The recent controversy over Republican senatorial nominee Rand Paul's comments and views on civil rights (and on the role of the federal government versus private business and private individuals in general), is certainly entertaining and quite possibly damaging to his candidacy (or possibly not, this is Kentucky we're talking about, after all), but at the same time it is probably not going to be the key issue that decides Kentucky voters this November. It's a pretty safe assumption that most people for whom civil rights are a top voting issue have already made up their minds not to vote for Paul anyway. But there's a much more fundamental argument to have with Tea Party candidates like Paul (and Republican candidates in general) which, so far, has been missing in the media debate. The real question that should be asked is: "What, exactly, in the federal budget will you cut to 'rein in Washington spending' and attack the deficit?" Because the answers to that are going to be the most effective argument to make against the Tea Party movement's surge within the Republican Party -- because my guess is that no matter what they answer, the voters are not going to like it.
The federal budget is in deficit. Everyone knows this. We're spending much more than we take in. But because the deficit is so high, you simply cannot tame it with a "scalpel" (the way politicians love to talk about doing). It requires more than a scalpel -- more, even, than a meat cleaver. To really balance next year's budget would require taking a metaphorical axe to a lot of federal programs that a lot of people appreciate. Economists will tell you that the only way we're really going to solve the deficit is to grow our way out of it, but this doesn't translate well into simplistic political slogans.
Last year's budget, for instance, spent $3.55 trillion while it took in $2.38 trillion, for a deficit of $1.17 trillion. But when you look into where this money was spent, you quickly see that balancing the federal government's books would require drastic cuts in both discretionary spending and entitlements. Four items -- the Pentagon, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on the debt -- together add up to roughly the money the government takes in. Meaning that everything else the federal government does would have to be cut completely -- zeroed out -- in order to balance the budget. Or, cuts would have to be made in the military, which Republicans simply are not going to support, or in the three major entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), which Republicans really want to do but don't really want to talk about.
But this is why the issue should be raised. If not by the media, then by Democrats. Because it's easy to say "cut wasteful spending" or "rein in Big Government" or any of the other cute slogans you see at Republican rallies, but the devil is indeed in the details. Rand Paul, for instance, may ultimately be hurt more for his ideas on doing away with farm subsidies than for his opinions on civil rights.
This is a good example to start with, because it's a non-partisan issue -- farmers love subsidies no matter how they vote. And it's representative, too, because every federal program has a constituency which either loves it or at the very least relies upon it. This is why Republicans never want to talk about the details on cutting spending. Because they know that if they do, they're going to turn off a certain segment of the voters. Rand Paul, for instance, wants to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. Again, this is not all that popular a position, when you actually talk to voters.
Nobody likes sacrifice and financial pain. Nobody. And federal programs, once begun, are virtually never ended (farm subsidies started in the Great Depression as an "emergency" program -- an "emergency" which has continued to this day) for this very reason -- someone's going to have to sacrifice if they are killed off. Which makes them a hard sell to voters.
The Tea Party folks, and their candidates, need to be pressed hard on how -- exactly -- they're going to attack the federal deficit. They've actually got plenty of ideas for how to do this, but because a lot of them operate inside a sort of echo chamber of like-minded opinions, they have yet to realize how unpopular these positions are going to be, if the public ever starts talking about them -- as Rand Paul demonstrated so ably on a different subject (civil rights and disabilities discrimination). The Tea Partiers (some of them) have views on government spending which are quite radical, and pretty far outside the mainstream of politics. This needs to be pointed out.
Rand Paul, like a lot of conservatives, wants to do away with entire federal departments (like the Department of Education, for one). This is going to come as quite a shock to parents who vote, when they realize their local school is going to go broke as a result, and they're going to have to pay more local taxes as a result. These radical notions of how to hack away at the federal budget need to be exposed, and quickly. Democrats got their third wake-up call on the Tea Party movement last week, because now there is a decent chance that three states (Florida, Kentucky, and Utah) are going to vote senators in who call themselves Tea Partiers. Democrats, up until now, have focused only on ridicule for the Tea Partiers, but they'd better soon realize that this battle needs to be fought on an ideological level.
