Slicing and Dicing

I have a few more thoughts about budget-cutting and why it's so infuriatingly hard.

You're a member of Congress. You oppose excessive government spending. You ran against waste in Washington. You voted to cut taxes. You like George W. Bush. And you want to support him on the budget.

But the folks back home expect you to support continued funding for the health clinic that serves Medicaid patients. And that EPA grant for the toxic waste dump is considered sacrosanct. Parents are counting on federal money for their decaying public schools. And commuters would be horrified to lose their Amtrak service if the federal payment was abolished and the passenger service went belly-up. Oh, and farmers in your district would throw you out of office if their crop subsidies were axed.

If you vote to trim these and other programs, you can expect a 30-second ad in 2006: "Heartless Joe Jones voted to cut health care, cut education, cut train service and even voted against money to clean up the dangerous Swampland dump. All so George Bush could keep cutting taxes for his rich friends. Those aren't [fill-in-the-state] values."

And what 30-second spot is Jones going to run? "A determined foe of government waste, he helped President Bush cut the federal deficit from $421 billion to $370 billion. He's looking out for your hard-earned tax dollars."

The problem is that people care about the deficit, but only in the abstract. They care a heckuva lot more, understandably, about programs and services close to home.

The media coverage, as I noted yesterday, tends to gravitate toward those who would lose out. There's absolutely nothing wrong with these stories--they are good journalism that illuminates what is behind the faceless numbers. But there is no comparable way to dramatize how so much red ink punts the problem to generations to come, when today's pols will be safely out of office.

"CBS Evening News" correspondent Lee Cowan, Monday night:

COWAN: The proposed cuts hit the heartland like a mountain of unwanted news; from the soybean fields of Iowa where farmers marched on the Capitol to voice their disgust at slashing farm subsidies to large cities like Minneapolis, where block grant programs help the homeless and the hungry.

Mayor R.T. RYBAK (Minneapolis, Minnesota): This isn't strengthening America's communities; it's ripping the heart out of those who are the heart of this community...

COWAN: Take the North Texas Food Bank that serves some 55,000 families every month.

Ms. JAN PRUITT [(CEO, North Texas Food Bank):] We see a trickle-down effect a lot of times anytime there's a budget cut in any of the really safety net programs.

Unidentified Woman: Can you open up real wide for me?

COWAN: And nowhere is that more evident than in the proposed cuts in health care. How tight is it already for you?

Dr. MAUREEN THIELEN [Central Dallas Ministries]: It's already pretty tough.

COWAN: This Dallas health clinic serves only the poorest of patients, but already there's a two-month waiting list. Dr. Maureen Thielen says the president's proposed cuts in Medicaid will only make it worse.

Dr. THIELEN: We're just going to have to turn away more patients than we already are.

ABC "World News Tonight" correspondent Dean Reynolds:

DELBERT WITTENAUER, FARMER: I don't see why a subsidy to people who keep cheap food on the table should be a big problem.

REYNOLDS: Wittenauer says farmers always seem to get singled out, in good times and bad.

DELBERT WITTENAUER: I don't think that we need to lose our livelihood to keep a war going or to, to keep peace in the whole world.

No wonder even Bush's fellow Republicans are balking at many of these cuts.

I don't see much on the budget battle (the stakes are only zillions of dollars) on the major political blogs. Could it be that the subject is too--dare I say it--boring? Searching for "farm subsidies," I found this on:

Looking Down the Rabbit Hole: "Actually, Bush has no intention of cutting welfare to his fat cat agri-business buddies. When money is restored for those $500k farm subsidies, he can point at Congress and say the deficits are their fault."

And this on Sorest Loser:

"The system is deeply immoral. This is because, by subsidizing our farmers, we are giving them a huge advantage over their third world counterparts in the global marketplace."

And one of the Suicide Girls likes the cuts:

"It warms the cockles of my heart to see Bush stick it to the poor slobs who voted against their interests for him. On top of this, farm subsidies are a complete waste of taxpayer funds -- part of the giant sucking sound from the cities into the hinterland."

All libs, apparently.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry does step up to the agricultural plate:

"The Bush administration is set to take on one of the great scandals of American governance: a system of farm subsidies so perverse that it should get whatever the equivalent of an NC-17 rating is for a federal program. Decent people everywhere should want to avert their eyes. In seeking to cut and reform the subsidies, President Bush will provoke a fight every bit as fierce, in its own way, as that over Social Security, prompting opposition from the forces of greed and political cowardice.

"Farm subsidies as we know them grew up around the Great Depression, when they didn't work particularly well, and they have maintained their tradition of not working for more than seven decades now. As the New York Times recently reported, farm income doubled during the past two years, and -- holy soybean! -- farm subsidies still went up 40 percent. Farmers game the commodity markets to get both high prices for their products and high federal subsidies. It goes to show that few things are as addictive and distorting as a government handout. . . .

"The administration now wants to save nearly $6 billion in payments in the next decade, cap annual payments to individual farms at $250,000, and generally rationalize the system. Congressional representatives from Bush's rural base are already screaming. At issue is whether they think welfare dependence is as bad in red states as it is in the blue."

Andrew Sullivan, taking a brief break from blog-vacationdom, is skeptical:

"It would be extremely churlish of me not to offer some praise for at least the aspirations of Bush's new budget. Cutting non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending by one percent in real terms is admirable. The question, however, is: how much of this is grandstanding? The biggest problems are obviously Medicare (which Bush has made far, far worse), Medicaid, and Social Security. Give Bush credit for at least raising the odds of some benefit cuts in the latter (regardless of the personal accounts debate, why the hell not peg future benefits to prices rather than wages?) But the underlying picture is still one of growing debt and future big tax hikes. The tax hikes will be Bush's legacy - whenever they come...

"For my part I simply don't believe in Bush's conviction on this. He has never spoken passionately about shrinking government; he has rarely attacked the idea that government itself shouldn't be the cure for everyone's problems; he has never vetoed a spending bill. I'd like to trust him, but after four years of fiscal abandon, why should anyone? So: distrust and verify."

In the gore-someone-else's-ox department, USA Today reports:

"Most Americans are willing to endorse painful steps to ensure Social Security's long-term solvency -- steps that nick the rich, that is.

"Two-thirds of those surveyed by USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup over the weekend say it would be a "good idea" to limit retirement benefits for the wealthy and to subject all wages to payroll taxes. Now, earnings above $90,000 aren't taxed.

"But some ideas that President Bush said in his State of the Union address were on the table are rejected by solid majorities. By 2-to-1, Americans oppose reducing retirement benefits for those now under age 55. Nearly as many say it's a bad idea to increase the retirement age, and 57% are against reducing benefits for early retirees."

The Note offers some advice to various groups:

"FOR POLITICAL REPORTERS AND HERITAGE/CATO BUDGET ANALYSTS WHO WANT THE PRESIDENT TO VETO A BILL -- ANY BILL -- TO SHOW HE'LL BE TOUGH ON SPENDING: Get real, and think this through -- given the close coordination between the White House and the GOP congressional leadership, how could the budget process yield a bill on Mr. Bush's desk that he isn't prepared to sign?

"FOR WHITE HOUSE BUDGET STRATEGISTS: The fact that almost no Democrats are reacting to your budget by calling for a repeal of the income tax cuts for upper income Americans is a victory of sorts, but Note well what David Brooks writes in the New York Times about how to pass some sort of retirement savings accounts (' . . . (I)t would be smart for Republicans to forgo making the Bush tax cuts permanent in exchange for these kinds of accounts.'), and Pete Domenici (R-NM) is said by the Los Angeles Times to be having 'second thoughts' about making the tax cuts permanent. Watch out to see if this Brownsteinian attitude grows inside the party -- danger, Will Robinson.

"FOR SEN. HARRY REID: Many Democrats are still taking your measure as one of their leaders; if you think that 'asking' the White House in high moral dudgeon to call off the incessant, cookie cutter attacks on your alleged Blue State tendencies will achieve anything but making you look a bit naïve, you have another thing coming.

