When $85 billion in cuts isn’t $85 billion…or a cut
March 1, 2013 at 10:09 am in News by Dustin Siggins 4 Comments
Since the Budget Control Act (BCA) became law in August 2011, both parties have prominently pushed to avoid the spending reductions in the law. Republicans have wanted to avoid the defense side of things, and Democrats have wanted to avoid the social program side of things. After all, $85 billion in “cuts” to spending is a lot, isn’t it?
Not really. In fact, no cutting will take place in the overall size of the federal budget over the 10 years the BCA is supposed to diminish spending. Even if the BCA goes into full effect, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the federal debt to increase. This would not be the case if real cuts – meaning, reductions from the current year’s spending – were to take place every year for a decade.
To be fair, both parties correctly note the cuts will hit discretionary spending significantly (as well as a small amount of mandatory spending), at least in Washington terms. Non-defense discretionary spending will drop 5.2%, and defense by 7.8%, on an annually-calculated basis, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. Total spending would only drop by 2.5%, though – not exactly a slashing of the budget.
In the end though, $85 billion isn’t $85 billion. The CBO estimates only $44 billion of the BCA’s “cuts” will be implemented in 2013. This is the equivalent of having a budget of $3,600 or so…and cutting $44 out of it. Can’t you feel the devastation???
Oh, and that’s after Washington grew the budget by about 40% since 2006. This is equivalent to going from a budget of slightly under $2,700 to a budget of $3,800 in six years…and then cutting back by $44. Not exactly the end of the world.
As the sequester begins to take effect, we’re going to keep hearing stories of the debilitating effect of these minor spending reductions. Prepare yourselves for the biggest collective yawn since the Mayan calendar apocalypse.
The manner in which POTUS is using this “crisis” not only speaks volumes, but, like the Univision statement, ought to be grounds for his impeachment.
As he furloughs our soldiery in a time of armed conflict, he will not touch his beloved social programs, statements like helping the “disabled child or the poor child” leads one to believe our “constitutional scholar” president is illiterate.
While our Constitution spells out his duties and parameters of his authorities, it is very clear about confiscating property for either the public use or for political gain, READ the 4TH AMENDMANT.
And another thing, I sure am glad you defined the growth of both the debt and the budget by percentile, the current practice of stating it by dollar figure is gibberish to most folks, but to actually define the level of amok this amok outfit is seems to pass by most of our conservative talkers and all of the mass media.
WHY THE HECK DO YOU PEOPLE IN CONGRESS SENATE PRESIDENT ALL OF YOU FAILING FAILING FAILING AT YOUR JOBS HAVEN’T FOUND CUTS THAT WOULDN’T HURT EVERYONE WHO VOTED U IN TO YOUR JOBS? MAKE NO MISTAKE LISTEN CLOSELY YOU ALL WILL BE REPLACED AND WE WILL BE COMING UP WITH TIGHTER VETTING AND EXPECTATIONS WILL BE MET ON TIME BI-PARTISAN OR YOU WILL BE FIRED.MAKE NO MISTAKE WE WILL PASS NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETENCE.MAKE NO MISTAKE IS OBAMA’S MOST USED PHRASE. SO GET TO WORK.
I agree…. But we must enforce one important concept, the way the constitution is written means we as tax paying citizens are THE EMPLOYER. It also means that the president, vp, administration and ALL of congress are the EMPLOYEES. I never remember telling my employer that they must pay me more money, and actually getting away with it. However this “GUY” in the Whitehouse, ( the people’s house, our house), says we have to pony up and give HIM more of our money to give away to who knows who or where, and we are supposed to say yes sir how much sir when sir. I think we should respond with a big fat NO SIR…..SIR. Also I think in describing this administration and their words, the word LIAR is highly UNDER USED. Just a thought from an old retired fixed income person……