Ask the Tea Party candidates exactly how they'd balance the federal budget, and just sit back and let them dig a hole. Because while it's quite popular to bandy about vague "rein in spending" slogans out on the hustings, and while it's a real crowd-pleaser to vow to "take on Washington spending" and all of that, these ideas become a lot less popular when the specifics are spelled out.
So the next interviewer who manages to get an interview with Rand Paul, or any of the other Tea Partiers, really needs to pin them down on this. And if they don't, Democrats need to press the issue hard -- what would you cut? Would you cut the Pentagon's budget? No? Well, then how about Social Security? Would you cut benefits? Raise the retirement age? Even if you managed to repeal the new health reform law, the budget's still in deficit, so what else would you repeal or cut?
Because, while it's fun to watch Rand Paul squirm on his civil rights comments, there are much more fundamental subjects on which he's going to be more politically vulnerable than he thinks. Get him to expound upon his thoughts about the Department of Education and farm subsidies, for starters, and then ask him what other federal departments he would slash funding on. Because voters, when standing in the election booth, may excuse views on something that doesn't affect them personally, but when they are thinking of pocketbook issues which directly affect their family, they will likely not be as forgiving.
The Tea Party's real weakness is how radical they would start slashing all that "Washington spending." It's one of those ideas which sounds good on paper, in a broad sense, but becomes downright scary when they flesh it out with details. So far, they've largely been able to avoid talking about those details. But pinning them down on what they would cut from the budget is going to be a lot more important politically, in my opinion, than anything Rand Paul said last week. Voters who are now contemplating giving that Tea Party fellow a vote may hastily change their mind when they realize what is included in the package that will affect them directly.
Tea Partiers and libertarians have some radical ideas, which most of them are convinced would be quite popular among the public -- meaning they may be eager to talk about them. Getting them to do so is going to be the best way to show the voters exactly how radical these folks are. The Tea Party candidates think that their economic stance is what makes them so popular, and they should be encouraged to explain these views in great detail. Because when voters hear these details, my guess is that they're going to think twice about supporting them.
[Note: For those interested, there's an excellent tool over at the New York Times site which allows you to see graphically the relative size of all federal programs in this year's budget, color-coded by whether the program got an increase in budget or shrank. You can use this to see what I mean about most of these programs having a constituency which cares deeply about them. Without taking an axe to the Pentagon, it's extremely hard to pick out what exactly Tea Partiers would cut to balance the budget, without causing an outcry among certain groups of voters.]
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Benjamin Franklin is attributed to have said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." In other words, people will choose comfort over freedom. We'll surrender our economic privacy - letting the government know how much we earn and own - to help protect ourselves from sickness and poverty (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare). We'll violate our own ideals of freedom and liberty, and impose our will on other countries in order to keep the oil-based economy going (Pentagon).
I believe you're right. The Tea Partiers will lose if they talk about cutting government programs. That's an incredibly unpopular thing to do. Those of us who prefer self-reliance over government intrusion are in the minority, I can only take heart in the knowledge that this was also true in this country a couple of hundred years ago.
Why, um... thank you... I think.
:-)
My commenting policy consists of (1) treat everyone respectfully even if I disagree with them, (2) always admit (and apologize) if I've made a gross error, and (3) cheerfully ignore flaming attacks.
My broader view is that if you can't defend your position (or at least attempt to) against those who disagree with it, then you probably haven't thought out all the ramifications of it. And, that the only way you learn things is to listen to everyone -- especially those whom you normally wouldn't even be conversing with. Because that's where you hear ideas you may not have heard yet. So far, this theory has worked well for me.
