Posted on 07/27/2011 6:23:40 PM PDT by Hojczyk
A modest improvement, but let’s face it: At this point, no one’s supporting the bill on its merits. If you’re backing it, it’s because it’s the best we can do to avert a default right now and because, if it passes the Senate somehow, it would force The One to choke on his quasi-threat to veto any short-term deal at the last minute. There’s some fun in that, I suppose.
The new bill does, at least, keep his promise to produce savings in an amount greater than or equal to the amount of the debt-ceiling increase, which will be $900 billion if this is enacted. It’s hard to get excited about the difference between $1 billion in savings next year, which the old bill provided, and $22 billion, which the new one ensures, when we’re running multitrillion dollar deficits. But Yuval Levin makes a fair point. The lower we can get CBO’s baseline now, the deeper future Congresses will have to cut to sell their proposals:
These are still very small numbers in the scheme of federal spending, but the greater front-loading actually matters a lot. One reason is that the 2012 and 2013 budgets are the only ones that will actually be under the control of this congress. But even more important is the greater reduction of the baseline itself since, as we’ve witnessed in the past 24 hours, the CBO baseline is the measure of all future cuts—it sets the bar. This debt limit fight has set a precedent that from now on increases in the debt ceiling will need to be accompanied by equivalent cuts in spending, and those cuts will be measured by the CBO baseline, so cutting it by this much in the first two years will really shape the next round of the budget wars, which will come very soon. Front-loaded cuts have a kind of ratchet effect. And the larger cuts to the baseline in the following years (the revised bill’s cuts are larger every year than the original bill’s cuts) matter for the same reason—even if they don’t fully materialize (since one congress can’t bind another), they define the measure of future spending in every round of budget debates, which means that they make all future cuts larger in real terms.
Reid’s bill would produce $30 billion in savings this year, but guess where that comes from. Right: The phantom “savings” from winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which, contra Levin, reminds us that it’s not that hard to beat those CBO baselines with a creative gimmick or two.
As of early evening, another member of the Cut, Cap, and Balance coalition has peeled off to join Allen West in supporting Boehner’s bill. And Darrell Issa, on a conference call with bloggers, thinks they have the votes — sort of. Exit quotation: “I don’t think all the people whose votes we have yet know it.”
The bill is a big fat zero! Loser!!
They’ll spend more money - money we don’t have - during the time this bill is debated than this bill will save.
Scrap it and try again, Crybaby.
Crybaby couldn’t even give us a token of 150 billion for 2012.
Actually, given the late date, the 2011 savings are O.K. with me— but $917 billion over 10 years is clearly not enough.
Actually, given the late date, the 2011 savings are O.K. with me— but $917 billion over 10 years is clearly not enough.
Waste of time...We need the senate and white house...the only thing we have done is change the walk in D.C. from taxes to spending cuts...Rat senators will not vote for tax increases with the election in 2012...a spending freeze ...would get us 9.8 trillion over 10 years
chump change.
No, not a pun... he is nuts and perhaps forcing him to give up the credit card will make him do something really nuts, like veto.
.
“aint got no quantitative statutory budgetary restraints”...
raise the debt ceiling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoS52fVtVQM
I call BS! You get 22$ billion in savings and 1 trillion more in spending.(That's 45 dollars spent for every dollar trimmed) This fairy dust saving over ten years is just the same old lie they have been feeding us for years. Doing nothing means we get a balanced budget this year!
Boy....that will make a dent in $14.5 Trillion. They are fools and thieves.
Again, now, this is not what is. It is how it is scored. If the Boehner plan were a simple freeze — we’re not going to spend another dime next year beyond what we spent this year — it would equal a nine and a $9.5 trillion cut because the baseline in our budget obviously includes $9.5 trillion of new spending, minimum, over the next ten years.
Rush today
$22 Billion? What’s that, 3 weeks of borrowing?
917 Billion in “future cuts” are phantom cuts, never to be enacted.
22 Billion in current cuts.
And we spend 10 Billion a day. So that’s about 2 days worth of cuts and 917 billion that will NEVER Materialize. Another sham from the folks that brought us TARP, STIMULUS and the CR Deal.
I call BS! You get 22$ billion in savings and 1 trillion more in spending.(That’s 45 dollars spent for every dollar trimmed)
///
...and, what is just the INTEREST total, on the 1 trillion,
for just the next 10 years ?
(especially after rates rise, after the inevitable downgrade.)
No, that is King and Queen Obamas travel budget.
We are borrowing $100 billion per month, so $22 billion is about 6 days of borrowing.
The freeze idea rests on the following concepts:
1) The country, in 10 years, has no population growth.
2) The country, in 10 years, has no inflation
3) The country, in 10 years, has no GDP growth
What are the odds of all three of those, and it does require all three to make it work, being true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.