Inside D.C.

The silver lining to spending cuts

The last 120 days of 2011 will be a pharmacist’s and therapist’s dream. The angst over slashed spending, the anxiety over potential program deaths and the ensuing depression over the demise of all that appropriations grandstanding will no doubt take its toll on the most stalwart lobbyists in DC.

That pain will strike all sides of all issues equally. The egalitarian bottom line: If a new or expanded program or priority isn’t a zero sum game for the federal government, it likely will never see the light of day.

But is it all pain and no gain? Not really. It’s hoped – fervently – the 12 new members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction will be considerate in their deliberations, that they will take the recommendations of the committees of jurisdiction seriously and not succumb to the arrogance and egoism plaguing far too many politicians, overruling the experts, cutting spending too quickly, particularly in the case of programs as arcane as those in agriculture. And obviously, it’s best to run a government balancing income with outgo; prioritizing programs and citizen services to available funds. This means bloated and bizarre programs deserve to die. And this blade cuts both ways. While there will inevitably be cuts, these reductions will force departments and agencies to prioritize based on real need and affordability, not “wouldn’t it be nice if…”

The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and its animal rights cohorts will pound the table, demanding federal outlays to fund their definition of “social justice.” They’ll blast out press releases and demand new laws and regulations to restrict U.S. livestock and poultry production, but if they can’t prove these demands will cost little or nothing, they’ll be dismissed as the hot air we know them to be.

However, this signals the need for added vigilance on the administrative side of the regulation equation, meaning if you can’t get Congress to mandate a program, get a sympathetic USDA or another federal agency to stretch its legal authority to embrace it.

The affordability litmus test will directly affect the UEP-HSUS “enriched cage” deal. Folks keep telling me there’s no cost to the federal government from embracing the “compromise” between the egg laying folk and the world’s largest animal rights group. However, administration alone carries cost, and unless HSUS has gone totally batty, there’s got to be some kind of enforcement mechanism that will cost.

The multilateral assault on federal program spending invariably fractures some and destroys many unholy alliances. Groups which fall back to protect their primary programs and areas of interest will abandon the feel-good alliances on issues not within their primary focus. This means animal rightists could lose the sign-on support of enviro groups and some of the fringier consumer groups; consumer groups will abandon their buddies outside the realm of “pure food”, at least temporarily.

This should be seen by our side as an opportunity to move forward aggressively with our outreach to the consumer. Now is the time to focus energy and dollars not on “anti” whatever campaigns, but on proactive, “here we are” messages.