Zandar's Other Thought Of The Day

OK, this "cutting spending while in a deep recession" thing is getting a little out of hand, guys.

After some of the most volatile coalition talks in the UK’s history, Conservative leader David Cameron finally made the short trip to Buckingham Palace to tell Her Majesty that he had formed an alliance with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats that would allow him to form the next government.

But Cameron could be forgiven for asking himself Wednesday morning what he has let himself into.

Cutting the deficit is the big challenge. In 50 days we will have this government’s emergency budget, at which Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne will have to outline a credible plan to rein in spending.

Already we know 6 billion pounds ($8.9 billion) will be cut from the budget this year, but with the budget deficit running at more than 160 billion pounds, far bigger cuts will be needed to appease the market over the course of this parliament. 

Cameron has agreed to attempt to take people earning less than 10,000 pounds a year out of the tax system and scarped plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold to 1 million pounds, in return for the Liberal Democrats dropping plans for a “mansion tax” on houses worth more than 2 million pounds.

More details will come soon, but the scale of the cuts will need to be huge, with many predicting Cameron has to make bigger cuts in spending than even Margaret Thatcher dared. 

Given Cameron has pledged not to cut spending on the National Health Service (although Clegg sees huge waste in the system), it will be interesting to see which departments will see their spending power drastically cut. 

Let me know how that works out for you there, Cameron.

[UPDATE]  And if you don't think austerity measures are coming here, they're about to affect one in seven Americans in a state called California.

Schwarzenegger and legislative Republicans have vowed to oppose new taxes and want to rely on spending cuts to balance the budget. Democrats believe that slashing social services would hurt the poor and unemployed and cost California billions in federal matching dollars.

"The most likely outcome is a stalemate," said J.B. Mitchell, a UCLA professor emeritus of public policy and management. "The magnitude of the problem is large and they have to make some pretty drastic cuts. One way or another, it's going to be a painful episode. It's hard for me to see how you get a two-thirds vote for a tax increase in a gubernatorial (election) year."

GOP members who voted for tax hikes last year suffered political consequences, from loss of leadership positions to recall threats.

"Taxes are off the table," said Assembly Republican leader Martin Garrick, R-Solana Beach. "We don't need new taxes on families, senior citizens or businesses in California. It's time to reduce the size of government."

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has acknowledged the difficulty of getting Republican votes for taxes this year. In recent weeks, he has proposed suspending corporate tax breaks. He said Californians must decide whether schools and public safety are worth paying for.

And of course, the answer will be no.  And with that, the state will most likely cease to function.  Remember folks, the GOP wants to take California's austerity measures national and dismantle as many government programs as possible.  Can't pay for the free market alternative to public safety and basic infrastructure?  Too bad. 

Gotta love how Republicans believe in fierce Social Darwinism to eliminate undesirables, but don't believe in evolution.