It's Debt Reduction Proposal Season!
What are we going to do about our mountain-sized, unsustainable debt and the coming budgepocalypse? If you've got an answer, get in line. The Washington Post reports that between now and Christmas, three separate groups, including the president's own deficit commission, are set to release recommendations on how to manage the growing yearly gap between the country's spending and revenue. Just in time for the holidays!
The key word there is recommendations. Each of the commissions has a slew of budget bigwigs—CEOs, former Congressional Budget Office directors, legislators from both parties, and, on the president's commission, former SEIU president Andy Stern, who has already promised to armor up and stand guard over the nation's entitlement spending. The idea, of course, is that everyone (or at least a bunch of major Beltway constituencies) gets a voice. In theory, the unity of the recommendations will provide cover for legislators to make difficult choices—likely some combination of cutting spending and raising taxes. But the problem with having so many different voices is that unity is hard to come by and harder to sustain. So it's not at all certain that any of the proposals will lead to a significant reordering of the country's fiscal affairs, or even a baby step in the right direction. Here's the GOP's top House budget wonk, Paul Ryan, on the commission's prospects:
"It's unclear where we're going to go," commission member Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who is in line to chair the House Budget Committee, said on Fox News Sunday. "But I don't think you will see a big grand bargain" to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending and fix the nation's budget problems.
Obama certainly seems less than committed: The president has already reserved the right to completely ignore his commission's recommendations, or change his debt-reduction goals, or forget about the issue entirely, if he wants. And the entitlement defense brigade has already made clear that they're ready to do battle over benefit cuts. Meanwhile, many Republicans talk fake-tough about deficit reduction but refuse to even suggest, much less actually fight for, meaningful cuts, particularly in the program with the biggest problems: Medicare. So unless a troop of fiscal-responsibility-obsessed elves stuffs a magical debt-reduction plan in Obama's stocking at Christmas, it's more than likely that by the end of the year, we won't have made any progress toward the adoption of a sustainable fiscal policy.
Read former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin on why the debt commission won't work here. Read Reason on how to slash government spending here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Where do I begin? Whose gov't job can I destroy first? Just the thought of it gives me a tingle up my leg.
Talking about reducing spending: popular
Actual proposals to reduce spending: not so much
What the holy f*ck is going on in that pic?
Barack Obama - not only completely incapable of even the least impressive feats of athletic prowess, he also dances like Elaine Benes on ether. His kid dressed like a power ranger with a foam rubber safety helmet is the Obama household's definition of yuletide cheer.
Oh. I thought it was some bizarre Mohammedan ritual.
I'm no expert man, it could be that.
That pic has me trying to figure out who needs the most help there.
the American people.
+1
Whoever Wins, We Lose.
It looks like their LARPing the Sims...
It looks like a Teletubby enthusing over the awesomeness of The One.
Affirmative Action Teletubby.
You're allowed to say fuck here.
In fact, it's a minimum requirement.
Drop a dollar in, motherfucker.
Fuck yo' swear jar.
"a slew of budget bigwigs?CEOs, former Congressional Budget Office directors, legislators from both parties, and, on the president's commission, former SEIU president Andy Stern..."
Are all these guys going to meet together in the same room at the same time?
If so, I could make some recommendations...
Seal the room forever?
For the love of God, Montresor!
Nice
Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
So unless a troop of fiscal-responsibility-obsessed elves stuffs a magical debt-reduction plan in Obama's stocking at Christmas
I'd be content with them stuffing warm squishy turds in his stocking, considering the likelihood of anything meaningful resulting from these commissions.
Print more money!!!!!!!!!!
Yes yes of course! It will stimulate growth and create jobs. Brilliant!
I have an idea why they want to create inflation. It will cause the price of homes to go up. This will make people feel that they are now worth more and as such, they will be willing to take out second mortgages again and start buying stuff.
Duh. The only problem was that people found out they weren't rich. Tricking people back into thinking they're rich is how you repair the economy.
She sure dresses funny, but Mrs. O does earn some "hottie" points.
Fuck that. I'd rather fuck Obama than Mrs. Obama.
Nothing will happen while Obama is president. We don't need a combination of cuts and taxes, we needs cuts. Period. More than ordinary budget cuts, we need to literally burn liberal America to the ground and slaughter the Sacred Cows Aztec style. Drink the blood, eat the hearts ect...
The house can block ANY spending. Dont pass it and it cant be spent. If I was them, I would set a number (say 18% of GDP) and tell the president they will pass any budget he wants as long as it is under that number. As the projected budget is somewhere around 24-25%, that will be a huge cut.
I'd set a number too -- say 0% of GDP.
ect...oplasm?
Re: "country's spending and revenue"
It's the US federal government's spending and revenue. Let's keep the distinction between our country and its government.
You know who did go against his party and say that the Medicare cuts in Obamacare were on the whole good and shouldn't be demagogued?
That's right, Ken Buck. Yep, he said:
But, err, he lost.
So I'm not sure that the advice of "please Republicans, do what that one guy who lost did, not what a whole bunch of winning candidates did" is going to take.
It's like expecting other GOP candidates to say that the minimum wage should probably be abolished, like Raese did in West Virginia and was pummeled for it by Manchin. Manchin's ads on the minimum wage started his turnaround.
I realize that some people like to think that GOP candidates lost only because of social conservatism. Unfortunately, honest libertarian economic sentiments can be politically poisonous too.
You nailed it John. I can summarize thus:
Reality is unpopular.
Fantasy is popular.
Elections are popularity contests.
Do the math.
*I know that #2 is true because I see the Victoria's Secret catalogs that come to my house every few days.
I remember the days when I was young enough that Victoria's Secret catalogs were all the porn I needed.
I'm old enough to remember when they featured tons of women's suits, sweaters, lamb-suede shirts and men's bathrobes.
If you want someone who has managed to win and is talking both entitlement cuts and defense spending cuts, there's this interview with Mitch "truce on social issues" Daniels.
...Mike Huckabee...Rick Santorum...
He does make some interesting enemies...
The enemy of my enemy...
Daniels wants to try to get "50 percent plus one" in a national election running as a cost-cutter for whom Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense are all on the table. "Damn, these are supposed to be the third rails, impossible," he continues. "But I'm optimistic it can be done. We need a new compact for young people."
Now that's what I'm talking about!
Social Security: welfare for old people, whether they need it or not. End it, and just let them use regular welfare if necessary.
Medicare: medical welfare for old people, whether they need it or not. Just stick with Medicaid.
"Defense": welfare for military equipment manufacturers. Just go back to a volunteer militia, and dare anyone to invade.
I'd take Daniels more seriously if his "entitlement cuts" including fucking cocksucker welfare queens like Jim Irsay and Herb Simon.
Fucking those parasites is a good idea just out of principle.
Typing is hard.
Here's a lesson for jelly-spined Republicans who are tempted to bolt at the first sign of protest at budget cuts: You're going to be smeared as a flint-hearted ogre panting to get Granny eating Alpo no matter what. It's the most basic play in the Democrat arsenal. Embrace it, and go at this budget with a fucking chainsaw. You might get bounced from office, sure, but that would happen anyway so you might as well do the right thing.
So are you advising them to lie in the first place in order to get elected and avoid what happened to Ken Buck so they can win office in the first place?
I'm advising them to do what needs to be done to avoid catastrophe and to be tough-minded about it.
I still find that kind of vague. So if being honest about what needs to be done before the election results in catastrophic losses and a Congress and President that enacts single-payer and a bunch of other things, you'd be against that, right?
Do you think that the "Do-Nothing" Congress was worth it and accomplished enough in two years to make up for getting pummeled and having a minority for years? Taft-Hartley was an improvement, and the election results got price controls lifted, so I'm inclined to say yes.
I dont see anything about lying to get elected. They are already elected, pull out the chainsaws.
Exactly right.
I'm ready for a budget massacre. No holds barred, cage fight to the death, type of budget massacre.
And we will all be sorely disappointed.
But I thought people were complaining that they didn't run on large enough and specific enough budget cuts.
I'm not saying I disagree necessarily, but to clarify, if being really vague about spending cuts was a clever ploy to get votes and they now go on a huge chainsaw wielding budget cut spree, you'll agree it was all worth it and take back criticism?
Obama himself has declared everything "on the table" for the talks
*Everything*? Annexing North Korea? Auctioning off a night with the First Lady? Requiring a high school diploma for welfare eligibility? Letting Ron Paul head up the Federal Reserve?
"Requiring a high school diploma for welfare eligibility?"
That would be great.
If America is holding a "Going Out of Business" sale, how much do you want for Arizona or Hawaii (just the Big Island, not the whole state)?
Here's hoping that one of these many commissions goes after the low-hanging fruit. I'm sure that many of us here would like to see a great number of things cut or eliminated entirely, but I'm afraid that those aren't wide-spread sentiments. Having said that, there is a large percentage of the budget that only those ignorant of the numbers (or those making a profit on it) could even attempt to defend. Let's hope that we see pragmatic solutions to solve the deficit through reasonable items. Limit SS outlays to match SS revenues (because there is no trust fund, dammit.) Start means-testing Medicare. Cut the military budget by quite a bit. Eliminate federal departments that are useless or worse (I'm looking at you, NEA, ED, and parts of HUD.)
There may be a time to advocate anarcho-capitalism. When all the grandmothers are baking Christmas cookies before everyone comes over isn't that time. Let's make some easy cuts first, then when people realize that cuts != anarchy, we can get into cutting a little more.
Low hanging fruit wont get us back below 18% of GDP.
Let's make some easy cuts first, then when people realize that cuts != anarchy, we can get into cutting a little more.
Gigantic cuts are easier to make than "easy" cuts, though. With small cuts, there's very little benefit to the masses, and vocal, organized protest from the ones whose ox is getting gored.
With massive cuts, the benefits to most of us in reduced taxes are tangible, so we're willing to give up some of our goodies.
Now's the time in budget season when we dance!
PLAY MY SONG!
Haven't you heard? Budgets are already to the bone.
Actually, the commission's preliminary report that came out isn't half-bad. Lefties will go absolutely ape-shit over it.
That's good enough for now.
But I want blood running in the streets from all of the cutting of the budget after a while.
I hope to oblige.
How about a 100-year moratorium on new laws and new government programs? Just let the productive economy catch up and dwarf the parasitic one.
As a side benefit, all the Congressmen can be sent home, without pay or pensions, since they won't be needed.