Comments on: I’m Willing to Go Along with President Obama’s “Balanced Approach” to Deficit Reduction, but Only if We Use Honest Math

By: Protecting Obama’s Right to Bear Arms

Protecting Obama’s Right to Bear Arms — Sun, 12 May 2013 08:14:14 +0000

[…] worse, as our friend Dan Mitchell from Cato points out, that by just cutting 5 percent from spending each year and raising […]

By: Why can’t people in Washington speak in such a way that others can understand? « HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:50:12 +0000

[...] They should expose this scam by using nominal numbers and looking at year-over-year changes in both taxes and spending. I did that last year and showed how simple it is to balance the budget in a short period of time. [...]

By: John Clark

John Clark — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:20:21 +0000

Ignoring GDP & population growth for outlays but including it for revenue does not reflect reality. Unlike as the article suggests, it’s NOT how business and households operate their budgets. If your company grows and you produce more revenue, you likely also have increased costs with that growth such as more employees to pay (aka population growth). This fantasy of continually cutting the absolute amount of outlays is not practical.

In addition, it’s easy to justify those tax cuts, once you’ve accepted the fantasy of a continually shrinking budget.

By: It Would Work – Which Is Why They’ll Never Permit It | Daily Pundit

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:30:10 +0000

By: Exposing Washington’s Dishonest Budget Math « lessbull.com

Exposing Washington’s Dishonest Budget Math « lessbull.com — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:51:05 +0000

By: Exposing Washington’s Dishonest Budget Math « International Liberty

Exposing Washington’s Dishonest Budget Math « International Liberty — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:00:48 +0000

By: Cartoonists Are Much Smarter than Republicans « The blog for taxspecialists

Cartoonists Are Much Smarter than Republicans « The blog for taxspecialists — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:14:40 +0000

[...] Last but not least, here’s one showing that Obama prefers the European version of a “balanced approach” rather than the version I put together. [...]

By: Cartoonists Are Much Smarter than Republicans « International Liberty

Cartoonists Are Much Smarter than Republicans « International Liberty — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:50:12 +0000

[...] Last but not least, here’s one showing that Obama prefers the European version of a “balanced approach” rather than the version I put together. [...]

By: Le suicide fiscal de l'Europe | Contrepoints

Le suicide fiscal de l'Europe | Contrepoints — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:33:21 +0000

[...] Eh bien, les dépenses n'ont pas été réduites, tandis que les impôts sont plus élevés. Cela ressemble fort à la malhonnête "approche équilibrée" d’Obama. [...]

By: European Politicians Share Obama’s View of a “Balanced Approach” « International Liberty

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:50:00 +0000

[...] actually agree with Obama – but only if one uses honest math. Needless to say, Obama wants to use Washington math, where spending increases get redefined as [...]

By: Patrick Wunderlich

Patrick Wunderlich — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 06:16:51 +0000

That is right. As long as baseline budgeting is used and increases in spending are already baked in the cake, there will never be any reduction in spending. If baseline budgeting was removed, it would be much easier to control spending.

By: New CBO Numbers Confirm – Once Again – that Modest Spending Restraint Can Balance the Budget | Cato @ Liberty

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:24:56 +0000

[...] But as I’ve explained before, this demagoguery is based on the dishonest Washington practice of assuming that spending should increase every year, and then claiming that a budget cut takes place anytime spending does not rise as fast as previously planned. [...]

By: New CBO Numbers Confirm – Once Again – that Modest Spending Restraint Can Balance the Budget « International Liberty

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:43:25 +0000

By: Mr. President, Here’s that Balanced Approach You Keep Demanding « Pesky Emotional Republican

Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:46:28 +0000

[...] I want to know why America’s fiscal situation is so out of whack. I’m willing to take a dispassionate look at the numbers. And if those figures show that the President is right, and that “unaffordable tax cuts” have caused higher deficits, then I’m willing to support higher revenues (after all, I am a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road guy). [...]

By: Mr. President, Here’s that Balanced Approach You Keep Demanding « ConservativeWatchNews.com

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:03:15 +0000

By: » Mr. President, Here’s that Balanced Approach You Keep Demanding - Big Government

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:51:25 +0000

By: Mr. President, Here’s that Balanced Approach You Keep Demanding « International Liberty

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:27:21 +0000

By: How to “Cut” Spending and Make Government Bigger at the Same Time « International Liberty

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:39:54 +0000

[...] is sort of like claiming your diet is successful because you’re gaining 2 pounds each week instead of 5 pounds. I explain this scam in an interview with Judge [...]

By: » Washington’s Never-Ending Scam of Fake Spending Cuts - Big Government

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:36:23 +0000

[...] never what they seem in Babylon on the Potomac. As I’ve repeatedly noted, a spending cut means something different for politicians than it does for those of us in the real world. The political elite claim they are cutting spending anytime they don’t increase spending as fast [...]

By: georgesblog360

georgesblog360 — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:44:21 +0000

The Federal corporation hasn’t used “honest math” in at least 150 years. In fact, the math has become more fuzzy in the last decade. They’re in to deep to the loan sharks at the Federal Reserve to back out, now. They’re just the wrong people to play “Monopoly” with.