But thanks for the kind words, and the mutual respect. While we can agree to disagree on political philosophy, that's no reason to scream at each other (or worse), and I find this pays off by being able to chat with people like you, who are obviously of a similar mind about the process (if not the substence) of how to debate these things.
:-)
Oh, and on a very personal note...
Woo hoo! 600 comments!
Never hit that before, I have to say. Thanks to everyone for a great conversation, I am humbled by your overwhelming response.
-CW
If we don't repay the debt then, the U.S. defaults on its debt. The result is no more imports and inflated dollars. However, money comes into the country to buy our core most valuable assets, land minerals, technology businesses; thereby preventing us from reigniting our economy. We are now a third world country. All of the third world countries that never got it together, never worked hard, never made it happen will now be driving the world forward with their new and innovative products bought at rock bottom prices from the U.S. They are now doing what they never did before, working. And, all of the liberal left, who have already traded out of U.S. currency into EuroDollars will be pleased at their forward insight. You know there is nothing better in life than a good, jig. And the liberal left sure no knows to dance.
Eliminating the department of education is not going to eliminate the deficit. We need more drastic measures. The truth is "no one" other than the Tea Party is really interested in cutting the deficit. Do we expect the income tax to go down? No, just pay the deficit. Will local taxes go up? Maybe, but local governments are able to respond quicker to local needs. They are able to determine what excess is far better than the federal government. If anyone has been involved in local politics, they would know that the local politicians work hard not to increases local taxes. However, the federal money that comes in, gets fed to the political machines. They use it to do political pay backs. That alone, is enough reason to stop sending federal dollars to local goverment. I prefer more local and less federal taxes. If I don't like the tax system or if there is fiscal irresponsibiltiy, I can leave, move somewhere where there is fiscal responsibility.
"Guitanguran -
Well, I'd probably use all the money wasted on abstinence education as my example, but OK, I'll bite.
So we do away with it. You've now cut a little more than one-quarter of one percent of the federal budget. What's next?
Oh, and have fun explaning to the voters that their property taxes are now going up by a whopping amount, but that their income taxes are staying the same. So much for tax-cutting, I guess.
With 0.28 percent cut, what's next?
-CW"
Well with a 2009 budget of $79 billion as a percentage of $3.1 Trillion (2009 figures), it comes to 2.54%, not .25%
I'd be a lot more excited about a 2.54% raise than than .25%, wouldn't you Mr. Weigant?
Now granted, a good portion of that money winds up back at the local school district, but as I've pointed out with programs like Head Start, the round trip out of my pocket to Washington and back is a huge waste. If you add in the added expense of following those 2000 some odd pages of federal regulations that school districts and states have to follow and waste money on, it compounds the expense beyond the federal budget.
No wonder my school property taxes are so high!
Considering their record, lets cut the DoE & keep the $s for the children, at home.
You are pro-children, aren't you Mr. Weigant?
You're right - I tried it as trillions when I wrote that (did it as .079/3.55... I was using your figure and the 2010 total...), and I slipped a decimal point somewhere.
But my point remains -- say somehow Congress actually cut the Education Dept. Do you honestly think they're going to give you an income tax cut at the same time? If they did, the deficit would be just as big, and the total budget would just be slightly smaller. So... you're arguing for cutting the Dept, and assuming fed income taxes stay the same, you're going to be paying more in local, state, property, or sales taxes to make up for it. So you're for the same services, just higher overall taxes to accomplish it? You really think the Tea Partiers are going to go along with that? Even if you can be proud that your dollars don't make a round trip to Washington? I don't think the voters'll go for it, personally.
Now, you'll argue that the fed income taxes should come down, and if we were running a surplus, then maybe that would actually happen. But we're not -- we've got to fix the deficit. So, politicians cut programs, keep taxes the same, and your total tax bill goes up.
Mea culpa on the bad numbers, but I think my main point remains the same.
As for children, I'm neutral. Neither pro- nor anti-.
-CW
If not, then the whole exercise would be pointless, as you say.
Of course, there would be an increase in my taxes relative to local and state because by golly some of that federal money goes back to state and local. I submit (again) that anything the federal government spent could be done cheaper at home, a net savings in taxes AND one less tentacle of federal government that could continue to grow out of control.
"As for children, I'm neutral. Neither pro- nor anti-"
Mr. Weigant, that statement is frightening, and would explain alot.
1. The largest role of the federal government should be national DEFENSE.
2. The military budget is far too large because so much goes to things other than defending the nation.
3. Fighting should only occur when war is declared by congress. This means that Vietnam and Iraq wouldn't have happened. He has the unique stance on Iraq that he would have called for a vote to declare war on Iraq, but would have voted against it.
Paul says he would dramatically reduce spending to these departments:
1. Education. Says, it should be the domain of the states.
2. Agriculture. Says, it should be the domain of the states. Doesn't like it because of the subsidies. He specifically mentions a court case that said that a farmer could not grow as much wheat as he wants for his own use.
3. Energy. "Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have made it virtually impossible for the market to produce new forms of cheap and clean energy. Companies have become more concerned with hiring lobbyists than they have with hiring scientists and engineers."
3.
Pay for all continuing education that has a reasonable possiblity of allowing the individual to land a job. How about teaching entrepreneurship? Give shovels and seeds, not food stamps. Create a pool of unemployed, let small start-up businesses take from the pool, pay them to hire the unemployed.
This is too political for the Democratic Give Away Artists. Excessive spending is why prices go up. In 1960's the average price of a home was less than $50,000, now it's over $200,000. Does increased Government spending really result in prosperity? Do increased wages by labor unions translate into prosperity for all? No, it just increases prices and results in a reallocation of wealth. Then we can argue; reallocate, again, and argue over, who will give the most to everyone. Has it ever occurred to you that it is good for the democratics to have more poor people? What would they do, what would be their cause without them? Politics are a power play and the media goes along with the it. No need to tell the plebs the truth. Therefore, the truth is never told.
Seriously? Foreign accounts for less than half of 1 percent of the federal budget.
"No new housing subsidies, no food stamps, no health care."
So, screw the poor people, huh? You have what you need, so f*** everyone else, right? How compassionate. This stuff accounts for a tiny fraction of the budget.
"Stop all regulation of "Small Businesses"."
And return to an era of rampant worker abuse and environmental damage? No thanks.
"This will allow us to eliminate at least 50% of the government workers."
Whose rear end did you pull this number out of?
"Pay for all continuing education that has a reasonable possiblity of allowing the individual to land a job."
Good idea! Except we all know that the "reasonable possiblity of allowing the individual to land a job" part means you want to get rid of liberal arts degree programs.
"How about teaching entrepreneurship? Give shovels and seeds, not food stamps."
Your beloved small business owners and others with money don't want entrepreneurship taught in schools, as this would only make people smarter and increase their competition.
"Create a pool of unemployed, let small start-up businesses take from the pool, pay them to hire the unemployed."
This isn't a bad idea.
"Excessive spending is why prices go up."
I have to disagree. Prices go up because businesses raise them to increase profits.
(Part I)
Not holding my breath on this one though.
But, put a black man in the oval office and all of a sudden, these people become fiscal conservatives.
No mention of the GOP's platform while they spent moeny we didn't have. But, we get put into the worst recession since the 30's and the government needs to take action, then the Dems are spending like drunken sailors? I think YOU need to go back a little in our history. Just because you found yourself finally paying attention to our government today.
From where I sit we could use alot more of these kooks in Congress, rather then our current special interest government. I'd just encourage you to look deeper before possibly putting down the very people who are fighting for your interests and not be so quick to believe all the self serving propaganda put out by these special interests. And no I'm not a member of the Tea Party, just a concerned citizen, who'd like to see America thrive.