The Chairmen of President Obama’s Fiscal Commission have a new draft proposal that is filled, according to Reuters, with “sharp spending and benefit cuts.”
That’s music to my ears, so I quickly flipped to the back of the report in hopes of finding hard numbers showing that the federal government will be smaller in future years.
Much to my chagrin, it turns out that the federal government will increase by about $1.5 trillion between 2010 and 2020 according to the Commission’s numbers. Here’s a chart based on the data from page 57.
As I explained in the video below, this disconnect between supposed spending cuts and actual spending increases is the result of politicians creating a system where a spending increase can be called a “spending cut” if outlays don’t climb as fast as previously planned. This “baseline” or “current services” budgeting is a great gimmick for the politicians since they can simultaneously give more money to special interest groups while also telling voters that they are cutting the budget.
This does not mean that the folks at the Fiscal Commission are being deliberately dishonest. This process has been in use for decades and many budget wonks routinely rely on this common practice without giving any thought to whether it misleads voters.
And there are good reasons to collect “current services” data. Those numbers tell lawmakers how much spending has to increase if they, for instance, leave entitlement programs on autopilot (i.e., more senior citizens automatically leading to more Social Security spending).
Nonetheless, the debate about federal budget policy should be honest. If the Fiscal Commission thinks spending should increase at about twice the rate of inflation, and they want higher taxes to finance that spending growth, they should openly argue for that position. And if the hard left wants spending to increase three times faster than inflation, as it has during the era of Bush-Obama profligacy, they should openly make the case for why America should be more like France.
[...] By now you’ve heard about the recommendations of President Obama’s fiscal commission. Dan Mitchell read the report, and isn’t happy with what he found. The Chairmen of President Obama’s Fiscal Commission [...]
Ok. Just like Mr. Mitchell’s legacy to the world is slated to be his “Mitchell’s Law”,
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/another-sad-example-of-mitchells-law/
…Mine will be “Zorba’s Equation”:
(Competence of Average American) x (French Governance) = (Greece)
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut — increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I'll do when the budget [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut — increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut — increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when the [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – increasing spending by less than previously planned. So the first thing I’ll do when the [...]
[...] skeptical of battlefield conversions, particularly when politicians utilize thee dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut – increasing spending asside les than previously planned. So thee firstt thing I’ll do when [...]
[...] especially disappointing is that the Administration stuck with these bad ideas when the President’s own fiscal commission proposed lower tax rates and base broadening. Those proposals would have increased the overall tax burden, so they definitely were not pure [...]
[...] especially disappointing is that the Administration stuck with these bad ideas when the President’s own fiscal commission proposed lower tax rates and base broadening. Those proposals would have increased the overall tax burden, so they definitely were not pure [...]
[...] what’s especially disappointing is that the Administration stuck with these bad ideas when the President’s own fiscal commission proposed lower tax rates and base broadening. Those proposals would have increased the overall tax burden, so they definitely were not pure [...]
[...] spending binge – especially since at least some of the supposed spending cut is based on the dishonest Washington practice of measuring “cuts” on the basis of how much Obama wanted to spend rather than nominal [...]
[...] spending binge – especially since at least some of the supposed spending cut is based on the dishonest Washington practice of measuring “cuts” on the basis of how much Obama wanted to spend rather than nominal [...]
[...] spending binge — especially since at least some of the supposed spending cut is based on the dishonest Washington practice of measuring "cuts" on the basis of how much Obama wanted to spend rather than nominal changes from [...]
[...] poll was dishonest, of course, since it was based on the Washington’s dishonest definition of budget cuts. In reality, the reforms that are being proposed would reduce the growth of spending. And I suspect [...]
[...] spending binge – especially since at least some of the supposed spending cut is based on the dishonest Washington practice of measuring “cuts” on the basis of how much Obama wanted to spend rather than nominal changes [...]
[...] poll was dishonest, of course, since it was based on the Washington’s dishonest definition of budget cuts. In reality, the reforms that are being proposed would reduce the growth of spending. And I suspect [...]
[...] is this corrupt city can you turn increases into cuts merely by increasing spending by less than previously planned. And almost every politician magically knows how to transform “spending” into [...]
[...] is this corrupt city can you turn increases into cuts merely by increasing spending by less than previously planned. And almost every politician magically knows how to transform “spending” into [...]
[...] in this corrupt city can you turn increases into cuts merely by increasing spending by less than previously planned. And almost every politician magically knows how to transform “spending” into [...]
