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.
International Liberty 
[…] This is sort of like the “baseline math” that is used to measure supposed spending cuts when the budget actually is getting bigger. […]
[…] This is sort of like the “baseline math” that is used to measure supposed spending cuts when the budget actually is getting bigger. […]
[…] This is sort of like the “baseline math” that is used to measure supposed spending cuts when the budget actually is getting bigger. […]
[…] the plan – even after being in place for 10 years – assumes that the federal government should grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far above the 18.2 percent of GDP when […]
[…] dishonest approach also was used by the President’s Fiscal Commission and last year’s crummy debt limit deal was based on this form of fiscal […]
[…] the plan – even after being in place for 10 years – assumes that the federal government should grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far above the 18.2 percent of GDP when […]
[…] started by discussing the President’s failure to embrace the findings of his own Fiscal Commission and then shifted to the big-picture issue of whether the American people have become ensnared by […]
[…] dishonest approach also was used by the President’s Fiscal Commission and last year’s crummy debt limit deal was based on this form of fiscal […]
[…] dishonest approach also was used by the President’s Fiscal Commission and last year’s crummy debt limit deal was based on this form of fiscal […]
[…] Alan 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 […]
[…] started by discussing the President’s failure to embrace the findings of his own Fiscal Commission and then shifted to the big-picture issue of whether the American people have become ensnared by […]
[…] the plan – even after being in place for 10 years – assumes that the federal government should grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far above the 18.2 percent of GDP when […]
[…] – even after being in place for 10 years – assumes that the federal government should grow by about $1.5 trillion and consume nearly 22 percent of economic output. This is far about the 18.2 percent of GDP when […]
[…] started by discussing the President’s failure to embrace the findings of his own Fiscal Commission and then shifted to the big-picture issue of whether the American people have become ensnared by […]
[…] the same logic that has a decrease in the rate of spending increases labeled a “cut,” even though spending in the next cycle will still be higher in the previous cycle. As a writer who believes in using clear English*, this drives me insane. It has to […]
Baseline budgeting is why all proposals spending cuts and spending restraints always amount to nothing. If a program is always going to grow at 6%–or whatever the number each year–how can there really be any decrease in spending? Simply, there can’. Politicians can say they are cutting spending but they are only really cutting the future growth of spending. All of the talk about higher taxes and lower spending is really pointless until this problem is resolved.
[…] 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 […]
[…] Alan 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] to find $1.5 trillion of additional “deficit reduction” over the next 10 years (based on Washington math, of […]
[…] find $1.5 trillion of additional “deficit reduction” over the next 10 years (based on Washington math, of […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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. […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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…. […]
[…] 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 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…. […]
[…] 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: […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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 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 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 […]
Ok. Just like Mr. Mitchell’s legacy to the world is slated to be his “Mitchell’s Law”,
https://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)
[…] 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 […]