The Debt Deal's Fake Spending Cuts

Cato's Chris Edwards offers yet another reminder that cutting from a baseline of rising spending, as yesterday's debt deal calls for, is not the same as cutting spending from this year's levels. 

The “cuts” in the deal are only cuts from the CBO “baseline,” which is a Washington construct of ever-rising spending. These “cuts” from the baseline include $156 billion of interest savings, which are imaginary because the underlying cuts are imaginary.

No program or agency terminations are identified in the deal. None of the vast armada of federal subsidies are targeted for elimination. Old folks will continue to gorge themselves on inflated benefits paid for by young families and future generations. None of Senator Tom Coburn’s or Senator Rand Paul’s specific cuts were included.

The federal government will still run a deficit of $1 trillion next year. This deal will “cut” the 2012 budget of $3.6 trillion by just $22 billion, or less than 1 percent.

The timing of the cuts is important. The deal kicks most of the cuts to the back of the Congressional Budget Office's 10-year spending window, which means they may not occur at all. As the Manhattan Institute's Josh Barro notes, it's not only that less than one percent of the deal's baseline spending reductions occur in the 2012 fiscal year. It's also that "the long term changes will be subject to revision by future Congresses," which means they aren't a credible commitment to cutting much of anything. When this year's Congress calls for baseline spending cuts to occur ten years down the road, conditioned on the approval of another Congress, it's a decent bet that at least some of the cuts will never occur at all. 

Post updated to fix a typo and make a few clarifications. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    There will be no cuts. We've gone past the point of any sanity. The parasites in Congress and the White House no longer have any connection to reality, and therefore will not behave in a rational manner, as their world is not rational.

  • Bingo||

    No, dude. The Tea Party will save us. Just gotta elect the other team in 2012 and all will be good.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You can't buy votes with cuts.

  • sasob||

    You can't buy them with asswipe either and if they keep on the way they have, the Dollar won't even be worth that down the road.

  • sasob||

    'Course it will still be "the prettiest girl at the dance" - preferable to other countries' asswipe.

  • The Croatian Kuna||

    Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

  • ||

    Eh, nothing and trivial cuts is still better than the actively digging a bigger hole and increasing past the projections of 2000-2010.

  • Congress||

    Ah, thanks, John! You're clearly one of the 3% who view us favorably.

  • ||

    No, not at all, these deal is far, far less than what is necessary. But it is an improvement from the deals from 2001 to 2010.

  • Congress||

    Wow! Thanks again!

  • ||

    Its a total sham. I don't see how that's an improvement on anything.

    Any cuts that are actually made in the next 10 years (even cuts from the baseline) will be made without any reference whatsoever to this deal.

  • ||

    Except for the procedural protections given to the deal for FY 2012 and FY 2013, per John Thacker.

  • Bingo||

    It's not "better than", if it isn't fiscally sustainable then it's effectively the same thing.

    The Democrats and Republicans are basically arguing over grocery bills when they have a 3 Ferrari payments and a mortgage on a $5 million dollar mansion. The grocery bills aren't the problem.

  • ||

    But...but...he has to get you to vote TEAM RED somehow, dude!

  • ||

    You're the ones arguing that we can't possibly criticize the Republican spending spree from 2000-2008, or the 2009 stimulus, or anything else. It wasn't fiscally sustainable before that, so it didn't matter. It was "effectively the same thing" to have or not have those spending increase.

    You're like those people who complain that we can't cut defense, or whatever their favorite program is, because it's only a small piece of the pie, so we'd still be fiscally unsustainable away, so "it's meaningless to cut my program."

    Bingo makes the same arguments as the "keep your hands off my Medicare" people.

  • ||

    I'd rather have '94-'99 Clinton with a Republican Congress than just Team Red, because of the nature of the game theoretic rewards in political coalitions. Give me a Grover Cleveland.

    But it's no more intelligent to pretend that there are yawning gulfs between parties or proposals than to ignore differences when they exist.

  • ||

    if it isn't fiscally sustainable then it's effectively the same thing.

