Steve Chapman, Reason:
We have heard a lot lately about plans to slash spending by trillions of dollars. Though these sound like deep cuts, they are not even shallow cuts. Under the plans being discussed in Washington, federal spending would rise, and so would the federal debt—not by a little, but by a lot.
Consider Speaker John Boehner’s blueprint, which envisions savings of some $3 trillion over 10 years. The biggest chunk of savings comes from a cap on discretionary outlays, letting them grow as fast as inflation—meaning they would gobble up more dollars every year.
In real terms, they would remain just as high as they are now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s version likewise allows federal departments to spend more each year to offset the effects of inflation.
All these “cuts” are modest reductions in the growth of outlays envisioned in President Obama’s budget, which would boost annual spending by 57 percent over the next decade. Everyone is talking about cutting the overall budget, without actually doing it.
Our leaders are not even saying exactly which programs will be trimmed. Neither party wants to reveal which constituents will lose their spots at the federal trough.
The publicized changes are mere promises to reduce projected spending—by some formula that we don’t know, because it has yet to be determined. For that matter, there is no guarantee the cuts will ever happen.
Up to now, the fiscal pit bulls on Capitol Hill have done a lot more barking than biting. Chris Edwards, a fiscal policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, points out that since gaining control of the House of Representatives, Republicans have shown no interest in abolishing anything.
“John Boehner has been in Congress for 20 years,” laments Edwards. “Hasn’t he ever seen an agency or program that ought to be repealed?”
Whoever wins this battle, the government’s sea of red ink will keep expanding. The publicly held debt now stands at about $11 trillion. Obama’s budget would have pushed it up to around $20 trillion by 2021. Under either the Boehner plan or the Reid plan, it would exceed $17 trillion.
All this screaming and squabbling, and for what? For a huge increase in the amount of borrowed funds that you and your descendants will have to repay.
Yeah, I know. I argued all this earlier this morning. But I like to hammer it home for those who are still pretending that we’ve somehow “changed the conversation” or some other equally daft, self-congratulatory pablum that gets us no closer to actually doing something about the problem.
Still, I disagree with this next bit:
Freshmen Republicans in the House rallied behind the “cut, cap and balance” plan, but it amounts to yet another stack of alluring promises. The cuts, $111 billion next year, are not itemized. Neither are the programs that would take a hit from the caps.
The “balance” refers to a constitutional amendment to ban deficit spending. But such an amendment—even in the very unlikely event it could be passed—wouldn’t balance the budget. It would merely commit Congress and the president to approve cuts in spending or increases in revenue that would eliminate the fiscal gap.
It’s not a solution. It’s a promise to come up with a solution, somehow, someday.
First off, this is an actual compromise — an agreement to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for capping spending at a percentage of GDP and then sending a balanced budget amendment to the states, which, if I’m remembering my geography correctly, is currently home to the 75% of Americans who support a BBA. The amendment would also require supermajorities to raise taxes, making it a far more difficult sell to claim that all you’re after is an increase in “revenue” or some fix to account for “tax expenditures” through reforming “loopholes.”
In fact, such a plan could likely be followed by major reforms to the tax code, as we as a nation get the sense that we are “resetting” the government back to on its constitutional pins.
So while yes, it pushes the outcome down the road a bit, it at least starts getting the ball rolling. And Chapman’s conceit — that a BBA is unlikely to pass — simply flies in the face of what we know about the wishes of the electorate.
Plus, it has the happy effect of not gutting defense disproportionately to entitlements. If that’s the kind of thing you Hobbits worry about.
Until they actually eliminate actual departments–completely and entirely–they’re just running the mower over the tops of the weeds.
Which, even if you’ve slowed the weeds growth, the mowing did have the happy effect of spreading the seeds for next year’s weed crop.
“Plus, it has the happy effect of not gutting defense disproportionately to entitlements.”
I’d take a military pay cut (please restrict it to field grade officers, senior warrant officers, E-8 and above – leave the lower grades out of it) but I want the same percentage lopped off the redistribution, government employees and departments that do same, and law makers pay, office allowance, travel allowances, etc.
I’ll bid 10% of my military pay…what say you, GSA?
It’s going to have to be shoved down their mendacious throats, R’s and D’s alike.
Time to get cracking on primarying every single “legislator” with more than 6 years in Washington on their ticket. The whole lot. Out to fucking pasture.
In Europe they’ve taught their peasants to always think of deficits as a percent of GDP.
If we did more of that here it would be helpful I think.
link
Jumping ahead a bit, Fred Barnes, in my opinion, has self-identified sometime back as a friend of Mitch McConnell, so when he suggests “Senators John Kyl, Jeff Sessions, and Marco Rubio, and Representatives Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Allen West” as plausible candidates for staffing the super-committee, we ought to take a hard look.
Kyl doesn’t meet my own test (he’s a too “go along to get along” sort).
Sessions and Rubio do. Replace Kyl with DeMint and maybe, just maybe they’ll hold the line. The House guys look pretty good to me, though Cantor is a tad shaky and West, while perfectly honorable and decent, is most likely going to be scrambling to take on the breadth of budget issues, which is not to say he can’t master them (he can), just that he starts with a larger burden.
Too, by including Rubio and Ryan, Fred would seed them no legs for a Presidential run, contra his partner.
Can you imagine the caterwalling from the Dems were spending to actually ever get cut?
I can JD, just as easily as I can imagine some of the Democrat Senators actually being reelected because they cut spending, rather than suffering defeat because they didn’t.
Can someone explain to me why Boner and McConnell do not call out the baseline bullshit where the one time temporary stimulus has become a baseline component of budgets going forward?
I like Paul better than DeMint I think
Paul’s cool by me. Better in some respects.
That’s why God made RoundUp.
Boehner ain’t no AgentOrangeman
Dems – We promise to spend $15,000,000,000,000 more than we have. Yippee!
Reps – we promise to only spend $12,000,000,000,000. We are way more responsible.
Dems – you are economic terrorists slashing government you teabagging teahadis!!!
Taxpayer – we are about to get anally gang banged, followed by a sweet bukake session.
FTFY.
Taxpayer – we are about to get anally gang banged, followed by a sweet bukake session.
No, Congress phoned to say you don’t get the bukake. Just the anal rape.
Once again, all they’re doing in Washington is debating HOW FAST we go bankrupt.
Not WHETHER we go bankrupt.
New bumper sticker:
Frodo had it easy.
“dicentra posted on8/1 @ 10:25 am
Until they actually eliminate actual departments–completely and entirely–they’re just running the mower over the tops of the weeds.
Which, even if you’ve slowed the weeds growth, the mowing did have the happy effect of spreading the seeds for next year’s weed crop.”
dicentra,
You forgot to mention that when they run the mower over the weeds, they have first removed the cutting blade, and put it against American’s throats..