Everyone seems to agree we need to get our budget deficit under control and rein in the debt. But as the Super Committee found out , the devil is in the budgetary details. As soon as you start putting pen to paper and draw up detailed cuts, the knives come out, not to cut more but to ensure that your program and not my program is the one getting cut. Considering our nation’s fiscal situation , Washington’s deficit cutting rhetoric needs to be replaced with deficit cutting reality, and all options must be on the table.

One of the favorite tactics of program apologists is to claim “it’s less than one percent of the budget,” implying that there are bigger fiscal fish to fry. There is no single cut, or revenue raiser, or entitlement reform that will balance the books.  Considering the hole we’re in, we’ve got to look for every dime of savings. We have to talk about popular programs like costly manned spaceflight at NASA, or earmarks , or say that the Blue Angels have to justify their recruiting and public relations benefits versus their more than $30 million in annual expenses. Just because it’s small doesn’t mean we should spend money on it. Our debt didn’t come in one fell swoop, and it’s not going away overnight. Everything must be examined.

A corollary is to point at everything else in the budget and say start there. Ethanol boosters frequently go to the straw man that if you’re against their subsidies then you must be for oil subsidies. Heck no. We think it's time to end all energy subsidies. So let's start everywhere – that's what TCS did when we documented more than $1.5 trillion in ready-made deficit reduction.

Another approach is the budget equivalent of “we gave at the office.” Program backers point to earlier cuts and claim that agency has done their fair share. Our response is “what have you done for me lately?” Every bit of deficit reduction should be prospective and done in the context of the overall budget. For instance, Defense Secretary Panetta claims the Pentagon has done their job with cuts over the summer. No. The Pentagon budget has to be examined with a critical eye to see if more can be done. Considering the defense budget is still set to increase over the coming decade, there are many wasteful programs that can be cut, and personnel costs and deployment have to be reexamined – more savings can and should be produced from the Pentagon budget. We also heard this same malarkey from the Agriculture Committee because they trimmed a bit of the fat off of crop insurance subsidies. Let's be clear – they've got billions more to go before taxpayer subsidized agriculture is anywhere near lean.

And lastly, the biggest pet rock: absolutism. Thou shalt not touch tax expenditures – even if they're wasteful and not achieving their goal. Thou shalt not touch entitlements – even if they are imbalanced and not sustainable in their current form. The country forgoes more than $1 trillion in revenue every year through a patchwork quilt of tax breaks and loopholes in the code. There is far less oversight for this form of “spending” than over the actual budget. We don't know if we're getting our money's worth or if these breaks are running at cross purposes. Also, putting a firewall around entitlements may make good PR sense, but it doesn't add to the long-term viability and sustainability of these programs or ensure they are there to benefit those who truly need them.

We have to demand better performance out of government programs.-Whether it's tax breaks or entitlement spending or regular government program spending – every dollar has to evaluated. If the nation is going to be successful at tackling the yawning budget deficit and the chasm of debt, lawmakers have to leave their budgetary pet rocks at home.

TCS Quote of the Week

“Doing nothing will lead to the outcome both sides fear – massive tax increases and the shredding of the social safety net” — Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), on the failure of the deficit “Super Committee” to reach an agreement. (Press Release)