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.

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 $31 trillion national debt—will continue to grow and drive federal deficits higher.
And if you think that simply not increasing spending is "impossible," wait until you see what it would take to actually balance the budget. According to a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, all spending would need to be cut by roughly 25 percent to balance the federal budget within 10 years. If the Pentagon and entitlement programs aren't included in those cuts, the discretionary budget would have to be reduced by an actually shocking 85 percent.
Now that's something that might put the Man of La Mancha to shame.
Asking the federal government to operate with the same levels of funding as it had in 2022 shouldn't be seen as impossible or insane. It should be a starting point.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Baseline budgeting has been the single biggest issue for decades.
Welcome to the realization Boehm.
And if Bush or Trump jacks up spending in a one-time effort to save the economy, Obama and Biden make that the new baseline.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
I’m not saying Keynes was right, but Democrats seem to actively ignore a good half of his theory.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
Just stop doing shit you're not supposed to be doing and you could cut the budget in half easily.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------->>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
But what about drag queen story hour at the public library? Who do you expect to pay for that?
Eric:
Veronique de Rugy, from yesterday:
Eric hasn't got much credibility here.
He isnt much of an economic analyst at all.
Yeh, he doesn't have much credibility, period.
One thing he could do to increase his credibility would be respond to comments. Heck, just saying "There's a word limit" would be something useful. Instead all Reason authors just hide.
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> http://Www.Smartcash1.com
And 2022 was an insane year. How about 2019 baseline for a start? Nothing was normal about the past 3 years and it shouldn't be taken as a baseline for anything.
It should if your goal is totalitarianism
Well, yeah. I'm assuming that at least some of the Republicans actually have some idea about reducing budgets.
I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year ago I used to be unemployed during an atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis. I used to be endowed with these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody..
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> https://dailyworls7.blogspot.com/
A bold assumption.
No, not 2019. People were literally starving and dying in the streets. Well, at least the lucky ones who weren’t killed when Net Neutrality was stopped in 2017.
I just read the headline and couldn't help but wonder how old Boehm was in 1994.
Nope, I think wrong Eric Boehm.
I have made $16498 in one month by telecommuting. At the point when I lost my office employment multi month prior, I was disturbed and an ineffective go after a quest for new employment I was secured this online position. what's more, presently I am ready to win thousands from home. Everyone can carry out this responsibility and win more dollars online by follow this link...,.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
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."
It's also reality speak for "We're not Trump Republicans... we're reasonable and willing to reach across the aisle."
Shouldn’t congress be spending more due to the inflation?
Yeah absolutely. After massive inflation, gov't should cost exactly the same as before
Maybe after 3 years of absolutely unprecedented, supposedly "emergency" spending, a reduction in budget is appropriate? Even with the significant inflation, using 2022 as a baseline is an insane jump in government spending from just 4 years ago.
Nevermind that the inflation was precisely because of run away government spending. I'm sure if we just pour just a little more gasoline on the fire, this time it will go out.
"As a practical matter, that would require cutting about $130 billion out of the federal budget next year."
And that still would not come close to eliminating the planned $1.2 trillion in deficit spending. Cut the fucking budget!
What are you, some kind of commie?
Hey, this is Washington we're talking about. You've "slashed" spending if you increased it by 5% when they wanted 10%
Do you hate grandmothers, orphans and the environment? Only a 5% hike?
To balance the budget immediately, Congress would only have to cut spending back to 2018 levels (4.1 trillion), hardly a rebirth of anarchy. Federal tax revenues in 2022 were 4.1 trillion.
Democrats chickens come home to roost.
The USA can't stop spending without defaulting.
The Great Depression - [D] across the board.
The Great Recession - [D] across the board.
The Great Inflation - [D] across the board.
I'm getting pretty sick of Democrats and their National Sozialist(Nazi)-Empire conquering the USA... Of course they make no secret of this. Many openly support Nazism right down to it's very name. Many openly curse the people's law over them or call it outdated or 'void/living'. Even Republicans don't pay enough lip service to the people's LAW over them. Whatever this nation is; It isn't the USA anymore.
Offer (another) 1 year increase in the debt season for rescinding the covid "emergency" and all the spending/borrowing associated with it.
The can reduced government 50% and do a better job.
Cut Pentagon spending to make up for the overall cuts. The DoD has failed 5 audits in a row and the last one shows they can account for only 39% of their assets. In other words, there seems to be a missing $2.2 Trillion bucks worth.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
Its not that hard to cut government. Government agencies are like the DMV; you go there and one line is open but you can see 12 people in the back doing nothing. You could walk into any agency and fire 1 out of 3 and the work will still get done.
Every '1' fired HAS TO HAVE legal Gov-Gun THEFT to survive! /s
You can't actually insist they work for their survival can you??? /s
Justice is just too cruel for the self-entitled to anyone's produce...
Yet, someday (as history shows time and again); The produce doesn't make itself.
Rep. Steve Womack doubts staying at the 2022 spending level is doable. What he was actually saying is that cutting spending will cost some of us our jobs. The fact is talk about cutting spending is an abstract discussion that ends when you actually talk about real cuts. Congress will not cut spending because someone will be unhappy and then Senators and Representatives will lose their jobs.
It is easy to talk about cutting in the comments section of Reason and harder to do for real.
Then the congresscritter involved needs to "grow a pair" and accept being in his final term.
Hell, even James Bond does something like that in "No Time to Die". It's the proper and courageous act that separates adults from children.
I think the problem is that while the candidates say they are going to fix Washington they are really going for is a job. If they were sincere, they would follow through on promises even if that meant not getting reelected.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
"...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..."
Perhaps making the consequences serious is the only way to get action; like hitting 'em over the head with a 2X4 to get their attention.
Another topic where conservatives and libertarians need to insist on clear language and not let the leftists mislead people with newspeak babble.
A flat budget is not a "cut", it is a flat budget.
Neither Social Security nor Medicare are "entitlements", SCOTUS ruled long ago that there is no legally contractual commitment to pay anyone anything; legally, the whole mess could be terminated immediately.
There is no legal requirement to pay SS and Medicare, but people have paid for these services and there is therefore moral commitment.
They'll never get cut because old people vote way more reliably than young people and your average congress critter has maybe 10-20 years before they kick the bucket themselves. Just kick that can down the road and let the election. Democracy can't fix this problem, because as a system it is incapable of planning beyond the next election cycle. Self interested people will always vote for fiscally irresponsible choices at the expense of others.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM