Economics

More Budget Charades in Washington

Bipartisan failure in D.C.

|

Washington, as the story goes, remains stuck in a budgetary stalemate between big-spending liberals who want to raise taxes and lavish money on wasteful programs, and crypto-anarchist conservatives who want to burn the entire federal government to the ground. If you believe his press clippings, President Obama has just boldly waltzed into the middle of this tug-of-war with a Nixon-goes-to-China proposal to tackle runaway entitlement spending.

Bunk.

The gulf between proposals does not exactly resemble the Grand Canyon. It looks more like a golf-course divot.

Ten years out, the House Republicans' plan would spend $4.95 trillion, or 19.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product. The Senate Democrats' plan would spend $5.69 trillion, or 21.9 percent of GDP. Obama's plan would spend $5.66 trillion, or 21.7 percent.  The president's budget, then, yaws far closer to the Senate Democrats' proposal than to the midpoint between the two congressional blueprints. Yet all three plans still lie within shouting distance of one another.

You can read that a couple of ways. The first is to conclude that the president has shifted markedly to the right. That's how many big media outlets are playing it. The New York Times says Obama's new budget "defines him as a president willing to take on the two pillars of his party—Medicare and Social Security—created by Democratic presidents. . . . [Some on the left are asking] whether he is a progressive at all." The Washington Post says Obama has "set aside the grand ambitions that marked his early days in office. . . . Obama proposes nothing on the scale of the $1.2 trillion initiative to extend health coverage to the uninsured that he pursued after taking office in 2009."

Seriously? That's the standard? Then to avoid charges of progressive apostasy, Obama would have to propose another new trillion-dollar program every year. After Obamacare for health care, we'd need Obamacare for housing. Then Obamacare for the nation's food supply. And so on.

The second way you can read the numbers is to conclude that Republicans are not nearly so austere as they—and for that matter, Democrats—would like everyone to believe. And there are good reasons to buy that interpretation. For one thing, we can take the House proposal as basically an opening bid in the negotiations—whereas Obama has made it clear his budget represents his final offer: Take it or leave it. While the GOP probably is willing to accept a less austere budget, the president is not willing to accept one that is more austere.

But then you can't really use the word "austere" in reference to any of these budgets. Not unless you're the sort who thinks Albania would now be the crown jewel of Europe if only the late Communist dictator Enver Hoxha had been a little more stern with the counter-revolutionary elements.

Overall, Obama's budget increases spending at a rate of 4.5 percent a year. And despite all the talk of entitlement "cuts," it increases Social Security spending by 25 percent after adjusting for inflation, and increases Medicare spending by an even larger amount. The so-called cuts to those programs are simply slight reductions in the rate of growth.

Elsewhere, the president proposes about $25 billion in ostensible cuts. But those are more than offset by higher spending—such as $77 billion for an expanded early-childhood education program—along with higher taxes, to the tune of about $700 billion.

This would be on top of the $600 billion in taxes the president already won in the year-end fiscal-cliff deal, not to mention the $1 trillion in tax hikes passed as part of Obamacare. But the president's current $700-billion tax hike is less than Senate Democrats' proposal to hike taxes another $1 trillion—so it occupies what, in Washington, passes for the middle ground.

All of this assumes you can trust the fiscal projections. But you can't. Washington always lowballs. Look at the health-care exchanges required under Obamacare, the cost of which is now expected to be more than double initial estimates. Or consider Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate, a 1990s-era formula meant to impose fiscal discipline on that program. Congress writes a waiver from it every year like clockwork. It should tell you something that, according to Yuval Levin in National Review, more than 90 percent of the cuts in Obama's budget will take effect after he has left office. What it should tell you is that they won't ever happen.

Nevertheless, progressives profess to be utterly outraged by their president's callous betrayal. Imitating a longstanding practice on the right, they are now threatening to "primary" Democrats who compromise by raising taxes and spending to a less-than-ruinous degree. There is talk of recruiting a presidential candidate who will not fall prey, like the perfidious Obama, to the sin of ideological deviationism. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's name is being bandied about, for instance. She is no Enver Hoxha, but she will have to do.

This article originally appeared in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Putin Threatens to Dismiss Top Officials

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. just as Shawn said I am alarmed that a mother can make $4331 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this web site http://www.wow92.com

  2. The grand choice between massive government spending democrats and massive government spending…-3%… rethuglicans. We are fucked.

    1. Ashlyn. you think Thomas`s c0mment is terrific… on monday I bought a new Saab 99 Turbo from having made $5194 this – five weeks past and-just over, 10 grand lass-month. without a question it is the coolest job Ive ever had. I began this three months/ago and practically straight away startad bringin home over $73.. per/hr. I use this web-site,, kep2.com

  3. “President Obama has just boldly waltzed into the middle of this tug-of-war with a Nixon-goes-to-China proposal to tackle runaway entitlement spending.”

    The way I heard it, he turned water into wine, fed the 5,000 from the loaves and fishes and grew hair on bald men!

  4. LEts roll that beautiful bean footage!

    http://www.AnonHit.tk

  5. re: “All of this assumes you can trust the fiscal projections. But you can’t. ”

    This page points out a study of CBO’s deficit projections the last few decades, estimates made for 5 years out were consistently overoptimistic, and in fact no better than a “random walk”:
    http://www.politicsdebunked.co…..et-lottery

    There is no reason to believe the White House does better. The CBO and GAO do a “baseline” spending forecast for long range projections most consider unrealistic, and a more likely “current policy” scenario. Obama’s budget is pretty close to the GAO’s unrealistic “baseline” projection. Yet they all use overoptimistic assumptions for things like GDP growth, that page plugs in more conservative assumptions from the Social Security Administration for that, and shows things may be even worse than people expect.

    The SSA is also likely too optimistic in its spending estimates. This next page debunks the Social Security Administration’s longterm forecasts in gory detail as being unrealistically optimistic, pointing out they have a poor track record of forecasting so we should assume the worst:
    http://www.politicsdebunked.co…..aestimates
    “The 1950 annual SSA report projected US population in 2000 to be worst case 199 million, best case 173 million. In reality it turned out to be 282 million, 42% above their highest projection. Imagine if their real costs turn out to be 42% higher than their current projections “

  6. To paraphrase Woody Allen, More than any other time in our history, America faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.

  7. like Gladys answered I cant believe that you able to earn $5928 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this site and go to home tab for more detail— http://www.BIG76.com

  8. Wanna know where Obama really stands? See if you can find a biography of George Soros. . . because Obama stands on his knees before him.

    1. I won’t even ask what he’s doing there.

  9. Aaron. if you, thought Clarence`s comment is flabbergasting… last saturday I bought Mazda MX-5 after bringing in 5948 this past 4 weeks and a little over 10 grand this past month. it’s actualy the coolest job I’ve ever done. I started this eight months/ago and straight away started to bring home minimum 71, per-hour. I went to this site, http://www.wow92.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.