Budget

CBO Gives Revised Boehner Plan $917 Billion In Deficit Reduction

|

Doin' a number on this debt plan thing.

Yesterday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner got word from the Congressional Budget Office that his debt plan didn't reduce the deficit by the roughly $1.2 trillion he'd initially promised. Indeed, if enacted, the CBO estimated that Republican plan would only drop the deficit from its current baseline by about $850 billion—less, even, than the $900 billion debt hike to which the cuts were tied—with just $5 billion in cuts during the next fiscal year. So Boehner and his staff called in rewrite.

As of this evening, the revised results are in. CBO now projects that Boehner's proposal would reduce the deficit by about $917 billion, including $22 billion in the 2012 fiscal year, meaning that the total 10-year deficit reduction would match the accompanying debt limit hike on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Despite not reaching even a full trillion bucks in cuts, the Speaker's office is claiming victory: "CBO's analysis confirms that the spending cuts are greater than the debt hike – affirming that the House GOP bill meets the critical test House Republicans have said they will insist upon for any bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling." 

NEXT: Allow Me to Introduce My Victim

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.

  1. Dear Zod, it’s not that hard! Cut fucking spending! Really!

    1. WE HAVE PLENTY MONEY, IT BEEN STOLEN FROM US.

      Vonns told me this factoid.

    2. Dear Zod, it’s not that hard! Cut fucking spending! Really!

      [::blank look::]

      1. [::blank look::]

        1. [::blank look::]

          1. [::blank look::]

            1. [::blank look::]

    3. Minions of Plebos, who dares to disturb Zod, during my sleepy time.

    1. I like how Obama puts the 3+ trillion recession loses in gray.

      “Umm yes after taking in less revenues because of the recession we continued to spend as if there was no recession….but yeah that spending is not our fault.”

      I also like how Bush’s tax cut was considered spending.

      “um yes taxes were cut but we kept spending as if there was no tax cuts. So not only is that not our fault that is Bush’s fault….and yes I did not veto extending the Bush tax cut because if i did veto it then i would not have gotten the spending increases i wanted”

      1. Tax cuts are considered spending because in the statist’s view, the economy originates from the government, the government is the number 1 priority of the economy, and any money left after taxes is money that the government allows you to keep.

        1. Even better is the way that Obama lists the second Tarp bill at $800 and then a ONE TIME ONLY -“WE’RE SUPER SERIAL THIS TIME YOU GUYS FOR REAL”- “emergency costs and benefits” as if the first two Tarps never happened.

          What a complete and utter load of horseshit. He should be impeached for lying under oath for this. I would be more surprised by this if I hadn’t become so used to it at this point.

          1. There was no “second TARP bill” you stupid asshole.

            1. The $800 billion “recovery act” was the second TARP, fuck face.

              1. The Recovery Act was 1/3 tax cuts – jack off.

                How did TARP help you? (assuming you even work)

                1. The Recovery Act did have some tax “incentives”, but only things like the $115 billion New payroll tax credit- whoopee an extra $400 of my money back since I earn less than $75K. There was another $100 billion or so blown on things like the AMT, expanded EITC, the Homebuyers credit, the Home “energy credit”, or expanded college credit (helllooo tuition bubble!).

                  But none of this changes the fact that the second recovery act spent MORE than the first TARP bill on things that have not provided anything useful to stimulate the economy, which was what it was advertised as.

                  “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”

                  Or-

                  “TARP TWO: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!!”

                  Also, fuck you.

                2. The Recovery Act was 1/3 tax cuts – jack off.

                  __________

                  It’s now called “spending in the tax code.”

                  1. Crap, I thought it was “revenue adjustment” today.

                    1. So nice today. Glad the debt ceiling blues haven’t caught up to the comment thread.

                3. The Recovery Act was 1/3 tax cuts – jack off.

                  A tax credit financed by debt issuance is not a tax cut–jack off. In fact, it’s a net negative on taxpayers once the bond has to be paid off.

      2. And those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all Bush’s fault. He made Obama continue fighting them because…well, fuck, I don’t know, but he did.

      3. I also like how Bush’s tax cut was considered spending.

        EVERYTHING THAT IS “YOURS” IS, IN ACTUALITY, MINE. MINE, D’YOU HEAR ME? MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE — !!!

        1. All your base are belong to us!

    2. Okay, so that’s what a publicly financed campaign ad looks like.

      1. Actually – Obama 2008 was privately financed. Contrast to McCain/Palin.

        1. Obama was better than McCain/Palin in a lot of ways…up until he entered office.

          1. After which he became worse than Bush.

          2. Obama was better than McCain/Palin in a lot of ways…up until he entered office.

            Suckas.

            1. We just wanted the Hope Diamond. Suckas.

              1. “BOOM, baby.”

              2. If you hadn’t gone so goddamn looney and THEN doubled down by adding Palin to the ticket, you could have won you old coot! Shouldn’t you be off hunting Mexicans somewhere? I guess you can do that from your computer now.

                1. Shyeah. Because, plainly, the American electorate in ’08 was stone terrified by the prospect of electing someone with a certified dullard in the VP slot on their party’s ticket.

                  [::facepalm::]

    3. At the start of Bush the debt was about 5.6 trillion. at the end it was about 10 trillion. So bush spent about 4.4 trillion

      Obama started with 10 trillion in debt and is now at 14.5 trillion

      It took 8 years for Bush to borrow 4.4 trillion and it took only 2.5 years for Obama to borrow 4.5 trillion.

      1. Yeah. Bush was a fucking PIKER!

        1. No, Bush was fucking horrible.

          Just not as horrible as Obama.

          1. Fucking Bush didn’t veto any of the bullshit spending fucking Senator Obama bothered to vote for.

            Fuck them both.

      2. What’s that adjusted for inflation?

        1. The raw numbers should be enough to piss anybody off.

  2. $917 billion

    What the fuck? Every time I read something about this idiotic battle, that number gets smaller. This is exactly what they did a few months ago with the current year cuts, which went from, what $500 billion all the way down to like $21 billion?

    1. “Current year cuts” – you know there has not been a budget in two years?

      1. Ha, true. They don’t want to have to grok the disaster in its fullness.

      2. a budget

        [::blank look::]

    2. But the 917 billion is only a downpayment! Wait until the commission gets going! Also, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn at a very fair price . . .

    3. Now you’re getting it, Joe!

  3. Dictatorship!!!

    1. For reference:

      http://www.politico.com/news/s…..60080.html

      1. I can’t help it. In spite of the excellent gene pool, I’m retarded. I was coddled, so what do you expect? I was involved in student government for over a decade! That can’t be good for someone’s sense of reality!

        1. Well, I hate to break it to you Joe M, but that 900 and some odd billion in cuts is really ZERO in cuts. These are all bullshit “maybe we’ll cut some down the road, but don’t count on it” cuts. These “cuts” are not legally binding, which means the debt ceiling will be increased and no cuts will ever occur.

          1. And of course, don’t forget these “cuts” are actually spending less more, if that makes sense.

  4. So . . . we’re gonna borrow $900 billion by December, but cut $917 billion over 10 years? Hard to see how we don’t make money on that deal.

    1. 17 billion is used on a monthly basis to feed the presidential poodle.

      1. the presidential poodle.

        Fine way to talk about Chris Matthews.

    2. “Hard to see how we don’t make money on that deal.”

      Volume!

    3. Exactly.

    4. dude, inflation. I’d much rather 900 billion today than even next year!

      1. Inflation with low interest rates is the worst of both worlds.

    5. Borrow 900 billion by December.
      Actually cut 22 billion. Well, claim to cut 22 billion.
      Create confusion by publishing lots of unrelated, meaningless numbers.

  5. Shut up Boehner. Anything less than a credible plan to reduce our debt by 50% over the next 10 years is a disaster.

    1. Anything that references spending more than two years from now is completely bogus too. And I’m being generous not insisting on 1-year time horizons.

      1. Require estimates on the first two years from the CBO.

        1. two years – they haven’t had a budget in two years

  6. Rand Paul should just get up and call for an agreement with steep tax increases and also spending reductions. Then the day after it gets passed, and gets signed by Obama, he should get up and remind people that taxation bills need to start in the Senate, and no one is obligated to pay the taxes levied in the law, set up a company that assists individuals to make that claim and take the whole thing to the supreme court.

    1. *money bills need to start in the house

      1. We’ve had enough of your strict constructionism. It’s a living document, so we can start the spending bills wherever we fing feel like.

    2. They’re too smart for you, they keep the hollowed out corpses of aborted House bills around to stuff them full of whatever they want, as “amendments”.

  7. An institution populated almost entirely with feckless, mealy-mouthed parasites fails spectacularly? No!

  8. A institution populated almost entirely with feckless, mealy-mouthed parasites continues to crash and burn? No!

    1. And most parasites have fairly well formed mandibles.

  9. CAPTION

    “Oops! I crapped my pants!”

  10. Also:

    We’re dooooooooooooooooooooooomed….

  11. How are they calculating that the Bush tax cuts cost $3 trillion? You know there’s that whole thing about the average tax revenue being 18% of GDP which has held for like 50 years no matter what the tax rate has been, so what makes them think that just because the tax rate was higher, they would have gotten more money? Other than it being good for the narrative of “but,…but,…but…Bush” that is.

    1. Re: Montani Semper Liberi,

      How are they calculating that the Bush tax cuts cost $3 trillion?

      The court economists that come up with those numbers calculate the revenue based on real GDP numbers and then say that if we had the previous rates, the Gov could have gotten that amount. Obviously, assuming the higher rates would not have stifled the economy enough to cancel out the extra revenue, but the economics illiterate who take these numbers at face value do not take this into account.

    2. Also, intentional reduction of receipts is not the same as deficit spending. If GM cuts their prices, they can’t add the delta to their loss. The deficit is from not cutting spending to reflect revenue.

  12. Remember how in the early 19th century Jefferson said the United States had too much machinery of government? I wonder what he’d think now.

    1. Sorry…can’t…stop…spinning…long…enough…to…post…my…thoughts.

      1. “You could solve the world’s energy problems by connecting electrodes to Thomas Jefferson’s grave.” — I think I agree.

  13. This pussy is your pussy, this pussy is my pussy
    From California to the New York Island
    From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
    This pussy was made for you and me.
    As I went walking that ribbon of highway
    I saw above me that endless skyway
    I saw below me that golden valley
    This pussy was made for you and me.
    I roamed and I rambled and I followed my footsteps
    To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
    While all around me a voice was sounding
    This pussy was made for you and me.
    When the sun came shining, and I was strolling
    And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
    A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting,
    This pussy was made for you and me.
    This pussy is your pussy, this pussy is my pussy
    From California to the New York Island
    From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
    This pussy was made for you and me.

    1. Wow, he makes a poetic argument for the equal distribution of vaginas.

      Guthrie was truly the voice of his generation.

  14. Re: Tony,

    Market capitalism can exist in the context of people voting for how they want it to be structured[…]

    I wanted to place the discussion down here so I can explain to you why voting is not a process that can help people determine their preferences. Here are the main issues with voting as a substitute for externalizing your preferences through purchasing decisions (i.e. market prices):

    One, voting presupposes people can know their preferences beforehand. Pollsters already know this is not true, but here’s an example: When newspapers poll their customers for what they would like to see in their papers, people say they want more international news and more analysis. When asked what people actually LOOK AT when opening their papers, it is always: The cartoon strips, the sports results, the obituaries and the letters to the editor.

    Clearly, there’s a disconnect between what people SAY or THINK they want and what ultimately CHOOSE. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what choices one will face in the future and hence their preferences will be. I can’t know what choices I will face within THE HOUR, let alone one week or one month hence. I thus cannot know my preferences one hour from now, because I haven’t been presented with the options YET.

    The market OFFERS several options from which to choose at ANY TIME I WANT, and the choices directly SHAPE the offerings in the future, through the price system and profit-loss testing. My direct preferences SHAPE the market. A vote would not, because there would be a disconnect between my VOTE TODAY and my PREFERENCE ONE HOUR FROM NOW.

