Hope and Fail

Spending cap flip flop: From a scalpel to a hatchet

The White House leaked this Monday — that the president would call for a spending cap on non-military, non-security and non-entitlement spending for three years during his first State of the Union Address.

And he did. President Obama told the joint-chamber of Congress:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

That flies in the face of what he said during the 2008 campaign, as has been noted in many places already. John McCain advocated a spending cap, and Obama came out swinging against it during all three presidential debates.

During the first debate in Mississippi, Obama said this:

The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy doesn’t make sense.

During the second debate in Nashville, he said:

And that’s why I think it’s important for the president to set a tone that says all of us are going to contribute, all of us are going to make sacrifices, and it means that, yes, we may have to cut some spending, although I disagree with Sen. McCain about an across-the- board freeze.

That’s an example of an unfair burden sharing. That’s using a hatchet to cut the federal budget.

I want to use a scalpel so that people who need help are getting help and those of us, like myself and Sen. McCain, who don’t need help, aren’t getting it.

And during the third in New York he mentioned it twice:

Well, look, I think that we do have a disagreement about an across-the-board spending freeze. It sounds good. It’s proposed periodically. It doesn’t happen.

And, in fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel, because there are some programs that don’t work at all. There are some programs that are underfunded. And I want to make sure that we are focused on those programs that work.

Later in the debate, while praising Sarah Palin, Obama used special needs children as an example of those who would suffer under a spending freeze:

I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we’re going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about.

And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we’re not going to be able to do it. That’s an example of, I think, the kind of use of the scalpel that we want to make sure that we’re funding some of those programs.

So in 2008, according to Barack Obama, an across-the-board spending cap was irresponsible. It was a blunt tool when a more refined instrument would do a better job.

In 2010, a year after taking office, it’s necessary.

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that the Democrats in Congress will play along. The left bristles at across-the-board spending caps. This is probably just a rhetorical nod to the deficit hawks — especially considering it will only save about $15 billion next year.