Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jb2000
That's a pretty gross oversimplification. Yes, of course, the budget is the most obvious and tangible stick they have to enforce their will, but I think everyone knows that no Congress is ever going to run the military bankrupt just to get their way. They merely authorize or refuse to authorize specific programs. The budget is the legal process for doing so.
Basically, the point is that responsible leaders will pick and choose those programs that give the best 'bang for the buck' so to speak. This certainly involves choosing to spend or not to spend on certain things, but is not driven by a need to cut, but instead by a drive for effectiveness at the highest efficiency reasonable.
Your proposal of merely cutting funding to enforce efficiency isn't going to have the same beneficial effects. If Congress went to the military and simply said they wanted better results and so therefore were going to cut 20% of the DoD's budget, you don't seriously think that would achieve the desired end do you?
|
I think it more likely that whatever party proposed that would be framed by the others as weak on defense and subsequently ran out of office. Then the accusing party would prolly ramp up spending to illustrate how strong and supportive they were.
I think the discourse surrounding Kerry's vote in regards to the budget demonstrates this amply. I won't necessarily go into it here, because people most likely have set their minds on one framing or another and I'm not likely to alter that.
But the discussion regarding education and welfare is still in flux, and those cuts can be argued either way, currently. Those are the ones we might expect to be cut for efficiency without too much political backlash. Kids and impoverished citizens have very little political clout. They also seem to have limited demands for empathy in the current social mileiu. And educators (and intellectuals in general) are just plain regarded and treated like shit in this nation relative to other places.