Could I make a request of the Pragmatists. Stop calling spending increases 'spending cuts.' I guarantee you that the federal budget in 2012 will be larger than the federal budget in 2011. That means in plain English that spending will have increased. And conversely, that there will have been no 'cut' in federal spending.
When you label a reduction in the rate of federal spending as a spending cut, you fall into the trap of allowing the left to define the terms of the debate. In other words, by playing the left's game, you allow them to label us as mean, miserly Grinches while they still get to increase the size of the gov't.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't mind being called a Grinch. In fact, I would wear that badge proudly, but only, if for once, it was true.
Update II: Via Jeff Dunetz, National Journal’s Major Garrett also gets a similar story from his sources, but the news is a little better:
•2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
•The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
•The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
•If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
•No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.
Sounds preposterous to me.