For decades now, we've come to expect presidents to speak forcefully for the need to reduce the federal debt, then submit budgets that increase spending, deficits and the debt. So President Obama didn't disappoint when he used his State of the Union address to declare he was freezing government spending for three years, then a few days later presented his 2011 budget package that included a 3 percent spending increase and a $1.56 trillion deficit.
Two-thirds of the $3.83 trillion budget would go for "mandatory" spending -- mostly entitlement programs -- enacted by permanent law. Of the rest, the discretionary spending approved annually by Congress, $895 billion is budgeted for defense and $520 billion for everything else.
It is a portion of that last amount, less than one-sixth of the total spending, that Obama has proposed to freeze.
After employing the most optimistic projections about economic growth, and allowing for the lapse of several tax cuts passed in 2001, and applying revenues and savings from programs not yet passed by Congress, the administration still predicts budget deficits totaling $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years. That's double the total of the previous administration, which presided over unprecedented deficit spending.
Even if all goes as planned, the Obama administration estimates the national debt will hit $18 trillion by 2019. The president's plan does little more than nibble around the edges. But an elephant is eaten one bite at a time. Minimal progress is better than no progress.
The Constitution gives exclusive control over the budget and tax policy to the Congress. The president can only present a plan, which Congress often ignores in favor of its own spending priorities.
In Congress we find plenty of self-proclaimed budget hawks who rail against excessive spending while jealously guarding programs dear to their constituents. That was the case last week when many farm state senators and congressmen denounced Obama's plan to tighten eligibility requirements and lower the cap on direct farm payments, and reduce outlays for other popular farm programs.
In a perfect world, we would not support cuts to farm subsidies and other USDA programs. But in a perfect world, the programs would not be needed. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, and in imperfect times.
There can be nothing sacred about farm program spending, nor anything else in the budget. If we're going to be serious about reducing the annual deficits and the mounting debt, hard choices have to be made about spending priorities and revenue generation. The size and scope of the government must be reduced.
The debt and ongoing deficits are national security issues that endanger the future of all Americans. The problems are greatly exacerbated by the deficit of leadership both parties have shown.
It's time the collective Congress starts making those hard choices, not those that are popular and expedient.
Sign up for our Top Stories newsletter
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