    Second: since one cannot *know* what choices one will face in the future, then one would be voting on a VERY POOR and VERY LIMITED menu of choices, no different than what sometimes happens with American Idol: Everybody will be happy for the winner, and then buy someone else’s music.

    So you’re actually ascribing to voting a power that it does not have. Voting is actually a very limited tool for externalizing people’s choices. Instead, in a market, the bewildering number of choices and distribution networks indicate that PURCHASING PREFERENCES through the price system is a much more powerful tool to handle people’s choices.

    For the above reasons, your argument that the market can be DEFINED by voting is erroneous. In fact, you CAN’T shape the market by voting, you can only hinder it. That’s all.

    1. You could’ve summed your argument up far better without the wall of text: The only vote in a free market is your dollar, and political votes can only be used to restrain one group or another’s voting right.

      1. Re: anon,

        You could’ve summed your argument up far better[…]

        Sure, for guys like you and most. But Tony would simply dismiss a short and sweet argument by calling it a “Republican talking point.”

        Sometimes you have to bring Big Bertha to bring down the Belgian fort.

    2. I can’t know what choices I will face within THE HOUR, let alone one week or one month hence. I thus cannot know my preferences one hour from now, because I haven’t been presented with the options YET.

      A top man would know. They are our hope.

  15. Despite not reaching even a full trillion bucks in cuts

    There are no cuts at all in Boehner’s proposal. A cut is when you spend less in a year than in the previous year. Anything else is just fiddling with how fast we accumulate MORE DEBT.

    -jcr

    1. So true but the media calls it “cuts”. What the hell do you call money you will never have but are determined to spend?
      Pie In Sky Sham debt reform

  16. I’m confused, doesn’t the CBO baseline assume that the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012? It’s not set against current policy, is it?

    1. Damn. I feel for the guy.

  17. It’s all for the benefit of the cameras and the donors: http://www.libertariansjustlik…..about.html

  18. I inherited this mess from my good friend George and made it worse with my spendthrift ways, but all of YOU, who did not cause the problem, must sacrifice to make sure Michelle can continue her fabulous world vacations.

    1. Shut up Barry, you bore me.

      1. Huh. Tell me about it.

  19. With Viagra, could he have got it up to a tril?

  20. Doin’ a number on the debt plan thing

    It looks like a number 2

    1. …I think it’s more of a #3…the always awful shit-puke.

  21. I have said it all along. This debt ceiling debate will conclude with a trillion dollar plus tax increase and phony/deferred spending cuts that will be immediately undone by the next congress.

    This crap ends when our creditors stop floating us anymore money to feed this addiction of spending.

    I don’t care about this team red versus team blue bullshit. They both want to spend money endlessly and grow government. The only difference is the Democrats are upfront about this and the Republicans lie to their stupid voters about it.

    1. And the more they grow government, the more of our liberty is lost. We are subsidising our own enslavement.

  22. Borrow 900 billion by December.

  23. true.most parasites have fairly well formed mandibles.

  24. I do not want to hear about their plans or debates , this is not my business – what I need is to see that the crises is going away and feel the recovery in real life!

  25. BTW, I will dominate the Morning Links tomorrow. Just warning y’all.

    Provided that we get Riggs. I will not be up if Sunderman springs a 5:45 eastern time morning links. That’s 3:45 AM my time, and fuck you, East Coast

    1. Just warning y’all
      West coast? Lol

  26. Maybe it’s a good choic.

  27. things worse than i expect, shit, it’s sympathetic to save my penny.wish things could be better.wonder I’m engaged in? http://www.tradeyankeesjerseys.com/

  28. things worse than i expect, shit, it’s sympathetic to save my penny.wish things could be better.wonder I’m engaged in?

  29. things worse than i expect, shit, it’s sympathetic to save my penny.wish things could be better.wonder I’m engaged in?

  30. Just warning y’all
    West coast? Lol

  31. Thos Boner dude is clearly bought and paid for. Its the Amerikan way lol.

    http://www.web-privacy.au.tc

  32. More quality jerseys at nflsuper.com .
    Thanks !

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.