A recent argument in this newspaper about the Milk Income Loss Compensation program is a case study in the difficulty of cutting wasteful spending. Many believe that much federal spending is unnecessary. Few, however, can agree on exactly what to cut.
Each threatened program has staunch defenders. Congress compromises by not cutting anything.
The milk program pays dairy farmers during periods of low milk prices. Enacted in the most recent farm legislation, it is scheduled to end before other provisions of that bill.
On Nov. 7, a Pioneer Press editorial criticized the program, arguing that it was ineffective and wasteful. On Nov. 14, U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., responded that dairy farmers needed help and that U.S. dairy subsidies are small compared to those of the European Union.
The irony is that the writer of the editorial probably supports Bush administration tax cuts, as does Sen. Coleman. Both agree that budget deficits can be closed by cutting unnecessary spending. They disagree, however, on what is unnecessary or wasteful.
I think that if each described the MILC program to a U.S. “citizen jury,” the vote would be to cut the program. (Though if limited to dairy-friendly Minnesotans, it would pass!)
In Congress, key members of both parties from important dairy states strongly support the program. Few strongly oppose it, because voters outside of dairy states are barely aware of it.
The same is true of the anti-ballistic missile system being constructed over the objections of most scientists familiar with limitations of the technology. I think it’s a waste. A panel of citizens might also. But the organized voices of those who strongly favor it outweigh the weak and uncoordinated objections of those who think it simply flushes tax dollars down the drain.
The recent tax “reform” bill authorizes paying more than $10 billion to owners of federal tobacco growing permits to compensate them for the fact that Americans are smoking less. Tobacco is not as profitable a crop as it once was. Many see this as one of the most egregious abuses of the U.S. Treasury in the history of the republic, but it is very popular in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and the Carolinas. Lawmakers from those states hold key positions in Congress.
One could go on. Some government waste is obvious to nearly everyone, but there is no consensus on what to cut.
Former President Ronald Reagan took office wanting to cut taxes and increase military spending. Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress, opposed any cuts in social spending. The sides compromised by cutting taxes, increasing military outlays and not cutting social spending. The national debt roughly tripled over eight years.
Since then, each side has blamed the other for large deficits. Now, with the presidency and both houses of Congress controlled by the same party, credit or blame for the eventual outcome will be easier to assign.
© 2004 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.