    Ah, so you have no criticism of Obamacare or the stimulus in 2009, or of the Republican spending binge from 2000-2003, because we were already fiscally sustainable without those?

    It's "effectively the same thing," right?

  • Bingo||

    Thacker, I have other things to do than play semantics with you. You can defend your beloved political party's strategy all you want. The fact is that if the Big Fiscal Problems aren't addressed then the outcome is the same, no matter what party in charge.

    Ta-ta.

  • ||

    I don't care about the party in charge, Bingo. The fact is that we both agree that this deal is as good as possibly can be expected out of Washington, not least because the electorate simply isn't libertarian, and yet the deal is not enough.

    We're all going to die, but I see no reason to prefer it happening sooner simply because the end outcome is the same.

  • John Thacker's Grandchild||

    I'll remember that, Gramps.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    They aren't even proposing "trivial" cuts. They are making cuts to "projected" spending, which basically means they are going to spend slightly less than what they would have otherwise spent.

    Taxes=Revenue.
    Tax cuts=Expenditures.
    Not spending as much=Cuts.

  • ||

    Oh, sure. But considering that the standard behavior for 2000 to 2010 was to spend more than projected spending, and increase the rate of spending faster, this is still slightly better.

    Not enough, granted.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    To paraphrase Dr. Paul, this is like choosing to buy a Mercedes rather than Ferrari and claiming that you "cut" $100,000 from your budget, while in reality, all you can afford is a Honda.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Paul is right. However, you're still better off than just buying the Ferrari.

  • ||

    In order to get the fake "cuts", we're going to increase the federal govts credit line by over $2 trillion.

    Of course, the way the fed prints money, the $2 trillion is about as worthless as the spending cuts.

  • TPTB||

    ** laughs up sleeve **

  • sarcasmic||

    not taking = giving
    not giving = taking

    The tax man taking less is a gift.
    The government not sending a check is theft.

  • ||

    They are making cuts to "projected" spending, which basically means they are going to spend slightly less than what they would have otherwise spent.

    Not even that. What is spent in any year except FY 2012 is 100% under the control of a future Congress, which is not bound in any way by this deal.

    They have, essentially, said "We earnestly pinky-swear that somebody else will do what we have refused to do."

  • somebody else||

    "We earnestly pinky-swear that somebody else will do what we have refused to do."

    Careful what you ask for.

  • ||

    Elect 50 more Rand Pauls and it would make a difference.

  • Bingo||

    While we're at it, I would like a pet unicorn and Salma Hayek as my wet nurse. Because those are equally as likely as 50 Rand Pauls getting elected in this country.

  • ||

    So what you're saying, then, is that given the composition of the electorate and this country, that the deal we just got represents the high end of possible political outcomes, and exceeded your expectations?

    Sounds like quite a vote of confidence.

    If this is as good as you could possibly expect, why be so angry at the deal, as opposed to being angry at the collective mass of Americans? We're getting what we deserve, and actually about the best one could expect.

  • some guy||

    If this is as good as you could possibly expect, why be so angry at the deal, as opposed to being angry at the collective mass of Americans?

    You must be new here... We're mad at everyone.

  • ||

    You're the one with the outsized expectations of this country, its voters, and its representatives actually solving the Big Fiscal Problems. That has no connection to reality.

    Me, I admit that we're all going to die, but I still prefer a few extra years. Most people do; that's why people don't commit suicide as soon as they realize their mortality.

  • Jim||

    Your underlying assumption though is that elections are clean, fair, represent the will of the people, and are not rigged through gerrymandering to ensure total domination by the two existing parties.

    If you only have a couple of choices, and NONE of those choices are running on a "let's end the charade and actually bust this motherfucker open" platform, then the electorate is NOT the problem.

    Remember, resignation is not endorsement and compliance is not consent. If in la-la example land I offered you two busted, broken-down cars, one Ford and one GM, but forbid you (or at least made it as difficult as humanly possible) to go out and purchase a different one, then I don't get to claim that you got what was coming to you by selecting the Ford. You would be right to complain that it's still broken-down; the fact that I removed your other choices does not put the burden of responsibility on your shoulders for that selection.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Make no mistake. The electorate is not only part of the problem, it's probably the biggest part.

