This debt deal just delays the inevitable as it cuts the rate of increase in projected spending but does not actually reduce actual year over year spending. And it does nothing about unfunded entitlements. To quote the article below… “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.” The only people deserving credit are Republicans who voted NO yesterday in the House and those whom will vote NO today in the Senate.
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.
Washington uses baseline budget accounting which is not the same as that used by households and businesses.
Baseline budgeting assumes that the budget will grow say, 7% each year, and any budget that arrives at a figure lower than that is called a “cut.” The baseline budget allows politician in Washington to spend more money every year while lying to us about their frugality. The fact is that none of the budget proposals being debated are going to save a penny. They’re only fighting over how much more they will spend and who is going to be paying for it.
The only thing our side won was the ability to get our voices heard in the debate. However, it was overwhelmed by an indifferent, ignorant or hostile media, a bread and circuses populace, and an entrenched big government, statist status quo establishment that runs things in Washington. The 2010 elections may have altered the debate and tinkered at the edges but it has not fundamentally changed anything or altered course. The election game will never be enough in and by itself if we want to return to fiscally sound, constitutionally limited government.