The Odd Politics of the Spending Freeze

Details about tomorrow night's State of the Union address have begun slowly trickling out of the White House. The juiciest one so far is the president's proposal to freeze non-security-related discretionary spending. That means Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and foreign affairs get a pass, while domestic expenditure will supposedly be put under a microscope. Entitlement programs that make up the largest and fastest-growing part of government spending—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—are, of course, exempt.

The proposal aims to trim the enormous—and enormously unpopular, politically speaking—federal deficit. But despite the good intentions, it won't make much of a dent. According to The New York Times, the projected $250 billion in savings (which to me still seems like a lot of money) represents only about 3 percent of the $9 trillion in debt that analysts expect the government to accumulate over the next decade. It's unclear where the cuts will come, but administration officials have indicated that it won't hamper the development of new government programs such as job-creation projects. Rather, they'll be focused on cutting wasteful and inefficient spending.

Clearly this news is intended to signal that President Obama intends to take tough actions on the deficit. Yet the politics of it are odd. It angers the left, who recall railing against a similar promise by John McCain during the 2008 campaign. Rachel Maddow noted that lack of domestic government spending contributed to Japan's "lost decade" and reminded her viewers that Herbert Hoover made a "stupid" decision to halt spending and ended up deepening the Depression. 

The left also knows that much of the government's inefficient spending has powerful protectors in Congress. The blaring example here is farm subsidies, which often turn fiscal moderates like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln into staunch defenders of government intervention in agricultural markets. Congressional Democrats, who will ultimately be charged with implementing the freeze, have proved woefully unwilling to take on these voices in their party. So what does that leave? Programs that affect voiceless constituencies, namely the poor. That's more proof as to why such a freeze is anathema to the left. 

The idea will gain a little traction on the right. McCain has already voiced his support. But there's been no point in the last year when Republicans on the whole have indicated they're prepared to offer anything resembling a full-throated defense of any one of this president's actions. Expect this to be no exception. They'll likely criticize him in public for the small scope of the freeze, and then scramble in private to protect their own farm subsidies and various pieces of pork.

So who does this appeal to, exactly? A few pragmatic centrists who've long hoped for a serious evaluation of wasteful spending? Hardly a politically potent constituency. Sure, it adds to the image of a president who's committed to reducing the deficit, but it feels more like a gimmick than a realistic solution, particularly with a Congress more concerned about protecting its immediate political interests (that is, district-specific pork) than engaging in a cooperative attempt to tackle long-term economic issues. (Related: Senate rejection of a bipartisan deficit task force.) Politically, the announcement doesn't seem particularly powerful. And in a recession, when the government desperately needs to engage in large-scale job creation, it doesn't seem like particularly good policy either.