  • ||

    ---"and are not rigged through gerrymandering to ensure total domination by the two existing parties."---

    Here in California, we have eliminated the middleman. Primaries are now "non-partisan" in the sense that all candidates run on the same ballot and the top two (and TWO only) are on the genral election ballot. This effectively eliminates third party candidates from the general election.

  • Joe M||

    Tell me more about this wet nurse idea.

  • sarcasmic||

    Stop electing lawyers.

    Vote for anyone but the lawyer.

  • Philosopher-King||

    The parasites in Congress and the White House no longer have any connection to reality

    WHAT IS REALITY?!

  • ||

    WHAT IS REALITY?!

    That which when you stop believing in it, still is.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.

  • Socratease ||

    It's all those shadowy figures doing shit behind your back. :-)

  • ||

    The parasites in Congress and the White House no longer have any connection to reality

    When did they ever?

    On the scale of possible outcomes, this is sadly towards the top end. Not enough to save us, but better than what they were doing from 2001 to 2010.

  • ||

    Here's hoping that enough Republicans sack up and vote this POS deal down. Default is better than continuing to pretend we have dealt with this problem.

  • Restoras||

    Politicians don't have this quality - so don't expect it to magically appear.

  • Mainer||

    They are like Ken dolls

  • OO=======D||

    Ouch!

  • GroundTruth||

    I'm gonna use that one... alot!

    Thanks!

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    If we can get more D's than R's to vote for it we might get a slightly less wimpy speaker. There is a 10% chance he won't also be a SoCon ahole too.

    Thats the most realistic optimism I can project onto the situation.

  • sasob||

    Politicians don't mind only pretending that they have dealt with the problem, because it isn't going to be a problem for them. The entire economy could collapse, but they are still going to be the ones on the top of the heap. All through history no matter how bad off the populace was the rulers were always relatively comfortable. That's just the nature of having rulers - and there will always be rulers.

  • In Time of War||

    And they want to create a bi-partisan committee to study the issue. I'm thinking some sort of huge, bloated government bureaucracy tasked with the mission of reducing the cost of government is in order.

    For the very low salary of $900K/yr w/full benefits, I will lead this organization.

  • In Time of War||

    btw, "full benefits" would include a small harem of executive assistants. I just want to be clear on that.

  • ||

    ---"btw, "full benefits" would include a small harem of executive assistants."---

    I will settle for Salma Hayek for a wetnurse.

  • some guy||

    The committee isn't just bipartisan, it spans both chambers of Congress too. I expect it to have about half as much success as the Gang-of-Six.

  • MJ||

    "This deal will “cut” the 2012 budget of $3.6 trillion by just $22 billion, or less than 1 percent."

    Yet according to political writer like E.J. Dionne, these tiny, fake cuts represent:

    "...cuts in programs that would have seemed radical and draconian even a couple of years ago."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

    How do you get to really changing how the feds finance government when these kind of false, accountant gimmick cuts are viewed as beyond the pale?

  • Restoras||

    How do you get to really changing how the feds finance government when these kind of false, accountant gimmick cuts are viewed as beyond the pale?

    At this point, probably only with a complete collapse.

  • ||

    We will deliver said complete collapse soon enough . . .

  • Restoras||

    Woodja hurry up please so we can go about starting up the Second American Republic?

  • sarcasmic||

    I wouldn't be to hasty.
    I fear the result of a Constitutional Convention would look more like this than this.

  • fish||

    I fear the result of a Constitutional Convention would look more like this than this.

    You are far too kind and have far too high an opinion of the American electorate.

    Probably much more like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpfHBicjQk

  • sarcasmic||

    Can't get to youtube from here.

  • Rich||

    We had jolly well better have some of this before it's all over.

  • fish||

    If I thought that I would have an opportunity to kick the shit out of Pelosi I might consider the self abasement required to run for congress.

  • Restoras||

    Historical precedent is on your side, absolutely.

  • ||

    Ahem ... AHEM!

    The THIRD American Republic, if you please.

  • wef||

    Aren't they cute? Just watch them playing make-believe with other people's money in debasement.

  • NoVAHockey||

    But "free" birth control. so i guess they announced that today to placate the liberals who were making some noise about thinking about considering not voting for Obama's re-election

  • In Time of War||

    Free birth control is a "human right".

  • T||

    Yeah, it's called "not fucking" and is available for free everywhere.

  • Anthony Weiner||

    How ya doin'?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    B-b-b-but, we're like, sexual beings and junk!

  • ||

    You managed it for the first thirteen years of your life, before you decided to sleep your way to Straight A's in Junior High.

    It's called "keeping your knees together".

  • .||

    Or learning to swallow.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Or taking it in the pooper.

    Nobody ever got pregnant from the pooper.

  • fish||

    Bullshit...where do politicians come from?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Bullshit...where do politicians come from?

    Pods.

    Or Harvard.

    Same thing.

  • GroundTruth||

    It's called taking matters into your own hands.

  • ||

    It's not free as you will be paying for it

  • sarcasmic||

  • T||

    So there is such a thing as a free lunch? Sweet.

  • sarcasmic||

    None of Senator Tom Coburn’s or Senator Rand Paul’s specific cuts were included.

    What do Tom Coburn and Rand Paul have in common?

    Neither of them are lawyers.

  • Colin||

    In essence, they are the opposite of lawyers: doctors.

  • sarcasmic||

    I never thought of it that way, but they indeed are opposites.

  • ||

    Well, not complete opposites. Both professions are prone to egomania, narcissism, and good incomes.

  • kinnath||

    I read an article last week from a dedicated progressive that was talking about "baseline" budgeting where everything is based up on the inflation index -- a budget increase less than the CPI represents a "cut" from baseline.

    The progressive was saying that after trying to figure out exactly what "cuts" were going to be included or not included which the differing budget deals, he began to understand why the "tea partiers" were always pissed off at the government.

    He didn't make a full repudiation of the progressive agenda, but he did seem somewhat chastened.

  • ||

    The slow realization that you've been a dupe your entire life has to start somewhere.

  • Mainer||

    I'm proof it can happen

  • Restoras||

    And me!

  • Scruffy||

    Seconded.

  • sarcasmic||

    I once felt as liberals do.

    Now I think differently.

  • WTF||

    I once felt as liberals do.

    Now I think differently.

    FTFY

  • Moe19||

    +1000 for WTF

  • sarcasmic||

    nice

  • ||

    Count me in.

  • Jim||

    Same here. We should all confess our sins, and repent of our past lives.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Former liberal here...

  • Jim||

    Same. I was a raging socialist in college. The funny thing was, I had figured out that they were full of shit less than a year after graduating and getting a "real" job. I thought, "You know, a monkey should be able to look at this (how a business actually runs) and figure out that this whole progressive economic agenda is unworkable". It just took a few years of drifting to finally find the only group of people who consistently make sense.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I hadn't even gotten out of college when it started dawning on me. I voted libertarian even before I really was one, out of disgust at the 2 party system.

  • kinnath||

    I voted for Ed Clark in 1976, my first opportunity to vote at the age of 19. So I have been a committed libertarian my entire adult life.

  • kinnath||

    Sorry, 1980. I was 23. I skipped the opportunity to choose between Ford and Carter.

  • ||

    Me as well.

  • GroundTruth||

    And I.

  • Rhywun||

    Same here - it was just the default where I'm from, inner-city upstate NY. I still think Republicans are evil, but now I know Democrats are evil too.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I thought the first Iraq war was "cool". Of course I was 20 and full of Testosterone, so I forgave myself for that a while back.

  • Coeus||

    Hi. My name is Coeus,
    -sniffles slightly-
    and I used to be a liberal. I used to vote Democrat with little thought. I defended my choices by saying...
    -begins sobbing uncontrollably-
    that the Rebublicans would be worse.

  • Rich||

    The “cuts” in the deal are only cuts from the CBO “baseline,” which is a Washington construct of ever-rising spending. These “cuts” from the baseline include $156 billion of interest savings, which are imaginary because the underlying cuts are imaginary. No program or agency terminations are identified in the deal. None of the vast armada of federal subsidies are targeted for elimination.

    With all due respect, WTF do these "legislators" "do"?

    I look forward to reading the actual text of the deal.

  • NoVAHockey||

  • Rich||

    ** cracks open an ice-cold ginger ale **

  • Jersey Patriot||

    You need some bourbon and ice.

  • ||

    I would agree. If you're drinking bourbon, you should ice it to kill the taste.

  • OO||

    try sour mash instead

  • NoVAHockey||

    let's just agree on dark liquor.

  • kinnath||

    Armagnac?

  • NoVAHockey||

    section by section analysis

    http://rules.house.gov/Media/f.....vetext/731 CBAsbs v2.pdf

  • Anonymous Coward||

    With all due respect, WTF do these "legislators" "do"?

    We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
    -O'Brien

  • Restoras||

    +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  • T||

    So, what's that first link going to?

  • ||

    When this year's Congress calls for baseline spending cuts to occur ten years down the road, conditioned on the approval of another Congress, it's a decent bet that at least some of the cuts will never occur at all.

    To be more fair, it's a good bet that virtually none of the cuts will actually happen.

    When was the last time congress followed a budget prescription laid down 10 years earlier? Ever?

  • ||

    Not much at the end of any ten year budget window. That's why the nonsense about raising the debt ceiling enough to prevent a repeat is so noxious.

    Cuts don't happen without real deadlines. The libertarianish utopians who say, "Ideally, we'd eliminate the debt ceiling permanently and have this great tax reform and long-term budget deal" are crazy.

    This crap sandwich is the best that things ever get in Washington. Hence, while it's not enough, I'm relatively unperturbed because it's at the high end of my low expectations for DC.

  • Gray Ghost||

    But eventually it will stop. Or will the Treasury just run the presses 24-7?

    What do we think a stoppage would look like? A bond auction where no one shows up other than Fed Reserve shills? Carter-esque inflation?

    When do we think that will be? Before 2016?

  • ||

    "Cato's Chris Edwards offers yet another reminder that cutting from a baseline of rising spending, as yesterday's debt deal calls for, is not the same as cutting spending from this year's levels."

    So...that means that it took all of this--just to get a cut in in the growth rate of spending?

    Then obviously the Tea Party being a minority in the House--with the Speaker not even being in the Tea Party--isn't enough. We need to get rid of Obama too?

    Who knew?!

    It's amazing that the Tea Party was able to wrangle a cut in the growth rate of spending considering they have to take on the Democrats in the Senate and their own Republican leadership too. ...not to mention the President!

    Good work, Tea Party. I didn't think you'd have as big of an impact as you did. There's no way Obama or the Democrats in Congress or your own Republican leadership would have done as much as cutting as they're doing--if it hadn't been for the Tea Party.

  • Biden||

    Terrorist!

  • kinnath||

    Glenn Greewald over at Salon:

    http://www.salon.com/news/budg.....bt_ceiling

    As I wrote back in April when progressive pundits in D.C. were so deeply baffled by Obama's supposed "tactical mistake" in not insisting on a clean debt ceiling increase, Obama's so-called "bad negotiating" or "weakness" is actually "shrewd negotiation" because he's getting what he actually wants (which, shockingly, is not always the same as what he publicly says he wants). In this case, what he wants -- and has long wanted, as he's said repeatedly in public -- are drastic spending cuts. In other words, he's willing -- eager -- to impose the "pain" Cohn describes on those who can least afford to bear it so that he can run for re-election as a compromise-brokering, trans-partisan deficit cutter willing to "take considerable heat from his own party."

    Typing "he's a lying son of a bitch" would have saved Glenn a few keystrokes.

  • ||

    When has that guy ever been interested in saving keystrokes?

  • ||

    If the cuts are a sham -- and I agree that they are -- then the market may be offering a buying opportunity today, because just about every healthcare-related stock is getting absolutely slammed on the fear that real Medicare will result from this bill. I for one and betting that no such thing will happen, and certainly not in a way that has a material effect on bottom lines. This debt deal sucks, but at least it can make me some trading profits!

  • ||

    That should read "real Medicare cuts will result from this bill."

  • NoVAHockey||

    If you're watching C-span they're debating the rule. lot's of criticism, but they're voting for it anyway.

  • Yesman||

    Harumph!

  • Joe M||

    So is there any chance Rand Paul will filibuster this?

  • kinnath||

    Sorry, 1980. I was 23. I skipped the opportunity to choose between Ford and Carter.

  • smz||

    I've read this somewhere before.

  • kinnath||

    Threading failure

  • somebody else||

    I've read this somewhere before.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    The whole deal reminds me more than I like of the parts of The Road to Serfdom about how democratic systems don't work very well when there is no clear majority will, except the will to "get something done" .... then bad stuff happens.

    Wether or not it's constitutional, our "super congress" really looks like a solid step down the road (to serfdom).

  • ||

    What do we think a stoppage would look like?

    That's an interesting question. I tend toward a scenario where an actual legislative/political solution is never reached, the bond market breaks down, money is printed to cover the shortfalls, the currency breaks down, there are massive economic dislocations, and then . . .

    something happens. Constitutional Convention might be the best case scenario. Increasingly authoritarian state, with rationing of damn near everything and appropriation of production, seems more likely. Regardless, the current constitutional republic won't survive in its current form.

  • Gray Ghost||

    That's kind of where I am, R.C. I still tend to the thinking of I-forget-who here a few years ago, who predicted 12-15% inflation, with cutbacks to the major entitlements. That would monetize the debt, but still lead the economy to a softer crash landing. But I think that option requires a willingness to look at spending and honestly try to cut it, if even only a little. Neither side is interested in that, and so I really am beginning to think we're going to hit a fiscal wall. This would not be a good thing, for the reasons described in your second paragraph. With TARP, and the GM bankruptcy, we've already seen a preference for bailing out the politically connected, rather than following established rules of law. Without the shared memes of equality under the law and protection of property, it really does degenerate to guys with guns taking your stuff at gunpoint to give to someone else.

    And this is with things going fairly well domestically (bear with me: no significant wars---we can leave AfPak/Iraq/Libya, etc with no damage to the US other than to our dignity---no large scale civil disorder, what giant disasters we have, floods etc...are manageable). Imagine the problems that would develop with, say, another Arab oil embargo? Or a WMD mass casualty event in this country? Or a series of Malvo/Muhammads underwritten by a foreign power? No, things could be infinitely worse.

    Yet with things this going this well, Codevilla's ruling class still can't seem to figure out that we are running out of money. It doesn't bode well.

  • ||

    Oh, by the way, is there any doubt but if it hadn't been for the tea party, the Dems and Obama would have hit us with higher taxes?

    Any doubt at all?

  • Rich||

    WTF do these "legislators" "do"?

    As a partial answer to my own question, here's an example from The Deal:

    "If the President uses the authority to exempt any personnel account from sequestration under section 255(f), each account within subfunctional category 051 (other than those military personnel accounts for which the authority provided under section 255(f) has been exercised) shall be further reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of non-exempt budgetary resources in that account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to offset the total dollar amount by which outlays are not reduced in military personnel accounts by reason of the use of such authority."

  • fish||

    And yet there are still those that think that this will all turn out okay in the end.

  • dress||

    nothing and trivial cuts is still better than the actively digging a bigger hole.

  • ||

    the link to Cato did not work for me. Can you tell me what the URL actually is (or fix the link)? Would be nice the see the underlying analysis.

    thx, f

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement