Nobody seems to understand that these people are fighting over the wrong issue. The correct questions isn't "either/or" but is truly "both/and." They should actually cut (not merely reduce the rate of growth in) discretionary spending and at the same time tackle the entitlements that threaten to bankrupt our society.
Instead of cutting spending, Congress should cut whole departments that a cold-eyed appraisal would show are unneeded. We've made this argument here before.
In the absence of the Department of Education, would public schools no longer exist? Nonsense. In the absence of a Department of Housing and Urban Development, would people decide to live outdoors, or all go back to the farm? Of course not. Those are only two of many examples of governmental redundancy; doing again at the federal level what is already done by others in or outside of government, or doesn't need doing by anyone.
