How about Head Start?
I know that discussing the elimination of a government program is heresy, and that all government programs once initiated become sacrosanct, and the only permissible discussion about them is the budget level, but I just find it amazing that, given our fiscal straits, we aren’t having a serious discussion about a) what should the federal government be doing, b) even if the goals of the program are constitutionally legit, is it doing them in the most cost-effective way possible? We should be talking about eliminating programs entirely, and not just arguing about how much money we should be wasting on them. Planned Parenthood and CPB/NPR are obvious examples, particularly given the results of recent stings, but even those run by people who are well intentioned, and not duplicitous, should on the block as well, if they’re not federal responsibilities, or if they are not effective. When our monthly deficit is larger than any of George Bush’s annual ones, it’s time to get serious.
By the way, this principle would apply to NASA as well. Certainly SLS/Orion are prime candidates for elimination, and the only thing keeping them alive is their constituencies for the pork.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Democrats’ dull budget scissors.
The “cost cutting” process at present looks like an typical exercise from the “stupid party”. Attack a mess of tiny but high profile targets that, given the cultural state of the country, annoy at least half the electorate until they lose their mandate in the polls. FN brilliant and doomed to failure.
This strikes me as a trap for the “Tea Party” freshmen set by the establishment Republicans. They should be going after an across the board rollback of X percent and dismantling and merging government departments in the same matter a corporation has to cut back to make the bottom line.
It’s a trap! /ackbar
I wouldn’t put it past the establishment GOP (aka “normal Republicans”) to stoop to that level so they can go back to business-as-usual: giving Democrats head.
“Head Start, a program that offers preschool and early education services to low-income children.”
“Because, despite all the good intentions behind Head Start, the program is not working. It is failing to make any significant difference in the educational advancement of low-income children.”
I think Democrats would say that providing preschool helps keep parents working, so it isn’t just about education. It would be interesting to see how preschool in general affects the performance of students.
Obama is currently taking questions about a wide variety of issues.
You should have seen his answer about cutting the deficit (it looked like he could barely control himself from bursting out in laughter).
He also went off on drilling for oil. According to Obama, his policies have lead to more domestic oil production than at any other time in the history of the United States.
It should be fun to watch the pundits break this down later.
wodun: Preschool effects have been widely studied.
IIRC, the breakdown is basically “if the kids’ parents don’t read to them and the like, preschool is pretty helpful at catching them up to the other kids”.
And “for kids with parents who are already educating them, by reading to them and all that, there’s no serious effect”.
My understanding of the “problem” (too much spending for too little result) is that various well-meaning activists saw initial good results on the targeted preschool programs for the first group, and thought it would do that for everyone, and then tried to make it universal.
(I also suspect, but haven’t researched, that there was a drive to make it universal to remove any possible “stigma” from it; after all, if only the poor kids are in a program, it must be Bad For Their Self Esteem.
But, again, that’s speculation on my part.)
K
[[[This strikes me as a trap for the “Tea Party” freshmen set by the establishment Republicans. ]]]
Yes, and like Union Busting, and taxing Girl Scout Cookies, they fell for it.
The fundamental problem with the Tea Party, besides their lack of experience, is not their goal of limited government or balancing the budget (which are good), but their ideology based approach to doing it (and how they wrap it in ideology…) which alienates potential allies and even turns them into enemies. That is why they are failing at governance…
What has to happen is education of a simple fact. All spending can be shown to benefit some group which is zero justification for that spending.
The American public needs to clearly understand that even ‘good’ programs can harm overall.
If they can’t be educated, the second best thing is to keep the argument simple: Smaller govt., Less spending.
I have absolutely no doubt that the old guard is out to sabotage the freshmen which is a good reason to get rid of more of the old.
Thomas Matula Says:
“The fundamental problem with the Tea Party, besides their lack of experience, is not their goal of limited government or balancing the budget (which are good), but their ideology based approach to doing it (and how they wrap it in ideology…)”
Do you mean that what they want to cut is based on their ideology and they avoid other potential cuts in areas that they have a favorable view of?
I don’t think he knows what he means, other than “Tea Partiers are so scary that they made me vote for Harry Reid!!!”
It’s the “all your earnings are ours” advocates in both parties who are making this seem difficult. In FY 2010, revenues were an estimated 2.38 trillion. In FY 2007, expenditures were 2.73 trillion. So, you simply use the FY 2007 budget instead of the present one, and you have a deficit of ~350 billion: not nice, but a heck of a lot better than 1.6 trillion. Does anybody seriously believe that reducing federal expenditures to those of four years ago is a regression to the stone age? Or that continuing on the present course isn’t an express lane to a new stone age?
wodun,
[[[Do you mean that what they want to cut is based on their ideology and they avoid other potential cuts in areas that they have a favorable view of?]]]
You don’t see much effort by them to cut NASA’s budget beyond Earth Science and New Space. You don’t see them going after HLV like they should because of the favorable view of NASA’s HSF.
You don’t see much effort by them to cut NASA’s budget beyond Earth Science and New Space. You don’t see them going after HLV like they should because of the favorable view of NASA’s HSF.
Very few people pay much attention to New Space and privatization. There are way too many conservatives who think, “OMG! Obama killed the space program!” They reflexively support whatever they think is the opposite of that, which turns out to be HLV and Ares/Constellation. The thinking goes something like, “We used to be able to go to the Moon with Saturn V and Apollo, but we can’t now. Obviously we need a new Saturn V and Apollo.”
I’ve been doing what I can to educate them, but it’s an uphill battle.
Thomas Matula Says:
“You don’t see much effort by them to cut NASA’s budget beyond Earth Science and New Space. You don’t see them going after HLV like they should because of the favorable view of NASA’s HSF.”
That’s a good point and as Rand and numerous other people have pointed out, proposing cuts to new space actually goes against their ideology.
On other issues I think they are politicians who are more likely to give a pass on spending they approve of or pork for certain districts. It might be easier to get Democrats to cut programs like cowboy poetry if the Republicans would also propose cuts in something like defense.
Maybe that isn’t good bargaining though. A more standard approach would be to recommend cuts to everything the Democrats like, wait for the counter offer, then settle in the middle.
Knowing there is the tendency for people to say lets meet in the middle, I am surprised the Republicans didn’t set a higher ceiling. If the floor is zero cuts or even increased spending and the Republicans propose $60b in cuts, they are not likely to get more than $30b in cuts.
The fundamental problem with the Tea Party,…[blah blah blah]… which alienates potential allies and even turns them into enemies.
Thomas, your error here is in thinking that you are considered a potential ally. You’re not. You were written off long ago, and the fact that you yourself are only discovering that now would only be proof that you’re slower on the uptake than they are.
That is why they are failing at governance…
But, of course, they’re not. Do not continue to make the error of assuming that “governance” equates to what you think should be done, or undone. They’re accomplishing exactly what they set out to do: $100 billion cut from the CR, a bill to repeal Barack von Frankenstein’s prize creation, taking a knife to the unions in Wisconsin. Things are shaping up very nicely. I daresay these Minutemen have achieved more actual changes in governance than Mr. Hopenchange did his first year. Er…if you don’t count merely spending a $trillion on your homies some kind of “governance,” that is.
Wodun,
[[[That’s a good point and as Rand and numerous other people have pointed out, proposing cuts to new space actually goes against their ideology.]]]
Yes, it goes against the ideology they discuss in public, but you need to remember their core ideology is “If President Obama is for it then its bad for America…”. And their first rule of engagement is “If you support President Obama in ANY thing you are a Liberal Fascist” and must be disenfranchised from the political process for the “good of America”.
Once you understand those two things you understand the Tea Party’s agenda. And why cutting head start programs, which “the liberal fascist teachers use to start brainwashing the next generation of voters” makes perfect sense to them.
And why Rand is basically beating his head against a brick wall in trying to sell President Obama’s “anti-American” space program to the Congressional Tea Party members. All they see is “he supports President Obama” and they don’t bother to read any further…
wodun,
[[[Knowing there is the tendency for people to say lets meet in the middle, I am surprised the Republicans didn’t set a higher ceiling.]]]
You mistaken assumption is that the Tea Party even wants to meet in the middle. As Wisconsin shows they could care less about compromise. Their basic negotiation strategy is based on Corleone favorite strategy – “I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse”.
Carl,
[[[They’re accomplishing exactly what they set out to do: $100 billion cut from the CR, a bill to repeal Barack von Frankenstein’s prize creation, taking a knife to the unions in Wisconsin.]]]
They violated the state’s open meetings act which means the court will likely throw that bill out and reinstate unions, the bill to repeal health care never be signed and the $100 billion cut basically ensures those Tea Party Congressional Representatives will not be reelected in 2012…
Once you understand those two things you understand the Tea Party’s agenda.
What happened to they are going to destroy themselves and cease to exist? Now they’re a unified monolith with a stone tablet agenda?
It’s not about Obama. You never will learn, will ya?
Thomas Matula Says:
“You mistaken assumption is that the Tea Party even wants to meet in the middle. As Wisconsin shows they could care less about compromise. ”
It might be a mistake to conflate the actions of state and federal governments.
I think at the national level the Tea Party politicians would be willing to make compromises if they had opponents that were bargaining in good faith. Currently, the opposition is not bargaining in good faith.
The same could be said in WI. After getting concessions on contributions to health care and benefits, Walker could have let the collective bargaining reforms slide but it would not have lessened the hysteria of the unionistas.
Compromise in WI would mean benefits to the unions but zero benefit in return for Walker.
ken anthony,
[[[What happened to they are going to destroy themselves and cease to exist? Now they’re a unified monolith with a stone tablet agenda?
It’s not about Obama. You never will learn, will ya?]]]
The two are complimentary not incompatible. The very agenda that unites them insures their self-destruction as the ignore the real issues creating the debt and deficit.
What they don’t seem to recognize if the fundamental problem is Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which controls the current budget process and allow the many of the gimmicks that caused the budget to get out of control. Most of the budget problems, including ballooning debt trace to the passing of this Act.
Repealing it and replacing it with a completely new Budget Act, one that would restructure how budgets are done, including separation of capital expenses versus operating expenses, requiring strict budget deadlines, prohibiting earmarks and allowing Congress to only cut funds from a budget proposed by an Administration, not add them, is the first basic step to get the federal budget under control. Until politicos start talking about what a replacement Budget Control Act would look like its just a shell game of shuffling funds from one agenda to another.
wodun,
You must be confusing the Republicans with the Tea Party. Few of the Tea Party Representatives seem to see compromise as anything but surrender.
…in your dreams.