"FOR GOV. HOWARD DEAN: If you haven't asked several smart people if your icky favorable/unfavorable ratings matter, and, if they do, what is to be done about them, a case could be made that you are even less prepared for your new job than those who are most worried about the words 'DNC Chairman Howard Dean' fear."

A Roll Call story, picked up by The Post's Politics column, is belatedly drawing more attention. While the president is calling for bipartisanship, his RNC sent out a 13-page attack piece against Harry Reid "headlined 'Reid All About It,' and contains a list of complaints about Reid's voting record and statements about judges, Social Security, taxes and other topics. It says Reid is 'out of touch with mainstream America,' has an 'extreme environmental record' and is a 'Scrooge in senator's clothing.'"

Reid has been minority leader for about an hour and a half. Shouldn't the White House wait to see whether it can do business with him before allowing this kind of slam?

The New York Times runs with the ball this morning:

"Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader who said he would 'rather dance than fight' with the White House, found himself in a verbal brawl on Tuesday as he tried to beat back efforts by Republicans to brand him an obstructionist - the same tag they used against his defeated predecessor, Tom Daschle."

At a White House dinner Monday, "a Democratic aide said Mr. Bush pulled the senator aside at the dinner and assured him he knew nothing about it.

"That did not stop Mr. Reid on Tuesday from questioning the president's honesty and issuing a pointed warning to White House aides that he would not be intimidated by the Republican attack. Senate Republicans responded with a second broadside, a document from their campaign committee headlined 'Harry Reid's Forty Days and Forty Nights of Partisanship.'"

What was that old campaign line about "changing the tone"?

Those who have been worrying that Rove doesn't have enough clout, take heart:

"President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove -- who already enjoys near-mythic influence in the White House -- is taking on even more power," says the New York Post.

"Spokesman Scott McClellan announced yesterday that Rove will become deputy White House chief-of-staff in charge of policy among the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council."

If you're interested in the future of "Nightline," whether it survives and whether Ted Koppel continues as anchor, you can check out my report here.

New York magazine breaks this item from Hillaryland:

"Arthur Finkelstein, the political guru who helped create George Pataki, now wants to Swift Boat-ize Hillary Clinton. Senior New York Republicans say he's creating a political action committee called 'Stop Her Now' -- all you need is the pronoun with this crowd, apparently -- which will attempt to raise more than $10 million nationwide to use against Her during Her 2006 reelection campaign.

"The PAC will 'bloody her up long before her presidential run,' vows a top state Republican, adding the model is indeed the Swift Boat Vets. Stop Her Now will bludgeon Clinton with ads, whether or not the New York GOP has found a candidate to take her on, which is looking increasingly difficult."

New York, where they bloody people for sport.

People don't realize how dangerous reporting is! Check out this Miami Herald piece (via Romenesko):

"Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne asked a subordinate to spread negative information about a Herald reporter who exposed how his department allegedly falsified crime statistics, the subordinate has testified.

"Jenne, court papers show, handed the aide the booking and arrest records of Wanda DeMarzo, The Herald's police reporter in Broward County. DeMarzo said she had been arrested three times since 2000 on drunken-driving charges and convicted once, in 2001. DeMarzo said she has been sober for several years.

"That did not stop Jenne, according to John deGroot, a BSO executive assistant. DeGroot gave a deposition last August to Broward prosecutors, who are investigating Jenne's department.

"'They have all this horrible PR in the paper mainly because of Wanda DeMarzo,' deGroot said. 'The sheriff asked me to go to The Herald or go to one of the journal magazines . . . about Wanda DeMarzo because she had three DUI arrests and he wanted this brought to the attention of the national media to embarrass The Herald.'' He says he refused.

Talk about going negative on the press!

This Deep Throat guessing game just doesn't end. Editor & Publisher invites entries in the wake of John Dean's Throat-is-ill column. Along with Bush 41 (RNC chairman during Watergate, not ill as far as we know, seems like a long shot), the list includes "Fred Fielding, John Sears, L. Patrick Gray (the original front runner), Leonard Garment, Dwight Chapin, Ray Price, Alexander Haig, David Gergen, Mark Felt, Lowell Weicker, and the ever popular No One (he was a Woodward-Bernstein composite)."

We leaving anyone out?