For someone who was once the chief economist at OMB under Dave Stockman, Larry Kudlow should know better.

His post from earlier this week on nationalreviewonline talks about federal spending perpetuates the myth that it can be cut without consequences. The whole post is here, but the two relevant paragraphs are:

When you look at the non-defense, non-security budget between FY 2001 and FY 2007 — when the GOP controlled three houses in Washington — spending rose roughly $550 billion dollars. That’s a whopping 38 percent, or 5.5 percent each year. It’s also more than twice the 2.4 percent inflation rate during that period.

The Education Department was by far the biggest transgressor. It posted an alarming yearly growth of 11.4 percent. Other obvious abusers include the Interior Department, which grew at 5.8 percent, and Transportation, which came in at 4.4 percent. Rounding out the profligate herd was Energy with 5.1 percent; Agriculture at 4.5 percent; and HUD at 4 percent. Every single one of these government agencies ballooned its budget well beyond the inflation rate.

What's wrong with this? Just about everything.

First, it omits any mention about the how the needs being met might be changing. That's like complaining about how military spending is increasing without considering whether the U.S. is at peace or fighting two wars.

The equivalent on the "non-defense, non-security budget" might be the cost of diaster relief after Hurricane's Katrina and Rita devastated parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, or spendng for the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission as food and goods coming from China start becoming obviously dangerous, or the State Department adding people to handle the flood of passport applications resulting from the new law requiring them of Americans visiting Canada and Mexico.

Second, the Kudlow argument is based on an assumption that federal facilities don't require maintainance that the maintenance won't get more expensive as time goes by. Anyone who has ever owned a home or car knows that repairs are needed more frequently and are generally more expensive the longer the house or car is used. The same is true of bridges, tunnels, sewers, highways, federal buidlings, IT systems, etc.

Third, Kudlow sets up a false standard -- the rate of inflation -- as if it were gospel. He might bneed to be reminded by no one elected Kudlow god.

Fourth, Kudlow only talks about a relatively small part of the federal budget and gives the Pentagon a completely free pass.

Finally, Kudlow is perpetuating the idea that the way to cut federal spending is by making small changes in everything the government is doing. As FEMA, FDA, CDC, Walter Reed, and other very public federal agency failures have shown over the past seven years, that's actually the worst possible way because the departments and agencies getting the funds can't do what's expected of them. The far better way to cut spending is to decide that one of more whole functions should be eliminated.