Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
Derek Leininger

Donate

Congress

Cutting Government Back to Last Year's Size Shouldn't Be 'Impossible' or 'Severe'

Taking stock of the utterly unserious fiscal policy discourse in Washington.

Eric Boehm | 1.13.2023 3:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
a hand with a pair of scissors cuts the dome of the green tinted U.S. Capitol building off against a blue ombre background | Illustration: Lex Villena; Nikolai Sorokin | Dreamstime.com
(Illustration: Lex Villena; Nikolai Sorokin | Dreamstime.com)

As part of a deal struck between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) and the fractious House Freedom Caucus, Republicans in Congress have pledged to return federal discretionary spending to 2022 levels.

As a practical matter, that would require cutting about $130 billion out of the federal budget next year. But it's probably more useful to think about the maneuver as an attempt to rescind the spending increases included in the omnibus bill that Congress rushed to pass in the final weeks of last year. That bill set spending levels for the 2023 fiscal year, so promising to return to the 2022 spending level amounts to a promise to undo that omnibus bill and not replace it with more spending hikes.

In a more normal place, this would be described as what it is: a promise to hold government spending level. The federal government spent about $1.7 trillion on discretionary programs in 2022, and Republicans are saying they'd like to spend the same amount next year.

In Washington, D.C., however, this is viewed with a combination of shock and horror.

The idea of shrinking the discretionary portion of the government back to the size that it was literally just a month ago is "impossible," according to Politico reporters Caitlin Emma and Connor O'Brien (and their congressional sources), who describe the Republican plan to hold discretionary funding level as relying on "severe cuts" and say the futility of the exercise would "put Don Quixote to shame."

Theirs is perhaps the most outlandish example of the deeply unserious world of fiscal policy discourse, but it hardly stands alone. The budget rules adopted earlier this week by the new Republican majority in the House lay a foundation for "massive spending cuts," according to Roll Call. The Washington Post describes the budget plan with similar language, before noting a few paragraphs later that Republicans are merely seeking a return to the status quo of 2022.

Yes, the Dark Ages of 2022, when the government spent a mere $1.7 trillion on discretionary programs. My goodness, how could we ever consider rolling things back that far?

Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical that McCarthy's promise will be fulfilled. For one, there's a Democratic majority in the Senate and Joe Biden still resides in the White House.

For another, well, even many Republicans don't seem very interested in actually sticking to the deal. Rep. Steve Womack (R–Ark.), a member of the Appropriations Committee, tells Politico that returning the budget to 2022 levels may not be "politically doable"—that's Washington-speak for "won't make Republican-aligned special interests happy." And sure enough, other Republicans are already trying to weasel out of forcing the Pentagon to be subject to the same budget rules as everyone else.

There is, to be fair, plenty of room to criticize Republicans' budget plans from a tactical perspective. Tying the discretionary budget cuts to the debt ceiling increase, as Republicans seem primed to do, runs the risk of credit default and serious economic consequences for the country.

But observers should be able to separate those tactics from the underlying demand, which should not only be doable but actually makes a lot of sense considering the projected growth of future budget deficits.

And here's the really crazy thing: Even if Congress did somehow manage to hold the discretionary spending level next year, overall spending would still increase. That's because the $1.7 trillion discretionary budget is only a fraction of federal spending. Other items—like the so-called mandatory spending on entitlements like Social Security and Medicare as well as the rapidly expanding interest costs connected to the $31 trillion national debt—will continue to grow and drive federal deficits higher.

And if you think that simply not increasing spending is "impossible," wait until you see what it would take to actually balance the budget. According to a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, all spending would need to be cut by roughly 25 percent to balance the federal budget within 10 years. If the Pentagon and entitlement programs aren't included in those cuts, the discretionary budget would have to be reduced by an actually shocking 85 percent.

Now that's something that might put the Man of La Mancha to shame.

Asking the federal government to operate with the same levels of funding as it had in 2022 shouldn't be seen as impossible or insane. It should be a starting point.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Biden Looks Careless, Shady, and Hypocritical After the Revelations About His Handling of Classified Material

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

CongressGovernment SpendingBudgetBudget cutsDeficitsBudget Deficit
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (48)

Webathon 2025: Dec. 2 - Dec. 9 Thanks to 313 donors, we've reached $80,845 of our $400,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

All Donations NOW Being Matched! Donate Now

Latest

Brickbat: Hanging Judge

Charles Oliver | 12.4.2025 4:00 AM

The Horseshoe of Doom: Populists Left and Right Say America Is Failing. The Facts Don't.

Veronique de Rugy | 12.4.2025 1:45 AM

Rand Paul Bashes Pete Hegseth Over Boat Bombings: 'He Was Lying…or He's Incompetent'

Robby Soave | 12.3.2025 8:44 PM

University of Oklahoma Student Is Justifiably Shocked at Sudden Expectation She Be a Good Writer

Christian Britschgi | 12.3.2025 5:10 PM

Hegseth's 'Fog of War' Is No Excuse for Summarily Executing Suspected Drug Smugglers

Jacob Sullum | 12.3.2025 4:25 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks