The American People in the Hands of an Indifferent Government
Several decades ago, when I was a Senate staffer, I observed that I could spend the entire Gross Domestic Product on the good ideas that people brought to us. I soon learned that lawmaking requires a substantial amount of restraint and a lot of prioritizing. Those are hard virtues to develop and very hard to keep when you face voters every few years.
Annual Budget Deficit Is Not Sustainable. Our country has been driven by the worst possible budget cycle: when in power, Democrats vote to expand government programs (increasing expenditures); when in power, Republicans cut taxes (reducing revenue)[1]. Not surprisingly then, we annually spend $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more than the revenue that comes in and we have accumulated a national debt of more than $35 trillion[2]. Unless we can get the annual deficit under better control, we could face a $17 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade.
There are only three ways to reduce the deficit: cut discretionary program spending; cut entitlement and mandatory program spending; and/or raise revenue (mainly taxes)[3]. None of these options are popular.
The Trump Approach Is Unambiguous; Indifferent to Goals Other Than Cost-Cutting. The Trump approach is rapid and massive program cuts sufficient to pay for continuation of 2017 tax cuts and to make, at best, a token contribution to deficit reduction[4]. Adding any substantial revenue increase is unthinkable. Any obstacle to tax cuts and programs cuts must be moved aside, regardless of the consequences.
This is philosophically comfortable for the Trump Administration because they are fundamentally anti-government. I discussed this is an earlier column, Three Historical Forces Clashing Over the Future of American Government.
This is also stylistically comfortable, as well. President Trump’s favorite part of The Apprentice was saying: “you’re fired.” It’s music to his ears.
The Price Is Steep and Will Fall Hardest on Programs that Help People. Within our FDA stakeholder community, I keep being asked: where is the sense in cutting staff who ensure food and medical product safety? Why would they risk losing global leadership in medical products innovation by cutting both NIH and FDA? Why would they drive a major program initiative (food chemicals) and then lay off staff that are experts in that area?
Every day, I also look beyond FDA and see things like deliveries to food banks halted; CDC staff working on lead poisoning in children laid off; deep cuts to fundamental life sciences research; and the planned end of Head Start[5].
The sad truth, as I explained in Random Arbitrary RIF’s Drive the Initial Makary Agenda, is “you do not downsize the DOGE way if your only goal is a smaller, more efficient federal workforce that serves the American public and its needs.”
While difficult to fully grasp, the current administration is indifferent to the human plight. There is no interest in making government work for the good of the people or to promote innovation and investment or much of anything else that might get in the way of cost cutting and downsizing the federal government.
The Solution is in Congress, If there is to be a Solution at All
We are about to start the part of the budget and appropriations cycle where Congress will get to have its say. In the next few weeks, the FY 25 reconciliation process will begin. A FY 25 rescission bill is likely to be received from OMB[6], and we will have a skinny and then a regular FY 26 president’s budget request.
A substantial number of Republican Members of Congress disagree with at least some part of what is going on in the Executive Branch. Whether they will speak up and vote their beliefs remains to be seen.
An immediate hot spot will be Medicaid. The program is far more popular, particularly in red states, than Republicans had realized before the threat of enormous cuts. Plus, there are wide swaths of government programs that have been bipartisan until this year. Are there Republican Members who are prepared to vote for halving NIH or disrupting FDA?
Finally—and perhaps significantly—President Trump has received terrible polling numbers on his first one hundred days—the lowest for any President at this juncture in the last 80 years (here). The White House is in angry denial, but there is no indication that the Administration will act differently in order to raise his polling numbers. However, some Republican Members of Congress might be influenced by this seeming weakening of Trump support.
Please let Congress know that you support carefully planned, targeted reductions in government programs[7]….but not wanton disregard for the programs that matter most to the American people, and which provide excellent value.
I am aware of one exception. President Clinton managed to reduce the deficit AND expand government programs. His government downsizing initiative, which was largely bloodless, played a part, but so did a booming economy, widespread integration of the internet into government and other workplaces, and a “peace bonus” from the end of the Cold War.
Anticipating an objection: I am not necessarily against some level of deficit spending. It is often necessary (war, pandemic, countercyclical support for an economy in recession, investment in future growth and innovation). However, piling up another $17 trillion in debt over the next decade is foolhardy. Even getting the annual shortfall down to $500 billion would be an enormous accomplishment.
Elsewhere in my writings I have referred to this as “the iron triangle of deficit reduction.”
There is a relationship between the two. If the 2017 tax cuts are continued but not offset by budget cuts, then the deficit will explode.
The predominant Constitutional view is that the President is obligated to spend money that has been appropriated. If he wants to do otherwise, he must send Congress a rescission bill specifying current year cuts being proposed. Congress has to adopt the bill for the monies to be withdrawn.
The successful Reinventing Government initiative in the 1990’s resulted in significant downsizing. I describe that earlier effort at https://www.fdamatters.com/fdamatters/what-is-happening-to-federal-workers-at-fda and https://www.fdamatters.com/fdamatters/three-historical-forces-clashing-over-the-future-of-american-government