The media are reporting that if a governmental shutdown occurs, it will affect only “nonessential services and personnel.” Now, call me superficial, but I have a question:
At a time when we face a $1.4 trillion deficit this year alone, why are we funding anything or anyone that is admittedly “nonessential”?
I have been pondering an analogy that ought to be easy for anyone to grasp. Let’s compare the current congressional battle over federal spending with a hypothetical family feud over your own household budget.
Suppose you and your spouse are arguing about your finances. You have discovered, to your horror, that you are spending $1,400 per month over and above your total household income. Terrified, you inform your spouse that this is completely insane and unsustainable, and that it must stop immediately.
Your spouse nods in nominal agreement — but then digs in his or her heels against every single specific spending cut that you propose.
Knowing of your partner’s stubborn, spendthrift ways, you eventually propose just $100 in reduced spending. That would still have you falling behind each month by $1300, but at least it’s a start. However, your spouse is outraged and rejects the figure out of hand; it’s “draconian,” and would undermine the profligate lifestyle to which you’ve become accustomed.
You argue, and argue, and argue. Getting nowhere, and desperate for any point of agreement, you say: “Look, can’t we cut just $61 from our monthly spending? We both know that this won’t even make a dent in our obligations, but at least it might slow our rush toward bankruptcy, if only by a few days.”
Still, your indignant spouse shouts “NO!” — then proclaims that he/she might be willing to cut only about $33 in monthly spending.
Now, it should be clear that, no matter which of you prevail, this would still leave you spending from $1,339 to $1,367 more each month than your total household income. You are still on the fast track to utter financial ruin.
And this is exactly analogous to the current fight in Congress over this year’s federal budget — except only for the position of the decimal points.
A bit of history. House Republicans were elected on their promise to cut $100 billion in spending from this year’s federal budget. That barely would have made a difference, merely reducing our gargantuan $1.4 trillion annual deficit to $1.3 trillion. But after encountering unmoving Democratic resistance, the GOP congressional leadership reduced their proposed spending cuts to around $61 billion.
Still, the Democrats dug in their heels and refused. Eventually, they declared their willingness to cut only about $33 billion. Right now, rumor has it that the negotiations are stalled over whether or not to split the difference at around $40 billion — a $7 billion gap between the two sides. That latter figure is a minuscule one-half of one percent of this year’s whopping deficit.
Even so, the Democrats are deriding even this piddling cut as “extreme,” “radical,” “draconian,” and completely out of the question. And that is what the looming government shutdown is all about.
It is clear that no matter which party “wins” this particular skirmish, we, the taxpayers, will lose, to the tune of over $1.3 trillion in deficit spending this year alone. That represents a gigantic container filled with red ink — to be poured into the already-colossal $14 trillion vat of red ink that represents our total national debt — which, in turn, will be dumped into the inconceivably enormous $100-trillion-plus sea of red ink that constitutes the total future unfunded liabilities of the federal government.
So, let me end with another question:
Who, exactly, are the “extremists” and “radicals” here: those who wish to stop this madness, or those who are determined for it to continue?
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.