equally unfair to everyone.  There would obviously be some serious problems that would have to be dealt with as we go forward and I would hope that we could find a way to get the discussion of those problems out of the marble halls of Capitol Hill.  It would do the public good to openly debate them, not in Washington, but rather in the neighborhoods of America.

How much should this cut be?  I am willing to let the financial wizards decide it, but, if they cannot come up with a number in a reasonable period of time, I suggest that we make it ten percent.  I have worked a lifetime in government and have had managerial roles in several programs.  I have observed many more.  I know of none that I could not easily cut by ten percent without seriously impacting the effectiveness of the program.  In order to avoid as much political wrangling as possible I would also require that no program be cut by more than ten percent.  This is obviously another point that will be criticized by all, but it is necessary to retain the equity of the cuts.  There are a whole raft of government programs that should be dramatically downsized or eliminated in their entirety, but my list is going to be different than yours and we need to get our budget under control right now.  We can continue the argument about which programs need to be eliminated after we stop the bleeding.

Someone is going to point out that an Agency like the United States Post Office is already asking for more money in order to avoid collapsing.  A ten per cent cut in the Post Office budget would push it over the edge.  My response would be to implement the cut, accept reduced services, and open the dialogue with the American people about what they want to do with the postal service.  Painful as it might be, it just might be time to let the internet, United Postal Service and Federal Express carry this particular burden in our society.  Another, even more serious problem would immediately arise over a ten percent cut in entitlements.  This would immediately impact individual citizens and would stimulate understandable outrage.  It would also bring home the reality of what lays in store for all of us if we don't get our budget under control.  It is all very simple.  If we do not stop the reckless spending we will end up yelling at each other over piles of rubbish in the street just like Greece.  We have to get serious now before ten percent becomes twenty percent or more.