There’s about to be a big change in the federal budget debate. In the end, the big winner will be the part of the budget that supposedly is so unpopular — federal spending — that a candidate for office this year cannot currently say he or she supports it without risking massive political condemnation and reprisals.
It’s been relatively easy to be anti-spending up to now because the reductions being proposed have mostly been theoretical and weren’t really likely to happen. They also were mostly discussed in statistical terms that don’t typically strike fear into the hearts of most voters. After all, what does it really mean to reduce federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, to keep spending to its historical average or to implement an across-the-board cut?
And if all that has to be done — as some wishful thinkers have repeatedly said — is to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and you’re sure what you care about doesn’t meet any of those definitions, then cutting federal spending isn’t really that worrisome.
The irony is that this is about to change because of something that spending cut proponents themselves demanded. The sequester — the spending-cut-only alternative they insisted on if the anything-but-super committee failed — that will occur on Jan. 2 is the opposite of most of the plans that have been part of the federal budget debate up to now: It’s in place and will happen unless Congress and the president take some action to prevent it.
And it’s forcing companies, industries and voters to face the reality that the spending cuts could actually occur and, despite what they’ve been saying publicly, that they really don’t want it to happen.
This is not a guess. The military community has been so actively opposing the spending cuts the sequester will impose that you can almost feel the desperation in its rhetoric and tactics. The Aerospace Industry Association has released reports about the economic turmoil and lost jobs the spending reductions will cause and has been at the forefront of what is a highly coordinated public relations and lobbying effort to block the cuts.
The same type of effort is taking place on the domestic side of the budget, with everyone from medical schools to state and local governments to local chambers of commerce organizing to prevent the sequester-imposed reductions that will hit their favorites.
In addition, it’s been clear for months that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is concerned about the economic damage the spending cuts and other policy changes that will occur at the end of 2012 could do to the economy. Bernanke’s concerns have begun to be so frequently echoed that the phrase “fiscal cliff” is now commonly thought of on Wall Street and elsewhere as an economic and financial four-letter word.
Some of the opposition to the spending cuts is not new. Polls have shown for years that while Americans strongly want to cut federal spending when it’s described in general terms, there’s remarkably little support when specific parts of the budget are mentioned.
From left, Rep. Christopher H. Smith, R-N.J., David Goldman, the father of a child who was abducted to Brazil by the mother, and Arvind Chawdra, a father whose two children were abducted to India by their mother, attend a news conference in the Rayburn House Office Building on international child abduction.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.