Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Government Spending

To Balance the Budget, Republicans Must Cut Military Spending, Trim Entitlements, or Raise Taxes

If Republicans refuse to gore their three sacred cows, a new CBO report shows that balancing the budget is literally impossible.

Eric Boehm | 3.23.2023 12:10 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Any attempt at bringing the federal budget deficit under control must kill (or at least wound) the Republicans' sacred cows of military spending, entitlements, and the recent Trump tax cuts. | https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-03/58984-spendings.pdf
(https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-03/58984-spendings.pdf)

Let's say you were a Republican member of Congress with a sincere desire to craft a federal budget that would achieve balance by the end of the decade.

That's a noble goal! Balancing the budget wouldn't pay down the $31 trillion national debt, of course, but it would at least stop adding to it. There's just one small issue, your advisers tell you. Well, three issues, actually. You can't cut spending on the military (including veterans programs) or entitlement programs, and you can't advocate for letting the 2017 Trump tax cuts expire. That's sacred ground, they say, and suggesting any of those three ideas will end with you getting hoisted out of office by pitchfork-carrying voters, a loud-mouthed primary challenger, and/or the angry ghost of Ronald Reagan.

You can't pass a balanced budget if you're not a member of Congress, so you agree. Those three things are off the table. Now, all you have to do is get a majority of Congress and President Joe Biden to agree to cut literally every dollar of discretionary spending out of the budget and you'll have accomplished your goal. Almost.

This isn't an exaggeration. It's the actual results of a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of potential paths for using spending cuts to balance the federal budget over 10 years.

In one scenario outlined by the CBO, Congress would have to cut 86 percent of all discretionary spending if it wanted to balance the budget by 2033 without touching the military, veterans programs, or entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. In a slightly altered version of that same scenario in which the Trump tax cuts were not allowed to expire as intended in 2025, Congress would have to cut 100 percent of discretionary spending—and the country would still face a $20 billion deficit.

Source: Congressional Budget Office (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-03/58984-spendings.pdf)

The CBO analysis helps to illustrate the seriousness of America's fiscal dilemma. While many libertarians might cheer the prospect of the federal government zeroing out all discretionary spending over 10 years, that's simply not a realistic proposal that could get anywhere near the requisite support in Congress.

Instead, it should be clear that any attempt at bringing the federal budget deficit under control must kill (or at least wound) the Republicans' sacred cows of military spending, entitlements, and the recent Trump tax cuts. Right now, however, leading Republicans including former President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) have vowed to keep Social Security out of any long-term spending deals. Rep. Jim Banks (R–Ind.) has promised to oppose any bill that cuts defense spending.

As for the tax cuts, they're technically temporary—a gimmick that allowed Republicans to game the CBO's scoring of the tax cut bill—but keeping the lower individual income tax rates in place past 2025 is a top priority for Republicans.

This CBO analysis was a response to a question submitted by two of the top Democrats in the Senate's budget-making process: Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) and Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D–Ore.). As such, there's an element of it that comes off as a partisan exercise—an opportunity to point out that spending cuts alone can't balance the budget, or just to highlight the impossibility of Republican demands surrounding the debt ceiling fight.

"As this analysis shows, no amount of cuts can make their math add up," Whitehouse said in a statement. "It is a farce."

But the CBO's numbers aren't partisan and neither is the blame for America's massive budget deficits. These latest projections only reveal how difficult the choices ahead will be. If Republicans are serious about trying to balance the budget, there can be no more sacred cows.

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: Lawsuit Challenges Ban on Physical Mail at California County Jail

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

Government SpendingCBOBudget DeficitBudget cutsBudgetDeficitsNational DebtDebtDefense SpendingEntitlementsTaxesCongressTrump AdministrationRepublican Party
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (242)

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.

  1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   2 years ago

    Another option: the feds can pay obligations and benefits with other property in lieu of cash. How many SS beneficiaries would be happy with some prime real estate, say on a beachfront or national park vista?

    1. rbike   2 years ago (edited)

      They will tax you for the gift and you will be forced to sell it.

      1. JoanneFitzpatrick   2 years ago (edited)

        I have just received my 3rd payment order and $30,000 that I have built up on my laptop in a month through an online agent. This job is good and his regular salary is much better than my normal job.” Work now and start making money online yourself.
        Go here……>>>>> http://Www.Smartjob1.com

  2. Fats of Fury   2 years ago (edited)

    To Balance the Budget, Republicans Must Cut Military Spending, Trim Entitlements, or Raise Taxes

    stamps foot

    Or I’ll vote for Biden again.

    1. rbike   2 years ago

      I recently saw a video of Janet Yellen testifying that the 50 trillion debt we will have in 10 years would have been much worse if it weren't for Joe. We are in good hands.

      1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        Is she clinically retarded?

    2. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

      We could stop funding our holy crusade in Ukraine.

      1. rbike   2 years ago

        Joe has that under control, too.

    3. Moonrocks   2 years ago

      Let's get real, Republicans won't cut military spending or trim entitlements, and if they did, Boehm would still reluctantly and strategically vote for Democrats.

      1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        This is why the democrats have got to go. As long as their party exists, anyone else’s gets excoriated if they dare to turn down Uncle Sugar’s spigot of largesse.

      2. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

        So who's going to win the next UFC match? I'm eager to place a bet.

    4. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

      People might not have much choice if the Republicans don't offer better candidates.

      1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

        Yes because the Democratic Party is definitely a viable option when it comes to fiscal prudence.

        1. damikesc   2 years ago

          I love that Biden, who is measurably worse than Trump in every conceivable category, was a better option.

          1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

            Can you provide examples of the measures you are using? Because I can suggest others where he is ahead.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

              By split, it's similar. By amount, it's more.

              https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/bidens-first-budget-vs-trumps-last

            2. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

              More on the amounts.

              https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/battle-of-the-budgets-biden-versus-trump

              The Biden budget calls for a $124 billion increase in non-emergency spending above the current levels.

            3. raspberrydinners   2 years ago

              No they can't. He's their savior.

              Can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.

              1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

                Piss off. You are a Marxist moron with nothing to add to the equation.

