What! – Cutting the Federal Budget Means Actually Cutting the Federal Budget?

In Which Congress Will Soon Learn that Cutting Federal Spending Mean Cutting Federal Spending

The Dismal Political Economist has often commented on the fact that those who want to substantially cut Federal spending never seem to come up with the specific programs that they want to cut.  Grover Norquist, the head of the anti-government movement has never identified a single program he wants to eliminate, and neither have the 150 so-called economists who signed a letter in support of cutting spending as the way to increase employment.  Presidential aspirant Tim Pawlenty recently joined the “massive cut but don’t say where” group of budget cutters.

On Sunday the New York Times reports on just how hard it is going to be to implement budget cuts.  Members of Congress are going to be faced with really reducing or eliminating programs that affect people in their district and their state. 

Put another way, negotiators cannot just wave a magic budget wand and change the farm subsidy program to get billions of dollars in savings; the appropriate panels in the House and the Senate also have to weigh in.

“You can’t supersede the jurisdiction of the committees,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican taking part in budget talks being conducted by a rump group. “If anybody comes out and says, ‘You have to reduce spending on Ag by X number of dollars,’ ” he said, referring to the Department of Agriculture, “then the Ag Committee is the one that is going to have to do that.”

Those taking part in the main budget talks say they are only beginning to grapple with the mechanics of putting any agreement into place. What they decide could influence how the deal itself is structured and sold to lawmakers

As one veteran lawmaker who preferred to remain anonymous for obvious reasons said, “It just never occurred to any of us that reducing spending would mean we would have to actually cut government programs.  Why weren’t we told?”