Congressional Democrats want to create an entirely new cabinet-level department: the department of peace and non-violence. 

This department would house agencies such as the Office of Peace Education & Training, the Office of Domestic Peace Activities, the Office of International Peace Activities, the Office of Technology for Peace, the Office of Arms Control and Disarmament (ACM — notwithstanding that Barnie seems to have that covered already), the Office of Peaceful Co-Existence and Non-Violent Conflict Resolution, and, of course, the Office of Human Rights and Ecomic Rights.

Creation of this department has already been proposed in the House, and it seems likely that it will indeed be created if Democrats expand their majorities in both houses of congress (as they will) and win the presidency (more than lkely). 

Although liberal Democrats argue that the department could accomplish a lot for minorities and in favor of peace and development, critics rightfully argue that the plan would cost the American tax payer many billions of dollars while the U.S. federal government already struggles with a tremendous deficit, and Barack Obama and his allies in Congress also want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on other new plans.

Democrats and Barack Obama himself suggested other plans in recent weeks, which would cost the federal government approximately $1.1 trillion extra. This means that, under Obama, the U.S. will spend at least $1.1 trillion and, if the department is created, much more than than more than what the Bush administration spends, which is already more than it receives in (tax) revenues.

This means that Obama and the Democratic congress will have to cut spending in other areas, and raise taxes. Democrat Barney Frank agreed yesterday explaining that they would cut defense spending by 25%, which would, in his own words, mean that the U.S. would have to withdraw from Iraq soon. “The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection. It’s extraordinary,” Frank said.

The problem with that reasoning is two-fold:

1. The U.S. protects its own interests first and foremost. If an early withdrawal means that extremists take over Iraq, it is most definitely not in the American interest to withdraw too soon, whether “Iraqis” like it or not.

2. As Jay Nordlinger explained for the Corner of National Review, Iraqis don’t truly want the U.S. out. Or, better, they also want the U.S. to stay to protect them against extremists. As Nordlinger put it: “Yankee, go home — but Yankee, stay, too. Don’t go home yet. Go home when it’s safe for us that you do — when our own authorities can beat back the extremists.”

Cuts in defense spending will, of course, not be enough to cover the planned extra spending. Therefore, Frank admitted, “tax hikes” will “eventually” come. ”We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately,” Frank said. “Not now, but eventually.”

The economic plan the Democrats seem to have in mind is a truly progressive one; it aims at “spreading the wealth,” as Barack Obama put it rather well, helping those “in need,” and taxing those with higher (or in the long run probable middle) incomes more. 

Although Frank’s plans may sound attractive to fiscal liberals, it seems to me that these plans will have many negative consequences:

1. Cutting defense spending means a significant loss in jobs in the defense industry. Fewer jobs, means less income for people, means they will need more “help” from the government, driving up spending even more.

2. Raising taxes, especially on reasonable small businesses but also on middle and higher income households will result in less consumption, which results in fewer jobs, which results in more people being dependent on the government “for help,” the economy will shrink, or at least not grow, the capability of the economy to rebounce after trouble will be negatively affected.

In short, although Frank’s, Pelosi’s, Reid’s and Obama’s plans may make sense to fiscal liberals, they do not seem to be very wise and effective from a fiscal conservative perspective.