            4. markm23   2 years ago

              I can think of one, and only one, measure where Trump is worse than Biden: Blabbermouth. Not that Biden doesn't let his mouth run with whatever comes to mind, without caring whether it is true or even sane, but Trump put his motormouth on steroids.

              But that only matters to fools who think saying mean things is worse than doing mean things - and Biden and every Democrat that might replace him has a long history of doing terrible things, and only regrets that they weren't allowed to do worse.

          2. Liberty_Belle   2 years ago

            I don't want Trump nor Biden.

            I'm ready to vote for a tree stump at this point.

      2. NealAppeal   2 years ago

        And the alternatives aren't even interested in balancing the budget at all...just debt us into poverty and servitude. Shouldn't those be the bad guys that deserve derision? This exercise is just another chance for Boehm to garner more cocktail party invites by performing the two minutes hate toward his foes, Republicans.

    5. JFree   2 years ago

      So cute. You think there's a real difference. Rs NEVER cut a budget. They merely create the right spin to get the votes of those who think the right spin balances budgets.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   2 years ago

        Really? Looking at the graph here: https://amarkfoundation.org/us-federal-deficits/
        (Chart 2: Federal Deficit by Fiscal Year, 1981-2022), it would seem that Democratic Congresses increase budget while Republican Congresses either cut or stabilize budgets.

        1. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Maybe Jfree, like all partisans of a certain flavor that post here, attributes the budget to the person in the White House and not the people who actually control the purse strings?

          1. JFree   2 years ago

            Maybe you should read links instead of pretending to.

            1. DesigNate   2 years ago

              I didn’t make a comment about the chart, I made a comment about how certain posters here (shrike is the most notorious) attribute spending to the president instead of Congress and alluded that you might be doing the same.

              1. DesigNate   2 years ago

                Missed the edit window:

                Obviously wrongly alluded.

        2. JFree   2 years ago

          That chart shows nothing whatsoever about Congress. But of course that's not a freaking surprise.

          What it actually shows is that R Prez's increase deficits over their term and D Prez's decrease deficits over their term. Which is also what the executive summary says. Which STILL doesn't have a damn thing to do with budgets (which is what you are talking about) - even if it certainly reinforces the hypothesis that R's are a bunch of senile old coots who bleed their grandchildren dry with more debt while D's are still senile drunks but aren't stealing as much from their grandchildren.

      2. Sevo   2 years ago

        "So cute. You think there’s a real difference..."

        So stupid. You think droolin' Joe = Trump?
        Fuck off and die, asshole.

    6. JoeB   2 years ago

      Perfect.

    7. Oafish   2 years ago

      The partisan D and R folks here amaze. The professional pols in both party don’t want to limit government power. Arguing who does more is like bailing California floods with a pipette.

    8. John Gall   2 years ago

      LOL

  3. rbike   2 years ago

    https://youtu.be/2qiGvVe3-Nw

    Joe has this all under control.

    1. AlishaPerry   2 years ago (edited)

      Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…

      Visit following page for more information…………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

  4. Nardz   2 years ago

    Gotta love Reason's turn to pushing to raise taxes.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      Libertarians for increased taxes is becoming more and more of a thing. Whoops. Meant Libertines or Liberaltines.

      1. Bill Dalasio   2 years ago

        That's just another example of where the "socially liberal / fiscally conservative" schtick falls apart. There's no virtue, per se, from a libertarian perspective, in balanced budgets. Balanced budgets are only valuable to the extent they reflect spending restraint. Think about it this way. Let's say I lend two people ten dollars each. The first guy comes back to me a couple of days later and tells me he's going to need to borrow another five. Yeah, that sucks. I'm not happy. But, let's say the second came back and takes another twenty out of my wallet. At the end of the couple of days, he comes back and tells me what a responsible and careful steward he is of my money because, gosh, he has five dollars. Of course, he's not. He robbed me so he could blow twenty five bucks where the first guy went through fifteen.

        1. JFree   2 years ago

          It's not just about the amount of spending. The payers of taxes, the payers of public debt, and the beneficiaries of spending are not identical.

          1. Sevo   2 years ago

            "It’s not just about the amount of spending."

            Yes, you stupid shit, it is just about the amount of spending.
            Fuck off and die.

      2. ThomasD   2 years ago

        Reason's idea of libertarianism is government delivering their chosen set of social and policy preferences.

        These vailed pushes for tax increases are an unavoidable consequence of this stance.

        Look not at what they say they believe, but look at what tangible actions they espouse.

        1. Bill Dalasio   2 years ago

          These vailed pushes for tax increases are an unavoidable consequence of this stance.

          Yeah. The fact is cultural "liberalism" isn't free. A genuinely libertarian society is going to wind up looking a lot more like Mayberry than Mad Max. Those old, dowdy, unprogressive social mores became old, dowdy, unprogressive social mores because they work. They tend to avoid making people become drains on their fellow man. And the choices after throwing them out are to either let people bear the consequences of those bad decisions, in which case they'll likely revert to the old, dowdy, unprogressive social mores, or to subsidize the bad decisions.

      3. Mickey Rat   2 years ago

        The thing is we are already near the point where raising tax rates will result in diminishing receipts. There is a practical limit on how much the the government can extract from the economy before perverse incentives make high taxes counterproductive.

      4. John Gall   2 years ago

        I'm a libertrian, and you didn't hear that from me, or from Reason. That's the choice, if you want to balance the budget; it's either A, or B.

        But it's not, that's a false dilemna. , eleiminate ALL of the subsidies frist, that Democrats and Republicans load the tax code their corn growing/burning cronies.

    2. JimboJr   2 years ago

      Ya. The parents have let the kids run wild and max out the credit cards one after another, while always raising the limits and getting them more cards...and apparently one of the possible answers is the parents coughing up more money.

      This is a libertarian website. The clear answer should be "Fuck you, cut spending" with no other alternatives

      1. JFree   2 years ago

        It's the parents and grandparents who went wild sticking the kids with the bill. And it's the former who vote not the latter

        1. Sevo   2 years ago

          All to make slimy shits like you happy!

