During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan famously said “there you go again” when responding to one of Jimmy Carter’s attacks.
Well, the Gipper’s ghost is probably looking down from Heaven at the new budget deal between congressional leaders and the Obama Administration and saying “there they go again.”
That’s because we basically have a repeat of the distasteful 2013 budget deal.
The new agreement, like the 2013 deal, busts the budget caps. In this case, the politicians in DC have approved $50 billion of additional spending for the 2016 fiscal year (which started on October 1) and $30 billion of additional spending in the 2017 fiscal year (starting October 1, 2016).
Which means that the President gets to further undo his biggest fiscal defeat.
And what do Republicans get in exchange?
Many of them want higher defense spending, of course, and some of them doubtlessly are happy to have more domestic spending as well. Those politicians are presumably happy, at least behind closed doors.
So let’s rephrase the question: What do advocates of fiscal restraint get in exchange?
Well, if you peruse the agreement, it’s apparent they don’t get anything. Sure, there are some promises of future restraint. But if the 2013 deal and the current agreement are any indication, those promises don’t mean much.
The deal has a handful of back-door revenue increases, including an assumption that the IRS will be more aggressive in squeezing money out of taxpayers. And there are some budget gimmicks, along with some tinkering with entitlement programs, especially the fraud-riddled disability program, that ostensibly will lead to some modest savings.
The net result is that we have a pact that leads to guaranteed spending increases over the nest few years, combined with some nickel-and-dime proposals that will probably offset each other in the future.
So the bad news – assuming the goal is enforceable spending restraint – is that policy has moved in the wrong direction.
In other words, I was right to worry that Republicans would fumble away a guaranteed victory.
And this deal probably sets the stage for another bad deal two years in the future since more spending in 2016 and 2017 will make it harder to meet the spending caps for 2018 and beyond.
Now for the good news…
…
…
…
…
Ooops, there isn’t any good news.
About the only positive thing to say is that this new agreement is not a huge defeat. There will still be budget caps, which is better than no spending caps.
And the new spending, while wasteful and counterproductive, is relatively small in the context of an $18 trillion economy.
Moreover, the deal only partially unwinds the fiscal discipline that already has been achieved thanks to the spending caps.
Last but not least, nothing in this deal precludes a better and more comprehensive spending cap, perhaps modeled after Switzerland’s very successful debt brake, once Obama is out of the White House.
P.S. This new deal also increases the debt limit. Some view this as a defeat, but it more properly should be viewed as a missed opportunity to get some much-needed reforms.
That being said, I can’t resist commenting on the deliberately dishonest scare tactics from our statist friends. They routinely claim that the United States government would have to default on its debt and cause a global crisis unless there is approval for more borrowing.
For instance, exuding an air of faux hysteria, one writer for the Washington Post asserted that, “Failure to raise the debt ceiling would unleash hell on the U.S. economy.” Another Washington Post columnist fanned the flames of fake despair, writing, “The chaos…is about to have some very serious effects on the entire country.” And a third Washington Post reporter falsely fretted that not raising the debt limit by November 3rd, “could plunge the United States into default, an outcome that…could lead to economic catastrophe.”
Oh, please, we’ve heard this song and dance before. But it’s utter nonsense.
Here’s some of what I said as part of my testimony to the Joint Economic Committee in 2013.
…there is zero chance of default. Why? Because…annual interest payments are about $230 billion and annual tax collections are approaching $3 trillion. …there’s no risk of default – unless the Obama Administration deliberately wants that to happen. But that’s simply not a realistic possibility.
But some folks may wonder whether my analysis is accurate. After all, maybe I’m some sort of nihilistic libertarian who fantasizes about laying waste to Washington.
And other than the nihilistic part, that’s actually a good description of my long-run goals.
But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. So for backup, let’s look at some identical analysis from an ultra-establishment source, as reported in The Hill.
Moody’s Investors Service announced Monday that, despite dire warnings from the Treasury Department, the government would find a way to pay money owed on its debt, regardless of whether lawmakers agree to raise the $18.1 trillion borrowing cap. …”Even if the debt limit is not raised, …the government will order its payment priorities to allow the Treasury to continue servicing its debt obligations,” says Moody’s Senior Vice President Steven Hess.
Gee, maybe all the mouth-breathing partisans at the Washington Post are the ones who are wrong. Along with the partisan and status-quo voices from the political establishment.
[…] Democrats this summer and agreed to bust the spending caps (something politicians also did in 2013, 2015, and […]
[…] prefer legislative spending caps. After all (as we saw in 2013, 2015, 2018, and this year), those can be evaded with a simply majority, so long as there’s a […]
[…] conspire to bust the spending caps – which is what they did at the end of 2013, as well as in 2015, 2018, and again this […]
[…] They then busted the spending caps a second time in 2015 and that deal was even “worse” on spending. […]
[…] The good news is that this bad news is not as bad as it was in 2015 when we got a bunch of bad policies, including resuscitation of the corrupt Export-Import Bank, another Supreme Court Obamacare farce, expanded IMF bailout authority, and busted spending caps. […]
[…] the worse news is that politicians voted to bust that spending cap in 2013, 2015, and earlier this […]
[…] session in Washington, otherwise known as Congress, voted to bust those spending caps in 2013, 2015, and earlier this year. Sort of D.C.’s lather-rinse-repeat version of Referendum […]
[…] depressing. Republicans botched the repeal of Obamacare. They’ve already sold out (twice!) on the spending caps in the Budget Control Act, and they’re about to do it again. And now they […]
[…] thing to understand is that the budget caps (yes, the ones that were weakened in 2013, 2015, and earlier this year) only apply to discretionary […]
[…] thing to understand is that the budget caps (yes, the ones that were weakened in 2013, 2015, and earlier this year) only apply to discretionary […]
[…] thing to understand is that the budget caps (yes, the ones that were weakened in 2013, 2015, and earlier this year) only apply to discretionary […]
[…] Well, that battle occurred and the result was a disaster for taxpayers. The budget caps were busted again, with the net effect being even worse than the big-spending agreements back in 2013 and 2015. […]
[…] But politicians don’t like fiscal restraint. Spending caps limit their ability to buy votes with other people’s money. So they evaded the spending caps in late 2013. Then they did the same thing in late 2015. […]
[…] botched the repeal of Obamacare. They’ve already sold out (twice!) on the spending caps in the Budget Control Act, and they’re about to do it […]
[…] raised the spending caps again in […]
[…] Sadly, the fifth option is not very likely. Under current law, there are partial spending caps as a result of the 2011 Budget Control Act. But big-spending Republicans cancelled the sequester in 2013, and then cancelled another sequester in 2015. […]
[…] had in recent years was the sequester. And even that victory has been tarnished by the 2013 and 2015 deals that weakened the caps on discretionary […]
[…] has reverted to (bad) form, voting last year to weaken spending […]
[…] are several reasons for this deterioration, including sub-par economic performance, failure to comply with spending caps, and adoption of new fiscal […]
[…] are several reasons for this deterioration, including sub-par economic performance, failure to comply with spending caps, and adoption of new fiscal […]
[…] we even got a sequester in early 2013. But then later that year, and last year as well, Republicans joined with Democrats to bust the spending […]
[…] GOPers decided, as part of their capitulation on spending caps (again!), to boost the IRS’s budget. I’m not joking. The Hill has a report […]
[…] GOPers decided, as part of their capitulation on spending caps (again!), to boost the IRS’s budget. I’m not joking. The Hill has a […]
[…] keep capitulating on the BCA spending caps, enabling more wasteful outlays for so-called discretionary […]
[…] keep capitulating on the BCA spending caps, enabling more wasteful outlays for so-called discretionary […]
[…] the way, to get further depressed, this means that the terrible agreement to bust the spending caps just became even […]
[…] get a failing grade. Sure enough, Republicans deliberately fumbled the ball at the goal line and agreed to higher spending. […]
[…] the way, to get further depressed, this means that the terrible agreement to bust the spending caps just became even […]
[…] the way, to get further depressed, this means that the terrible agreement to bust the spending caps just became even […]
[…] they reducing the burden of spending? Nope, they just busted the spending caps […]
[…] they reducing the burden of spending? Nope, they just busted the spending caps […]
[…] I’m not sure why the United States isn’t on the list. After all, we actually had some very good changes in 2012-2014 period (though we’ve recently regressed). […]
Can you explain the chart from the liberal center on budget and policy priorities which makes it look like the house is the most fiscally conservative in history?
[…] article at Daniel Mitchell’s website […]
Of all the democracies in the world, I’ve only heard of Switzerland Of all the democracies a in the world, I’ve only heard of Switzerland having a debt brake. That pretty much tells us what is the chance American voter-lemmings will impose one on their own dear government.
America will avoid hitting the debt ceiling and causing a global crisis… …until America’s substandard two percent growth rate compounds America’s prosperity rankings into the middle income country group. At that point America’s GDP will be a much smaller fraction of total world. So America will not matter much anyway and will be able to do whatever she wants.
I know my comments sound repetitive. But at a 2% growth deficit to world average growth, the arithmetic is straightforward:
Between any two of Zorba’s successive messages on two consecutive days, America loses almost a billion dollars in its world prosperity rankings. Day in, day out.
I make $70,000 a year but I’m spending $100,000 a year. I realize this is a problem and I’m working on a plan to get my finances under control. Step 1 is that I will limit my spending for next year to only $110,000. As my original plan was to spend $120,000, this amounts to a $10,000 spending cut. Also, I’ve decided to buy one less apple per week, which should save about $25 for the year.
My question is: Do you think this is a good plan, or is it too drastic and extreme? Is cutting back on the apples unnecessarily endangering my family’s health?
As a severely liberal Democrat, I was worried when I first heard about these negotiations. But after hearing the details I must say that the President got everything he could have wished for and the Republicans got nothing, It makes me so happy.
Unless “fiscal restraint” includes next year and every year thereafter, it is “fiscal profligacy”.
[…] Summarizing the New Budget Deal: Spend More Now and Promise to Spend Less in the Future […]