Did cutting congress' budget save tax dollars?

The new Republican House of Representatives under Speaker John Boehner wants to send strong messages to Americans and the rest of government. One message is a bill to repeal Obamacare as a "job killing" piece of legislation. Since that bill has no chance of passing the Senate and would be vetoed by President Obama, it is pure symbolic political theater. It will have no impact on the status quo, good, bad or indifferent. At least that measure gives the partisans and pundits something entertaining to bloviate about until the next emotionally charged thing comes along.

However, there was another Boehner measure that passed the House of Representatives, i.e., his promise to cut congress' operating budget by $35 million, which is 5%. That is not just symbolic. It can have an impact on the status quo. So, was that budget cut a good thing? It is a symbolic but real reduction in federal spending. The rational is that any cuts are good in view of our out of control deficits.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) praised the 5% budget cut like this: "budget cuts should start here and now -- in our own offices. . . . . The one and only mandate we received from the American people in November was to put our economy and jobs first. ... Our budget axe will swing wide and true, and no area of the federal government will be immune from our scrutiny and cuts. Sacred cows are, for all intents and purposes, extinct."

So, is that all there is to it? Is this really good and nothing else? Is anything missing? Or, is this partisan advocacy of the kind I criticized here earlier? I cannot determine if the 5% cut was good, bad or neutral because I have insufficient information. As usual, the press did a lousy job of informing us. However, I can see a reasonable, logical argument that concludes the 5% budget cut was stupid and counterproductive. How can that be? This is how.

The counterargument

Congress consists of 435 representatives and 100 senators. Two key functions of congress ares to originate spending bills and to oversee federal agencies as a check on the executive branch and its activities. That makes sense, because federal agencies can and do get out of control in all sorts of ways all the time. An independent check on federal agency activity is critical.**  The 2011 federal budget is projected to be about $3.8 trillion. In 2009, there were about 4.4 million federal employees. The context and facts show that the 535 members of congress are collectively responsible for figuring out what spending is smart and efficient and for overseeing smooth and efficient federal operations. One way to slice it is to say that each member of congress is responsible for an equal share of responsibility, i.e., about $7.1 billion of tax dollar spending and about 8,224 employees. 

That's a lot  for each member to deal with, especially for members of congress who usually have no real world management or operations experience. Given the context and facts, the question is whether or not a $35 million cut in congress' budget makes sense. Does it help more than hurt? If it is the case that the $35 million is basically waste and has no impact on congressional oversight activity, then the budget cut makes sense. But, if that cut costs us taxpayers a few billion in lost or wasted tax dollars elsewhere in federal operations because of a loss of oversight or analysis in legislating, then how much sense does that $35 million cut make? None, right?

When people like Chairman Rogers proudly boast that the "budget axe will swing wide and true", I cringe. That sounds like some partisan yahoo who checks his brains at the door and lets pure political ideology do his thinking for him. What if it is the case that adding $100 million to congress' budget results in a savings in $10 billion in federal operations due to better oversight and smarter crafting of spending bills? Why isn't that a possibility? From a government hater point of view, it isn't a possibility. From a realistic, pragmatic point of view, it is a possibility.

What were they thinking, or were they?

Unfortunately, partisan politics are grounded in ideology and not reality. Given that, blind rhetoric is the blithering nonsense we usually get from partisans in congress. I bet that neither speaker Boehner nor chairman Rogers has any idea of what impact their $35 million budget cut will have on federal operations. In their blind rush to pander to an irate electorate, congressional Republicans and all Democrats (except 11) probably never even thought about it.

Since budget cuts plays straight into mainstream Republican government hater political ideology, it was easy for the leadership to just do it with eyes wide closed. Maybe the $35 million budge cut really will save tax dollars and be a good thing. But, maybe it won't. This is the kind of political theater that can have an impact.

------------------------------------

** Remember the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the BP oil spill of April 2010? The MMS was packed by people like Bush and Cheney with employees sympathetic to the oil industry, including former oil industry employees. The MMS was incapable of doing its job because congress did not want it to do its job. That was part of the defense of the sacred cow oil industry by congress. The MMS nonetheless gets the public blame because it was the responsible agency. For myself, I blame congress as much as the Obama and MMS - they all failed. There was no congressional oversight of the MMS and we arguably got the gulf oil spill as a result. Obviously, the executive branch alone cannot and will not oversee itself. It needs all the help it can get.