Modern-Day Neros

Once you wrap your head around the reality that every single dollar in the federal budget – every single dollar that once belonged to you – is someone’s sacred cow, it starts to become clear why cutting spending is a near-impossible task. That’s important to remember as DC engages in its theater of the absurd over Trump’s proposed ‘big, beautiful bill.’

The measure includes spending reductions in some areas, increased funding for border enforcement, and a continuation of the current tax cuts. If you have seen this movie before, you know at least some of what to expect. Tax cuts are always ‘for the rich,’ and spending cuts cause panic among people who get the vapors at the mere mention of slowing the rate of growth in a program or agency.

I have written before about sacred cows and sacred bull, partly because it’s a good line but mostly because it is true. The political class makes a big show about fiscal responsibility, usually when the other party is in power. But when given the opportunity to walk their talk, most in Congress start going through their Rolodex of excuses for why this expenditure or that is vital to the national interest, and why this program or department is all that stands between decency and the collapse of the republic.

The movie is playing again, this time with GOP majorities in both houses and a president with an agenda. To understand how insulting this exercise is to any sane person’s intelligence, consider that 1) fraud costs you and me a lot of money while 2) the early buzz surrounding DOGE is dying in a whimper. There may be some rational explanations for refusing to implement the recommendations or to reduce spending in general, but it’s hard to overlook that the biggest reason for too many members of Congress is that their decisions are based on personal priorities and not the national interest.

Here are two examples. Utah’s Blake Moore serves a district with a heavy concentration of federal employees. When a guy who is co-chairman of the DOGE Caucus is balking at the most modest of cuts, then cuts are not very likely. Second is Dan Newhouse of Washington state, whose district has an eye-popping 40% of its population on Medicaid. How is that even possible?

This is not to pick on Medicaid, but to use it as just one example. The program is allegedly needs-based, linking eligibility to financial and medical considerations. It is supposed to provide short-term help, not a lifestyle. It was never designed as an untouchable part of the federal anatomy, either, but tell that to Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who ranks political considerations over fiscal solvency. Anyone who reads that article may finish it being less informed than when they started. Two lines are in violent conflict:

· The piece opens with “A Republican lawmaker is warning the GOP about what the party's proposed Medicaid cuts would do long term,” calling the move political suicide.

· But three sentences later, the reader learns that “While the budget doesn't explicitly cut Medicaid or Medicare, recent analysis found the financial target would be difficult to achieve without impacting the two government-run health care programs.”

So, the ‘cuts’ are not really cuts at all. They are more like changes in enrollment and work requirements, and violations could result in recipients being kicked out of the program. Appearing before a House committee last week, HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr., laid out some sobering facts: one million illegals getting benefits, one million citizens collecting both Medicaid and Obamacare, and several million able-bodied people who can work but do not also being subsidized by you.

At this point, the central problem with the federal budget is not one of policy run amok and the ever-present threats of fraud and abuse, but rather, a question of mathematics. Federal spending has exceeded federal revenue every year since 2001. This was also true for many years prior. The situation jumped the tracks in a big way from 2019 to 2020, when federal spending increased by 45% and politicians never looked back, even as Covid faded into the distance and the need for all that extra cash seemingly evaporated. Seemingly. Because the actual result was a new, and much higher, budget baseline.

Money out can exceed money in only for so long before the path becomes unsustainable. This is true for you and me, it’s true at the organizational level, and it eventually becomes true for an entity with the power to print new money into existence. This election was supposed to yield that time, the period when the fiscally literate adults were in charge and had the power to enact meaningful change. Except it is not happening. In response, Moody’s downgraded the nation’s credit rating over the inability (or is it refusal?) to address the massive sovereign debt.

Many Americans live in an environment where their creditworthiness is on par with their health and stability of their jobs. A person’s ability to borrow cash and the interest rates that are involved reflect that individual’s credit rating. This was not a snap decision from Moody’s. The financial services giant warned of this possibility in November 2023, noting DC’s serial failure to do more than talk. “We do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration,” said the organization.

Is anyone listening? A few Repubs are pushing for something more than symbolic cuts. Otherwise, most in Congress are engaged in political gamesmanship, self-preservation, and a commitment to avoiding hard decisions. While I can appreciate that these are hard decisions, no one forced a single one of our 535 employees on Capitol Hill to seek office. Just as facts don’t care about feelings, debts don’t care about ideology or good intentions.

This is a big part of the underlying opposition to Trump. He is not of them. Doesn’t matter how many campaigns he contributed to, or whose weddings were attended. DC has a cushy system and this vulgarian is threatening it. Worse, he is bringing allies, some in govt and a lot more within the populace. This intensifies the existing irrational hatred of the man, and many in Congress would rather watch the enterprise crash and burn than hazard the thought of Trump perceived as winning. Some of those many are Democrats.