Here's what's going to happen. A fresh new batch of rookies are going to get to the Hill, and begin to follow up on their earnest desire to reign in government, cut taxes, cut spending, and begin to focus government on doing a few things well, instead of a lot of things poorly.
I agree with all of this.
However, most of the government's expenditures are in the realm of human services (social security, medicare, welfare, etc.). Just google "federal government budget pie chart" and pick any source you want. They all say about the same thing. If you want to make significant cuts to federal deficits and spending, you can't ignore the 800 pound (and growing) gorilla at the table - entitlement programs. This is where the real war resides, and this is where very few politicians have dared to go.
So, our newly elected leaders walk into the Senate and House chambers, into the committee rooms, and begin to re-write the programs that require by law that we spend money on anyone who qualifies for the assistance (in other words, "entitlement programs"). Entitlement programs are generally there to assist folks who are down on their luck, or, for some reason, can't provide for themselves. The programs have expanded exponentially since their inception 40+ years ago. Not only has their scope expanded (additional services), but so has their clientele.
There was a time, before these programs were in place, that families, neighbors, or churches helped out those who were in need. However, there were also those who went without, and suffered a great deal as a result. Perhaps this suffering was the seed of the original programs.
So, let's just assume that we can enact some significant cuts in these programs. Really whack them back to a level where we are helping the "neediest of the needy", but everyone else is on their own. The hope, I suppose, is that perhaps families, neighbors, churches, or local governments will pick up the slack and fill in the vacuum.
It is often said that those closest to the problems are the best ones to fix them. Will this happen? If so, how long will it take for non-federal help to fill in that vacuum once the cuts on the federal level are made? How many folks will slip through the cracks and suffer immeasurably because they have (for whatever reason) come to rely on the feds to help out, and the feds are no longer there?
Faced with these questions, what does this newly elected firebrand do? Just accept that the cuts will leave thousands out on their own until other, more localized safety nets can get up and running? Perhaps. But it's not an easy calculation to make.
(This, indeed, is one of the problems inherent in creating "entitlement programs"; the inevitable heaping helping of dependence that comes with it. There are enough people who enter into these systems and don't come up with back-up plans or seek alternative plans for filling their own needs, that it becomes almost impossible to cut back on that program without having a significant and painful impact on those reliant upon them. There are the kids of granny who might think, "if we sacrificed, we could take care of granny, and have her stay at our home...but, she's got government assistance so we don't have to.")
Anyhoo, that's a tangent to my original point.
The folks in the Republican Party who just won elections tonight won the elections because the D's blew it. Let's see if the R's (my team) approach their new burden of leadership with the sobriety and brutal honesty required of any great leaders who promise real change.
I hope they do, and figure out a means to do so in a humane way.