By: Washington’s Never-Ending Scam of Fake Spending Cuts « International Liberty

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:08:37 +0000

[...] what they seem in Babylon on the Potomac. As I’ve repeatedly noted, a spending cut means something different for politicians than it does for those of us in the real world. The political elite claim they are cutting spending anytime they don’t increase spending as [...]

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 06:21:15 +0000

How about we adopt Obama’s “trigger” idea, except apply it to spending, not tax rates?

In other words, if revenue does not reach projections, there’s a cross the board cut (except actual interest and principle repayments on the debt, per the 14th amendment) that totals the shortfall.

Of course, Congress can protect selected programs (and thus increase the cuts for remaining spending) with a majority vote (given a presidential signature) or 2/3 (given a presidential veto).

By: Steve Cardwell

Steve Cardwell — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:53:46 +0000

The elephant in the room of course, is the military. Chalmers Johnson, author of “Blowback” and “Dismantling the Empire” brings the question: do we really need to over 800 overseas military bases; do we need to continue occupation of Okinawa, Germany, and so forth? He also makes the case that the multiple layers of redundant and overlapping secret intelligence agencies are fantastic boondoggles. And despite the rhetoric of finding Bin Laden after 10 years (smirk) he charges that they are incompetent to a great extent.
And military authorities beyond my expertise have said the Iraq and Afghan wars have been entirely paid for off-the-books with borrowed money. Perhaps we should start with honesty there? The Executive branch power grab under Bush was unprecedented, and it is good to see the Congress getting some backbone over Libya. With all the hyperbole about getting tough, It will be interesting to see if the Tea Bag crowd con go after a tougher constituency than just immigrants and the underclass.

By: Marty J

Marty J — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:36:18 +0000

How about we cut all spending except SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid back to the FFY2007 level and then only allow growth with CPI, then get rid of the rest of the Education Dept and all the “green” subsidies, and then attack entitlement reform with in teh current payroll taxes. Then, further moves toward a balanced budget would be 75% savings to 25% revenue, with tax and other reforms to stimulate growth so most of the new revenues are self-financing.

I don’t recall thousands of people starving for lack of govt programs in 2007, and the Iraq war was at its peak, so I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t ruin the country or DoD. And it would save close to $1T right off the bat.

It really isn’t hard if you’re willing to be an adult about it.

Oh, wait— hardly any adults in Washington… of course, we elect them so they try to pander to our worst inclinations… hmmmm.

By: graficgod

graficgod — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:03:42 +0000

nice article and some great points, but the government is way too large and has it’s grubby paws in too many aspects of our lives. the size of government needs to be cut to 1/3 of what it is now. this country has nearly been lost to the progressive ideology. the ideology of obamunism.

it has come to the point where i believe nothing ANY politician says and question the true motive for ANYTHING they do. this country needs to be reset… desperately.

cut everything from the national budget except defense and the civil/criminal court system. leave all else to the states and private enterprise.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:14:28 +0000

Dan, I think you’re being too generous here. Any increase in revenue enables a bigger government. That said, I think Doug has a point… 25% cut in spending over 5 years – as the leading edge of the boomers qualify for Social Security and Medicare – is probably unrealistic. My thought was it took us 10 years to get from cash-flow balanced to where we are. Allow 10 years to get back there. Allow growth in revenue only to the extent that it reflects GDP growth and inflation. Let the politicians re-arrange the tax code, but in an essentially revenue-neutral way. Of course, that’s probably just as unrealistic. But that’s the commitment I’d want before I’d vote for an increase in the debt limit. 10 years. Balanced budget. Gradual decrease in spending. No revenue increases. Annual votes on the debt limit increase, going down by at least 10% of the 2011 deficit each year.

My ‘compromise’ is allowing the deficit to be reduced gradually, over 10 years, rather than all at once, right now. You need a debt limit increase? As a compromise, I’ll let you bump up the limit if – and only if – you demonstrate you can cut spending to match revenue within 10 years. If you don’t like the compromise, we can do it all right now (or whenever the Chinese stop lending to us, whichever comes first.)

By: Barbara

Barbara — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:10:47 +0000

This administration (and quite frankly most of the “professional” politicians) remind me of what used to be said of the Soviets: What’s theirs [the bureaucracy] is theirs, and what’s ours [the taxpayers] is negotiable.

Actually, I’m pretty sure they think what’s ours is theirs too.

By: Squid

Squid — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:34:04 +0000

I’d like “compromise” to be understood as my demanding the federal government cut its scope, its power, and its expenditures by 40%, and then later on I settle for just 10%. Gimme seven years of that sort of compromise, and we might just have something we can live with.

By: Doug Johnson

Doug Johnson — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:16:52 +0000

I wonder if cutting the budget by 25% within 5 years is a real possibility. I like the concept myself, but it seems overly optimistic.

By: DonM

DonM — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:27:11 +0000

By not increasing the debt limit, the Republican House can guarantee a cut in federal spending by 2.3 trillion in the first year, a result that is devoutly to be wished.