When the Tea Party tide crested, a number of Western Republicans surfed it into the U.S. House of Representatives.
There was Colorado Rep. Doug Lamborn, who promotes gutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, saying it’s “low-hanging fruit” that must be picked to shrink the federal deficit. New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce harnessed anti-government momentum to win a tight oilman-versus-oilman race. Idaho Rep. Raúl Labrador, at first a long shot, also triumphed.
In January, Pearce and Labrador were among 12 Republicans who voted against John Boehner for speaker of the House. Boehner supported a fiscal cliff deal they believed included too many tax hikes ($600 billion over 10 years), and too few spending cuts ($0).
But the cuts just came later. On March 1, after Congress and the White House failed (again) to agree on a deficit-reducing budget, across-the-board discretionary spending cuts were triggered. The so-called “sequestration” is recognized by even the most conservative of conservatives as bad policy, because the cuts are indiscriminate. Still, it is ostensibly a win for them. This time, they got spending cuts ($1.2 trillion over 10 years) without tax increases ($0). On Meet the Press, Labrador said, “Most folks in Idaho are saying that we did the right thing.”
So it was surprising to hear Pearce tear into Senate Democrats for failing to increase the U.S. Forest Service’s budget post-sequester, saying he was “bewildered” they would ignore wildfire threats by cutting the agency’s funding. Or maybe it’s not so surprising: New Mexico has recently endured historic wildfires, which are fought with federal money. Lamborn voted against the Budget Control Act in 2011, which mandated sequestration if a deficit deal wasn’t reached. Though most economists agree meaningful deficit reduction won’t come without slimmer military budgets, he opposed the sequester’s potential trims to defense, probably because Lamborn’s district is home to three military bases.
These deficit hawks’ less-than-full-throated support of the budget cuts could be read as an implicit acknowledgment that though government largesse is a convenient political punching bag, many Western communities aren’t that interested in giving it up.
For proof, liberal pundit David Sirota suggests looking here—California. Facing its own budget crisis in 2011, and with Republicans unwilling to support tax increases, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown deeply slashed higher education, health care, welfare, state workers’ pay and the criminal-justice system. The most painful cuts could be avoided, Brown argued, if voters approved tax increases. He put a temporary tax hike on the rich to fund education before voters last fall, and it passed easily. The political lesson, Sirota says: Government is easy to hate in the abstract, but austerity is tough to stomach in practice.
That’s not true everywhere. In 2010, cash-strapped Colorado Springs, Colo., asked voters to approve taxes to fund streetlights, law enforcement and park maintenance. They wouldn’t, and the streets went dark; many public services were privatized; and citizens were invited to “adopt” lights and trash cans.
Whether or not privatization actually saved money in Colorado Springs, many stood by it on principle. Last spring, Councilwoman Jan Martin told This American Life about a man who adopted a streetlight for $300 and thanked her for the program. “I did remind him that for $200, if he had supported the tax initiative, we could have had not only streetlights, but parks and firemen and swimming pools and community centers,” Martin said. The man replied that he would never support higher taxes.
But as the birthplace of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)—a constitutional stranglehold on how much state and local governments can tax and spend—Colorado Springs is unique in its dogmatic willingness to forgo government services. Many other Coloradans have voted to circumvent TABOR, allowing cities and counties to outspend its limits for schools and roads.
Will the new federal spending cuts cause enough pain in the rural West to seed the sort of pro-tax sentiment that has emerged in California’s and Colorado’s austerity wakes? Probably not—at least in the short term.
It’s too early to tell what the full impact of the cuts will be. But for the most part, they won’t be the drastic, sudden shock that Brown’s were here in California, where universities took a 25 percent budget cut, and 70 state parks were threatened with closure. These will be more gradual and cumulative, with agencies like the U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Land Management spending around 5 percent less this year.
That’s not to say the cuts won’t cause real pain. The states’ share of federal mineral royalties will be slashed—a $53 million blow to Wyoming, and $26 million loss for New Mexico between now and July. Counties are being asked to repay money already distributed under the Secure Rural Schools Act. Popular federal beneficiaries, like national parks, will suffer, too. The Park Service will hire 10 percent fewer seasonal workers this summer. And these are only the most recent cuts absorbed by agencies; federal employees have endured salary freezes and heavier workloads for a few years as vacant jobs go unfilled. Sequestration promises more of the same. Public-lands users may notice dirtier bathrooms, disheveled trails, longer lines at park entrances and shuttered campgrounds.
“Funding for national parks in today’s dollars was (already) 15 percent below where it was a decade ago,” says John Garder of the National Parks Conservation Association. “They have been falling through the cracks as part of a broken process that is not meaningfully addressing the deficit.”
Unfortunately, the hardest-hit communities will likely be the neediest. Indian Health Services, a chronically under-funded agency that enjoyed meaningful budget bumps recently thanks to champions like Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, wasn’t exempted from the sequester like veterans’ and children’s health programs were—an accidental oversight. “But once it’s law, you have to pass a whole new law (to change it),” explains Native American journalist Mark Trahant, who is writing a book about fiscal austerity. “In this Congress, that isn’t going to happen.”
Reservation school districts depend heavily on federal aid in lieu of property tax; Arizona’s Window Rock Unified School District may be forced to close schools. Tribal colleges, which provide community services like buses, libraries and Native language education, may eliminate summer school, GED programs, and cut staff pay and healthcare, says Carrie Billy, who heads the doug.
Such cuts represent a breach of trust, she says. “The only tribal colleges that receive federal funds are colleges chartered by federally recognized tribes. They signed binding treaties with the federal government to fund education. They didn’t just say ‘when we have the money available.’ And our little pot is still being cut.”
This story originally appeared in High Country News.