[...] spending binge – especially since at least some of the supposed spending cut is based on the dishonest Washington practice of measuring “cuts” on the basis of how much Obama wanted toArticle source: [...]
[...] Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could ha…. [...]
[...] Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could ha…. [...]
[...] Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $ 6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could ha…. [...]
[...] is she talking about? Obama punted in his budget and didn’t even endorse the findings of his own Fiscal Commission. But I [...]
[...] is she talking about? Obama punted in his budget and didn’t even endorse the findings of his own Fiscal Commission. But I [...]
[...] is she talking about? Obama punted in his budget and didn’t even endorse the findings of his own Fiscal Commission. But I [...]
[...] is she talking about? Obama punted in his budget and didn’t even endorse the findings of his own Fiscal Commission. But I [...]
[...] Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have g…. [...]
[...] on earth is she talking about? Obama punted in his budget and didn’t even endorse the findings of his own Fiscal Commission. But I [...]
[...] we get something like this fiscal continuum. Obama, for all intents and purposes, has taken the moderately left-wing proposal crafted by his Fiscal Commission and moved it significantly in the wrong direction by adding class-warfare tax policy. As such, he [...]
[...] we get something like this fiscal continuum. Obama, for all intents and purposes, has taken the moderately left-wing proposal crafted by his Fiscal Commission and moved it significantly in the wrong direction by adding class-warfare tax policy. As such, he [...]
[...] colleagues have put together a clever one-minute video mocking both Obama and Boehner for using the dishonest Washington definition of a spending cut – meaning they claim spending cuts merely because they increase the budget by less than [...]
[...] we get something like this fiscal continuum. Obama, for all intents and purposes, has taken the moderately left-wing proposal crafted by his Fiscal Commission and moved it significantly in the wrong direction by adding class-warfare tax policy. As such, he [...]
[...] colleagues have put together a clever one-minute video mocking both Obama and Boehner for using the dishonest Washington definition of a spending cut – meaning they claim spending cuts merely because they increase the budget by less than [...]
[...] they reduced spending. Not in the Washington sense, where politicians get to increase spending and call it a cut because outlays didn’t rise even faster. The Baltic nations imposed real cuts. And not just for one year, but in both 2009 and 2010. [...]
[...] they reduced spending. Not in the Washington sense, where politicians get to increase spending and call it a cut because outlays didn’t rise even faster. The Baltic nations imposed real cuts. And not just for one year, but in both 2009 and 2010. [...]
[...] they reduced spending. Not in the Washington sense, where politicians get to increase spending and call it a cut because outlays didn’t rise even faster. The Baltic nations imposed real cuts. And not just for one year, but in both 2009 and 2010. [...]
[...] they reduced spending. Not in the Washington sense, where politicians get to increase spending andcall it a cutbecause outlays didn’t rise even faster. The Baltic nations imposed real cuts. And not just for [...]
[...] they reduced spending. Not in the Washington sense, where politicians get to increase spending and call it a cut because outlays didn’t rise even faster. The Baltic nations imposed real cuts. And not just for one year, but in both 2009 and 2010. [...]
[...] proposal is quite similar to the one put forth by the President’s Simpson-Bowles Commission, which isn’t too surprising since some of the same people are [...]
[...] proposal is quite similar to the one put forth by the President’s Simpson-Bowles Commission, which isn’t too surprising since some of the same people are [...]
[...] proposal is quite similar to the one put forth by the President’s Simpson-Bowles Commission, which isn’t too surprising since some of the same people are [...]
[...] find $1.5 trillion of additional “deficit reduction” over the next 10 years (based on Washington math, of [...]
[...] to find $1.5 trillion of additional “deficit reduction” over the next 10 years (based on Washington math, of [...]
[...] and price controls. Now, take a wild guess at which approach was adopted by the Gang of Six and the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, plans that often are cited as providing a framework for a grand bargain? You won’t be [...]
[...] K. Simpson also was a mixed bag. Simpson was co-chair of Obama’s fiscal commission, which I thought was a disappointment because it endorsed higher taxes and urged sub-par entitlement changes rather than much-needed [...]
[...] Simpson also was a mixed bag. Simpson was co-chair of President Obama’s fiscal commission, which I thought was a disappointment because it endorsed higher taxes and urged subpar entitlement changes rather than much-needed [...]
[...] Simpson also was a mixed bag. Simpson was co-chair of President Obama’s fiscal commission, which I thought was a disappointment because it endorsed higher taxes and urged subpar entitlement changes rather than much-needed [...]