  5. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Thank God democrats don't have to do anything.

    1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      REPUBLICANS!!!

      *shakes fist*

      1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        Did republicans pounce again?

    2. Jerryskids   2 years ago

      To be fair, nobody has ever accused the Democrats of giving a shit about deficits or debt.

      1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

        The best Republicans do is pretend.

        1. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Except all those times they cut taxes. And the sequester. And the 90’s under Clinton….

          1. Zeb   2 years ago

            And look at all the good it did us. A brief slow down of deficit spending, followed by a return to the trend.

            1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

              Zeb, are you suggesting we all band together to hunt down and exterminate the Marxists who have squandered our money?

          2. sarcasmic   2 years ago (edited)

            Cutting taxes without cutting spending is stupid. Sure an argument can be made that decreasing taxes encourages economic growth, but you can’t have a tax rate of zero and expect to fund anything.

            I'm not an anarchist. We need some government. For free markets to function they require property rights and contract enforcement. That's government. So there must be some taxes to fund it. Saying "Oh they cut taxes, they're financially responsible!" is a bunch of shit if it's not accompanied by proportional cuts in spending.

            1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

              Some people here who bitch about that end up supporting the people bankrupting the country, while simultaneously ranting and raving constantly about how one guy who tried to make cuts is the worst asshole in the universe.

              Do you know of any people like that Sarc? I hear they tend to drink a lot too.

            2. DesigNate   2 years ago

              I would agree with you that it’s not just about cutting taxes, even though we did see an increase in revenue with the last batch.

              Republicans are not great on fiscal sanity, especially when they hold the trifecta, but they have attempted to do something about it multiple times in my short 40 years on this earth, so I think it’s stupid to say they just pretend. (And that’s not getting in to the weeds of people rightly calling all the big government assholes RINO’s).

              Also, if increasing taxes is needed, then why are tariffs bad again?

              1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

                There is a difference between taxes for revenue and taxes to influence behavior.

                1. JesseAz   2 years ago

                  Lol. No there isn't. Taking someone's income is the same as taking a bit more on purchase. Especially if both amounts are equal. And the fact is government uses that money to try to influence behavior.

                  Ironically you have this position yet yell for open borders in a welfare state which is beyond retarded and makes deficits worse. Almost like you're a fucking idiot.

      2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

        The only two presidents who tried to address the deficit were Dems (Clinton and Obama).

        But stay in that GOP cocoon. It is nice and comfortable.

        1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          LMFA... Obama??? Is that a joke?
          Clinton robbed SS to balance the budget and got the eCommerce by pure luck.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

            Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/?sh=38fe605025cf

            1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

              What's Freak-en hilarious is you actually believe that BS.
              Obama ran over $1T deficits EVERY year with the D-Trifecta.
              Shooting right out of the gate by tripling the debt just like Biden did.

              The ONLY thing that stopped it was an [R] Senate & [R] House.

              1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago (edited)

                Obama inherited $1 trillion deficits from the Bushpigs, you moron. I have linked to the CBO report that proves it.

                He cut the deficit to $450 billion before Fatass Donnie ran it up to over $2.5 trillion in 2020.

                $1.2 trillion deficit looms
                Housing collapse and financial turmoil leads to steep rise in estimated U.S. shortfall for '09, Congressional Budget Office says.

                By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
                Last Updated: January 7, 2009: 5:00 PM ET

                Obama sworn in Jan 21, 2009.

                Now STFU.

                1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                  All Democratic Budgets are all inherited by the previous LESS-THAN Republican Administrations according to Democrats. You all have been selling that deflection BS for years...

                  It always happens under our watch; but it's always the last administrations fault. Do tell; is anything EVER Democrats fault?

                  Isn't it amazing how Biden that crash the economy and send the debt into no-mans land mid-term????? Or; How about FDR. If it's all the last Administrations fault how'd the Great Depression last so long?

                  UR such a bigoted ignorant partisan hack its insane.

                2. DesigNate   2 years ago

                  Nancy Pelosi took the amount spent during the last year of a Republican president (in a “time of crisis” mind you) and made that the baseline for the next years spending.

                  You are such a disingenuous fuck and you’ve had your ass handed to you so many times on this subject. Just take the L and slink off like the little bitch you are.

            2. Square = Circle   2 years ago

              Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

              Why do you keep pretending the president is in charge of spending and not Congress?

              1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

                They work together. I give Reagan credit for the 80s boom and not the solid Dem House.

                Reagan, Clinton, Obama - great economies, successful presidents.

                Bush, Fatass Donnie - failures.

                Biden - likely failure by Jan 2025.

                1. Square = Circle   2 years ago

                  I give Reagan credit for the 80s boom and not the solid Dem House.

                  Why?

                  And weren't we talking about deficits?

              2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                Every time.

                He particularly likes to blame Trump for Pelosi's spending bills.

                1. Sevo   2 years ago

                  Well, turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
                  If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
                  turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

              3. n00bdragon   2 years ago

                The secret is to blame the president when he's on the team you don't like and blame congress when he's on the team you prefer. There is no consistent logic to partisans. They will adapt their "strongly and long-held beliefs" to whatever is most useful for their top man.

        2. Square = Circle   2 years ago

          The only two presidents who tried to address the deficit were Dems (Clinton and Obama).

          What exactly did they do besides be opposed by Republican congresses?

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

            Omnibus 1993 for Clinton
            Budget Control Act of 2011 for Obama.

            1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

              LOL... "Budget Control Act of 2011" Something about a stand-off between the newly elected [R] Congress and Democrats? It's amazing how you credit the dissenters for something that passes. Cool trick.

            2. Square = Circle   2 years ago

              Omnibus 1993 for Clinton

              Weird how it didn't really take hold until Republicans took Congress.

              Budget Control Act of 2011 for Obama

              And who controlled Congress in 2011?

              1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

                Clinton economy boomed afterward:

                According to Politifact, unemployment fell from 6.8 percent to 3.9 percent between passage of the bill and the end of Clinton’s term. After the bill’s passage, personal income increased by about 7.5 percent a year, compared to about 5.2 percent a year prior to passage. Industrial production rose by about 5.6 percent per year after passage, compared to 3.2 percent per year before passage. From the passage of the bill until the end of Clinton’s term, the Dow Jones Industrial average rose 26.7 percent per year, from 3,651 to 10,788. It’s clear that the economy bloomed after the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, but it’s impossible to prove that the bill caused the economy to grow so substantially.

                Of course so did Obamas. Greatest jobs run ever.

                1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

                  "Greatest jobs run ever."

                  Oh wow!

                2. Square = Circle   2 years ago

                  Clinton economy boomed afterward

                  Why are you still pretending that presidents control spending?

                  And you're still using a metric that goes from late 1993, right before the Republicans took control of Congress, a year for which yes the deficit went down, but debt also went way up, to the end of Clinton's term when the Republicans had control of Congress for the previous six years.

                  IOW, this partisan screed from Politi(cized)Fact doesn't actually respond to what I said in any way.

                  1. damikesc   2 years ago

                    I'd also mention that, under Clinton, the concept of honest accounting for corporations effectively died a grisly death.

                3. Sevo   2 years ago

                  Turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
                  If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
                  turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

        3. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Obama ran trillion dollar deficits until the Republicans got control of the House. Obama (and you in these very comment sections) stamped his feet like a little bitch when Republicans tried to cut spending and then shut down the government. And what did Obama do when the government shut down? Made sure to really stick it to the average American so they’d get pissed off at the Republicans for turning off the money spigot.

          This of course led into sequestration which, again you and Obama stamped your fucking feet over.

          Of course all of this ignores the fact that the president doesn’t decide how much is spent, Congress does. And Democrats have literally never cut spending or even paid it lip service.

          1. ElvisP   2 years ago (edited)

            Not an Obama fan by any means but Trump ran $trillion deficits, as well. Neither party will propose cuts since they will immediately be derided by the other party and lose the election. Both sides have learned that you don’t buy votes by cutting spending.

            1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

              Trump didn’t real,y have a choice. His veto would have been overridden and the media would have ripped him apart for even trying.

    3. mad.casual   2 years ago (edited)

      “If straight, conservative men would stop fucking their wives and defending their families, I wouldn’t be forced to suck so much D so hard.” – Boehm

  6. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

    No chance.

    The GOP wants to concentrate on Hunter Bidens Penis and tranny-dancing for this term.

    1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

      But enough of your sexual fantasies.,

    2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

      How come you deliberately pretend it's about a penis, when you actually know it's about bribery and pay to play?

      Is it because you're a fifty-center?

      1. Dillinger   2 years ago

        envy.

      2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

        The only evidence you have are Hunters dick pics.

        Yeah, I know. A partner in a VC firm exchanged email with someone in China. BFD. You got nothing.

        Kind of like paying off your porn-whore.

        1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

          That’s cute for someone who posts
          links to CP.

        2. Square = Circle   2 years ago

          Yeah, I know. A partner in a VC firm exchanged email with someone in China.

          It's amazing how militantly opposed you are to anyone being concerned about this.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

            Show me some evidence.

            "Big Guy 10%" is the bar tab.

            1. Square = Circle   2 years ago

              Show me some evidence.

              You've been shown evidence. Lots. It's clear that you desperately want everyone to stop paying attention to this.

              But on the topic of evidence, can you show me some evidence that only thing Biden's critics care about is Hunter's penis? Or that they even care about Hunter's penis at all?

            2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              But it wasn't “Big Guy 10%”.

              It was "10% for the Big Guy" in an email talking about commissions on a subject that Joe was involved in. No bar tab involved.

              Not only that but there's all the Burisma emails, that some of the recipients admit in sworn testimony were about payoffs.

              But you pretend it's about penises, because you're paid to.

              1. Square = Circle   2 years ago

                Not only that but there’s all the Burisma emails, that some of the recipients admit in sworn testimony were about payoffs.

                Which doesn't even begin to address Hunter's new-found art career, and the anonymous buyers who find his art to be such an incredibly worthwhile investment.

            3. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              "Show me some evidence."

              Here you go. You already know this, but well, you're a shill:

              "Despite Joe Biden’s assertions that he had no involvement with Hunter’s appointment to Burisma, he signed off on the official statement in response to questions from reporters about whether Hunter’s position undermined the VP’s credibility in pushing anti-corruption measures." [relevant email attached]

              " Eric D. Schwerin, Hunter’s associate at Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC, corrected typos in Vice President Biden’s official statement." [relevant email attached]

              "The VP’s office connected reporters (who were writing about Hunter’s appointment to Burisma) to Amos Hochstein, the “point” person for International Energy Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, to provide a “unique and valuable perspective” on the relationships in Ukraine.

            4. Sevo   2 years ago

              Remember, turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
              If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
              turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    3. sarcasmic   2 years ago

      GOP will increase the deficit and blame the other party.

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

        Remind me again who has the senate and the presidency.

        I’ll give you time to google it.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

          The GOP had the Senate and White House in 2020 when spending shot up.

          Facts matter.

          1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

            Just never-mind that purse strings House eh?
            UR such a partisan hack.
            Oh hey; lookie there. The spending doubled the very point [D]'s took the house.

          2. Sevo   2 years ago

            turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS-addled shit-pile and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
            If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
            turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

          3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            Like the fact that you posted Cap links here? Address that.

    4. (Impeach Biden) Weigel's Cock Ring   2 years ago

      Hey dumbfuck, your fellow George Soros commies in the media and the DA's office are desperately trying to get Trump on Stormy Daniels!

      Why are you commie shitbags so obsessed with Donald Trump's penis anyway? Is it becausr he's a normal heterosexual man who likes grown women and you're a faggot and a pedophile? That's your mental illness to deal with, not his.

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

        Stormy got cheated. She was our rightful first lady. Not that commie Euro-trash Melania.

        Soros has earned about $90 billion as a capitalist. Then he went all anti-war on the Bushpigs pissing off you conservatives.

        Now your whole goddamn party has followed Soros there. Just admit it Mikey.

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          About as much "America's rightful first lady" as the corpse of the five-year-old tied up in your basement is your lawfully wedded wife.

        2. Sevo   2 years ago

          turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS addled shit-pile, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
          If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
          turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

        3. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Soros, having supported Obama, Hillary, and Biden has shown that he wasn’t anti-war, he was just Anti-Bush. God, is there anything you can get right?

        4. (Impeach Biden) Weigel's Cock Ring   2 years ago

          Soros has never created an actual useful real product or service that anyone wanted to voluntarily purchase in his entire life. He's a left Nazi socialist communist scum like you who made his entire fortune leveraging corrupt governments and their shaky currencies. Admittedly brilliant, in its own twisted and evil way.

        5. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          Soros, his family, and his acolytes, like you should all be rounded up and executed.

    5. Inquisitive Squirrel   2 years ago

      At least you are admitting at this point that you don't have serious ideas or thoughts.

    6. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      Yes, I’m sure you’re a big fan of Hunter fucking his underage niece Natalie. You goddamned pedophile.

  7. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

    Raising taxes will never, EVER, balance the federal budget.

    Ever.

    1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      +1000000000

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 years ago (edited)

      Raising tax Revenues will. Which is very different than raising tax Rates. Laffer and Reagan proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt

      1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

        No even that will never solve the budget problem.

      2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        The only way is to take the Credit Card away from the wifey... 🙂
        And you all know exactly what I'm saying by that.

      3. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

        Reagan had record-setting budget deficits at the time.

  8. Dillinger   2 years ago

    >>the Republicans' sacred cows of ... entitlements

    don't trust anyone under 30.

  9. sarcasmic   2 years ago

    They could eliminate the military and it wouldn’t balance the budget.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

      And progs say "tax the 1%".

      But a 100% tax on the 1%s earnings gets only about $900 billion. And for not very long.

      We need a long term compromise. Something like Simpson-Bowles. But GOP assholes didn't want Obama to get credit for it.

      1. sarcasmic   2 years ago

        If I was king I’d freeze the budget and let inflation balance it.

        1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

          We all know you’d blow it all on champagne enemas.

      2. JimboJr   2 years ago

        Someone has to tell the middle class that if they want continued goodies, they have to pay for it. Doesn't matter what adult does it, but thems the breaks.

        All the socialist countries they pitch as paradise pay significantly higher middle class tax rates, and that's where all the potential money is sitting.

        The 'other people's money' that supposedly can pay for everything has run out.

        1. Square = Circle   2 years ago

          The ‘other people’s money’ that supposedly can pay for everything has run out.

          We've probably got another few decades of being able to plunder developing economies via MMT.

      3. Sevo   2 years ago

        turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      4. Whahappan?   2 years ago

        Holy shit, you think the "1%" makes $90 trillion in income a year? Way to discredit yourself further 🙂

    2. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

      Yeah; but at least Communist and Socialist regime’s could conquer the USA completely. After the [D] party dismantles National Security Russia can then just take it over without even a whimper. Then they can get their ever progressiveness to a United States of Socialist America (USSA)..

  10. Nardz   2 years ago

    https://twitter.com/FromKulak/status/1638928519257534465?t=qeY4gPL9H7CAFy7Ii4ewhA&s=19

    France maintains a standing army of 100,000 Gendarmes explicitly for the purpose of violently suppressing its own citizenry when they oppose having their lives destroyed.

    I wonder if the individual Gendarmes have names and addresses?

    [Video]

    1. VULGAR MADMAN   2 years ago

      Can’t they just buy velvet ropes to control them?

  11. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

    There is one, and ONLY one, question for the R-Senator who would oppose any military spending cuts: How much military spending would we need to fix the backlog of Navy repairs, maintain existing military hardware at an outstanding level, and update reasonable research and development for new military technology? Fine! Spend that and cut all military spending on Global War Against Terrorism interventions, bring the troops home and go from there!

    1. Bruce Hayden   2 years ago

      You forgot replacing all of the artillery shells and other stuff sent to Ukraine. If it is not replaced, we might as well disband our military, because they wouldn’t have the munitions and arms to fight, if they had to.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

        I don't believe I forgot that. I don't believe it would be classified as "military spending" - that's all. It would be considered foreign aid and would come under a totally different line item in the budget. To be clear, I want to have the best equipped, best trained, overwhelmingly superior armed force in the world - one that no other force in the world would dare to risk confronting during a military attack on or invasion of the United States of America. I want to have the most feared nuclear strike capability in the world - one that no other force in the world would risk Mutually Assured Destruction over. I do NOT want to have a US military force stationed everywhere in the world confronting terrorists or pretending to "make the world safe for democracy." All clear now?

    2. Oafish   2 years ago

      Does our military and MIC actually spend wisely? 800T+ SMH.

  12. TJJ2000   2 years ago

    FU Cut Spending!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

      Not going to happen. Cutting spending is unpopular for both political parties.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Only Constitutional Spending would fix that.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          Which will most likely require depositing much of the democrat infestation into landfills, as a prerequisite to positive outcomes.

      2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        It certainly is when republicans do it. You scumbags try to rip them apart for it. While simultaneously pushing for a $6.8 trillion baseline annual budget. So it isn’t just about being unwilling to cut. You want to finish off the US even faster.

        The only way we can possibly balance the budget is to eliminate the democrat party, and it’s Marxist collaborators in the media and Hollywood. You’re welcome to join the side of good and condemn your party and your president now, but we all know you won’t.

  13. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

    If we're going to keep the most expensive military in the world, they need to start running like a business. When we invade other countries, they need to be bringing back the spoils. Instead of pouring money into countries we conquer, let's bring back shiploads of booty and see if we can't make a profit.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      Denied! Government agencies should NEVER be "run like a business!" Businesses should be run to make a profit providing goods and services according to the consumer demand. Government agencies should be run within the original intent of Constitutional limitations in such a way that they avoid corruption and inefficiency as much as possible. If businesses should also avoid those things, it's merely coincidental.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Summary; The only asset to humanity Gov-Guns can possibly provide is to ensure everyone Liberty and Justice. Using Guns to gain wealth is what armed-criminals do.

        Guns don't make sh*t..!

  14. Azathoth!!   2 years ago

    Not sure when 'entitlements' became a Republican 'sacred cow'.

    Seems to me, every time I turn around, leftists are shrieking that the GOP is going to kill grandma, kids, public radio, the arts, medicare/aid and that only Democarats and the left can save entitlements.

    Because it IS entitlement spending that's the issue

    1. Eeyore   2 years ago

      Retired Republican voters love social security and medicare. The GOP voting base just happens to love this shit.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Sure, sure; We see Democrats lobbying to cut it all the time. Right, right? /s

      2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        As opposed to what? What are their alternatives?

        1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          Local welfare office; where it should've stayed all along.
          Zero-sum resource theft isn't sustainable. There is nothing secure about Social-ist Security.

          1. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

            Too many support Gun-Theft for a living *because* they think there won’t be any consequences for it. It’s not the government (Gov-Guns) job to supply everyone a living suitable to their desires. There has to be consequences either now or down the road. It’s unsustainable. Guns don’t make sh*t.

          2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            No. He said retired republicans love Medicare and social security. That’s why I asked ‘opposed to what’. Since we all know there really is no alternative thanks to a government monopoly. But eyesore didn’t respond.

    2. EscherEnigma   2 years ago

      Not sure when ‘entitlements’ became a Republican ‘sacred cow’.

      What, you don't remember the "keep government hands off my medicare" signs from the Tea Party protests?

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        https://www.zebrafactcheck.com/tea-party-folks-think-the-government-should-keep-its-hands-off-medicare/

        Sounds like Liberal infiltrators creating scenes for the media.
        But; That's just one source so.... Take of it what you will.

  15. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago

    Fuck off you leftist cunt. Where is your piece on the limitless entitlements that Democrats and Democrats only must cut? Oh, right you won't attack your own team.

    1. JimboJr   2 years ago

      I think its an unintentional admission that the only adults left in the room are on the right, while the left will continue to dream of unicorns who shit UBI and carbon-free energy that will be provided by 'taxing the rich'

      1. mad.casual   2 years ago

        unintentional admission

        "I came here to suck off Team D and blame Republicans until I'm all out of Republicans." - Boehm

  16. Eeyore   2 years ago

    Easy. Force every department to cut head count by 10%. Cut the pay of everyone left by 10%. Stop funding foreign wars. Stop funding the drug war. Our leadership is a bunch of children.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

      That saves about $50 billion out of a $6 trillion budget.

      Good start though.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Eliminate the Democratic Trifecta's would've eliminated $6T just in the last 2-years. How about that plan?

      2. Sevo   2 years ago

        turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

    2. Its_Not_Inevitable   2 years ago

      That doesn't sound very easy. But give it a try and let us know how it turns out.

    3. Oafish   2 years ago

      Working for one of the “good” Federal bureaucracies I can’t tell you how much waste and sloth I see. In my highly productive workgroup 15% would have been fired years ago in private industry. Another 10% would be on thin ice. I can’t imagine what does on in other agencies.

    4. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      The number of Federal employees has dropped since the 1972 Libertarian Platform got us in the spoiler vote business. So, what's your Plan B? (https://bit.ly/3AunUfM)

  17. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

    The Selfish GREED of Democratic voters is unbelievable… Use the Gov-Gun “armed-theft” of your neighbors to bribe criminal selfish votes… Check.

    Oh no! We want MORE, MORE, MORE; Please completely defund National Security too and send me all that ?free? money instead… Besides; We HATE the USA and want it to be conquered by other Socialist Empires.

    Humorously; A lot of us did everything possible to escape the last socialist Empire RESULTS; so we are here to ***** CONQUER and CONSUME ******** this nation next.

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      I favor thinning the democrat herd.

      1. JoeB   2 years ago

        We noticed. Save the hot chicks though; just don't give them voting rights.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          Hot chicks always get a pass. The nutty ones can be repurposed away from ‘activism’. Dennis Reynolds has a tutorial on how to deal with them…….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOVJ3zaQnYo

  18. Bill Dalasio   2 years ago

    I'm by no means averse to cuts in defense spending and entitlements. But, the article is less than fully honest in that it refuses to acknowledge the obvious, cuts in non-defense discretionary spending, while not in themselves enough to cover the deficit, can offset the need for cuts in defense or entitlements (although I'm an all-of-the above kind of guy). Since we're all libertarians here (chortle), I've no doubt that Mr. Boehm will follow up this article with one calling for the following cuts:

    * End the Department of Energy ($158.7bn)
    * End the Department of Education ($102.5bn)
    * End the Department of Commerce ($107.9bn)
    * End the Department of Health & Human Services ($127.3bn, discretionary)
    * End the Department of Homeland Security ($143.9bn)
    * End the Department of Agriculture ($348.2bn)
    * End the Department of the Interior ($83.7bn)
    * End the Department of Transportation ($204.2bn)
    * End the FBI ($10.3bn)

    And that takes us all the way to $1.29 trillion. Even if we allow nearly 30% wiggle room, for overlap or whatever legitimate functions that need to be reassigned, we still have a trillion dollars to play with defense.

    1. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

      * Socialist Security ($952.5B)
      * Center for Disease Control ($15.4bn)
      * Food and Drug Administration ($6.1bn)
      $2.264T Cut out $264B for Old-Age welfare Figuring about 1/2 that actually need it (48M retirees/2 = $920/month).

      And turn welfare (universally) over to the State.

      1. Roberta   2 years ago

        SS is on its own budget.

        1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          Not according to the Supreme Court.

    2. Kim   2 years ago

      This doesn’t even account for the crazy amount of unauthorized spending.

      The DOD spent $21 trillion on unauthorized expenditures between 1998 and 2015. An MSU economist discovered it and they said they would do an audit. The audit still has not been done as of 2023.
      https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct

    3. Longtobefree   2 years ago

      Exactly.
      Completely eliminate all department that are not directly tied to a constitutional authorization.
      (Hint for Eric: Article one, section eight)

    4. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      I disagree with ending the FBI. I would divorce it from Homeland Security before ending Homeland Security. I would also cut 3,990 Federal laws and regulations and their associated regulatory agencies. The ten or fifteen Constitutionally allowed Federal laws remaining could then be safely investigated by the (much smaller) FBI subsequently. Oh, and by the way: eliminate ALL plea bargaining, ladder climbing and investigative and prosecutorial chicanery. If you are suspected of a Federal crime based on reasonable suspicion, you should be charged with that crime and prosecuted, in court, in front of a jury of your peers and either convicted or exonerated on those charges and NOTHING ELSE.

  19. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

    None of these discussions or proposals really matter.

    What is actually going to happen is they are going to print their way into astronomical debt and accelerate the debt with more printing to pay off short term debts. This is the path they cannot get off. The cycle will accelerate until hyperinflation occurs.

    Prepare yourselves accordingly.

    1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

      Right. It's too late to fix this. Young people, prepare for the collapse and the rebuilding afterwards.

  20. Minadin   2 years ago

    Fine. Cut entitlements, cut military spending, cut out a ton of federal grants to local areas. Put all the insider-trading congress members in federal prison. Say, 1 year for every 1% each year their portfolio averaged over the market. So, if you did 10% better than the market for 10 years . . .

    Then vote everyone remaining out and do it again.

    Don't threaten me with a good time.

    1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      "Don’t threaten me with a good time." ---- LOL.. Best comment today!!!

  21. Unicorn Abattoir   2 years ago

    Unicorn Abattoir's Moment of Madness:

    Why not flip the tax structure upside down? i.e., pay the highest rate at the municipal level, and the lowest rate (say 5%) at the federal? You'd have more control over how your taxes are spent, and you'd constrain the federal government's power.

    1. Bill Dalasio   2 years ago

      Because powermongers specifically don't want to decentralize power, silly.

    2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

      Like exactly what the US Constitution instructs?

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   2 years ago

        Pretty much. National Defense, protect the rights of the individual and free trade.

        1. Sevo   2 years ago (edited)

          ^+1
          Oh, and that's defense of the US, not some country where our interests are pretty much zero.

  22. mad.casual   2 years ago

    Fuck you Boehm.

    The largest components of entitlement were enacted when Team D held POTUS, House, and Senate. Team D had POTUS, House, and Senate for two years and did what? Spent money funding Ukraine. Entitlement spending is not a Republican cow. They frequently oppose it and frequently juxtapose it in lieu of other liberties and spending.

    I've got no problem calling military spending a Republican sacred cow, but fuck you for blaming you and your team's contributions to the deficit on others.

    1. Dillinger   2 years ago

      ^ this. also proper use of expletive.

  23. cabaccum   2 years ago

    Reducing costs while maintaining quality is the goal
    for many companies. On this path, profitability, supply chains, etc. are being reviewed. A special place is occupied by the cost of maintaining the company's office and the cost of the company's personnel. Leveraging Pharmbills bpo outsourcing company https://pharmbills.com/ allows companies to hire highly qualified professionals without the need for internal recruitment. It is very effective for cost management to improve business agility. In addition, outsourcing allows business leaders to reduce their stress levels, reducing the chances of executive burnout.

  24. Sevo   2 years ago

    "...As such, there's an element of it that comes off as a partisan exercise—an opportunity to point out that spending cuts alone can't balance the budget,..."

    That's a lie. Cutting spending is the only way to balance the budget.
    What you really mean is that cutting spending in ways which are acceptable can't balance the budget.
    Fuck you; cut spending.

  25. OldNassau 2   2 years ago

    "Sacred cows" and "entitlements" are (de)valuing ) words. Labelling them the miitary an "essential pillar of American democracy", and social seurity and medicare "contracted income earned by a lifetime of contributions" would skew the argument oppositely.

  26. DesigNate   2 years ago

    We spent 3.5 trillion in 2019. Where is the extra 2 trillion the democrats are spending going?

    Cut that and the budget will work itself out seeing as revenue has gone up every year (minus a slight dip in 2020, not sure why).

  27. EscherEnigma   2 years ago

    Y'all are weird.

    The reason this article is framing this about Republicans is because it is the Republicans in the House, under the leadership of McCarthy, that are insisting on a balanced budget. They are also the ones that have said they won't touch those three "sacred cows".

    So yeah, a study showing that their demands are literally impossible to meet is going to be about Republicans because they're the ones making the demands.

    Y'all are prattling about ideology on an article about pragmatism.

    1. mad.casual   2 years ago

      The reason this article is framing this about Republicans is because it is the Republicans in the House, under the leadership of McCarthy, that are insisting on a balanced budget of Boehm.

      FIFY. Opposing being orthogonally blamed for something that isn't your fault and that you don't personally believe in but can't refute without getting massacred isn't weird, it's rational and pragmatic.

      Boehm conflates SS security with all entitlements, conflates legislative or administrative action with budgetary action, and conflates endlessly stated pragmatic compromise with "sacred cow" ideology in order to obfuscate facts and reality with his narrative. He could've acknowledged the pragmatics of the situation but he didn't he, instead, chose to obfuscate with ideology.

      "No, Mr. President: We will not let you cut Social Security. We will fight to expand it." - Bernie Sanders, Jan. 4th, 2020

      "As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen... What we have to do and the way we solve our problems is to build a great economy." - Trump, CPAC 2013

      Directly contrary to the 'sacred cow' assertion, Trump cut SSI benefits. It went generally unnoticed because it wasn't in terms of a high-profile budget fight and it's questionable whether at the grapevine or grass roots level, it cost him the election.

  28. Methadras Aszlosis   2 years ago

    Any presidential candidate worth a shit is going to have to run on the platform of cutting the government by 25% across the board. That will be to exercise the power of the executive. Then propose a budget that cuts medicare/welfare/SS and Military spending. This is the recipe to get us back to some modicum of solvency. Right now 67% of the budget goes into the black hole of entitlements. That is money has little to no ROI the rest porkulous and meaningless spending to keep the administrative state running. It's not sustainable and people will respond in kind

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      Then the media has to go first. They will destroy anyone who presents such a plan.

  29. Andy Hawks   2 years ago

    Eric, it is important, especially for libertarians, to remember that there is a key distinction between "raising taxes" and "raising revenue." Legalizing the underground economies in drugs, gambling, labor (for undocumented aliens), and the sex trade would raise huge amounts of revenue without (in my view) "raising taxes." Does the CRS Report recognize this distinction?

  30. charliehall   2 years ago

    Among the things that would disappear are border security. Let anyone who wants to to walk over the border. No immigration or customs at airports.

    All drugs become legal. Including fentanyl.

    All guns become legal.

    All prisons emptied out. Police abolished at the federal level.

    No more federal aid for infrastructure.

    No more scientific research. A bigger brain drain than Nazi Germany experienced as American scientists emigrate in droves. As long as their passports are still unexpired of course -- no new passports issued because the passport office is defunded.

    Members of Congress would get paid but they would no longer have any staff.

    Federal judges would get paid but they would not have any law clerks and there would be no US Marshals to enforce their orders.

    If a bank fails it is tough luck for the depositors.

    I could go on and on. Preserving our bloated military, Social Security, and the Trump tax cuts means a dystopian society.

    1. Square = Circle   2 years ago

      Among the things that would disappear are border security. Let anyone who wants to to walk over the border. No immigration or customs at airports.

      * * *

      no new passports issued because the passport office is defunded

      Given the first statement, why does the second statement matter?

      Methinks thou graspeth at straws.

    2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      Back in reality, we’re looking for real solutions.

    3. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

      Sounds good to me.

      Why do you think that’s a problem?

      Leave all of that to the states, like the EU does.

  31. Roberta   2 years ago

    To Balance the Budget, Republicans Must

    I seez yer problem right there.

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      It has to be a Republican because democrats only create bigger and bigger problems.

    2. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      Yep. Villfool Blindness detected.

  32. JAFO   2 years ago

    Maybe I missed it...where's the stampede of Democrats in Congress leading the charge for your solution, Eric?

    1. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      I got fi' dolla sez that stampede is gleefully raking together a pile of Women's Votes and praying God's Own Prohibitionists and the LP nominate another girl-bullying mystical bigot. (https://bit.ly/3eZWA0e)

  33. mad.casual   2 years ago

    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1214660855784194048

    Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders
    10,000 Americans died waiting for Social Security Disability Insurance in 2017. Instead of addressing this crisis, Trump wants to make it harder for people with disabilities to get the help they need to get by.

    Unacceptable. We must protect AND EXPAND SSDI and SSI.

    (emphasis added)

    Get fucked Boehm.

  34. Stephen   2 years ago

    This is all BS.

    We steal and redistribute appx $1.5 Trillion every year.
    These programs include, but are not limited to Medicaid, food stamps, SS Disability, Supplemental Security Income, Refundable Tax Credits, artificially higher Social Security pensions for lower income workers, etc.

    We must quickly phase out all such spending while working in very robust work requirements.
    THAT would balance the budget without cutting the military and making the Trump tax cuts permanent.

  35. edbeau99   2 years ago

    A good start would be cutting the several hundred billion dollars a year the Biden administration is wasting on the nonsense of climate change. No more subsidies for EV's, wind farms or solar. And by promoting the development of oil and gas reserves, the federal government will reap a windfall in energy related fees.

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

      Fuel prices would drop precipitously if we just got rid of ethanol reformulaiton.

    2. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      The LP has not yet been infiltrated by enough econazis to screech global warmunism. Right now a vote for the LP is still a vote against anti-energy anarco-communism. (https://tinyurl.com/2p925swy)

  36. NOYB2   2 years ago

    To Balance the Budget, Republicans Must Cut Military Spending, Trim Entitlements, or Raise Taxes
    If Republicans refuse to gore their three sacred cows, a new CBO report shows that balancing the budget is literally impossible.

    With a handful of seats in the majority in the House, and the Senate and the presidency in Democratic hands, what exactly do you want Republicans to do?

    They're not going to trim the military budget in the light of Russia and China, and voters don't want them to. Neither are they going to trim entitlements because it would get vetoed and it would be used against them. Ditto with raising taxes on the middle class, which is the only thing that would really make a difference.

    The only thing we can hope for is that they stand firm on not raising taxes on higher income earners, which would be disastrous. Massive government spending and deficits are going to create inflation, which is like a tax on everyone, and we'll just have to live with it.

  37. The Angry Hippopotamus   2 years ago

    Apologies if I'm repeating something another commenter has already stated; however:

    * Abolish the Department of Education
    * Abolish the Department of Energy
    * Abolish the Department of Transportation
    * Abolish the Department of Health and Human Services
    * Abolish the Department of Homeland Security
    * Abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    * Abolish the FCC
    * Abolish the FDA
    * Abolish the CDC
    * Privatize Air Traffic Control
    * Downsize and have a military focused on defending the US, closing all bases on foreign lands, after all it's Department of Defense, not the Department of War nor the Department of World Police
    * End the 'War on Drugs'
    * End the 'War on Poverty'
    * "Starve the Beast" and repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

    Did a reporter for a libertarian website really write this article?

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      The response from Biden and Democrats would be:

      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto
      veto

      Of course, the b.s. Boehm was suggesting wasn't any more realistic.

      1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago

        There's no way back to stability from here. Whatever the road forward is, it leads through deadly chaos before it gets anywhere better.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

          True. We can only hope Americans develop the will to do what is necessary to the left in time to save this country.

          1. JoeB   2 years ago

            Tough call. You'll see friends and neighbors facing you. In my state I'll be outnumbered 10-1.

            1. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

              Once upon a time one could reason with them….

              Not anymore; Their failed logic has resorted to full on ignorance, bigotry and flat out taking pride in destroying the USA and committing “armed-theft” of their neighbors.

              The only thing I’ve seen that changes their minds anymore is when they end up being a major participant in their rob and dictate those ‘icky’ neighbors. It’s a gangland politics system for a zero-sum resources game and only when the gang starts eating there own do their indoctrinated ‘feelz’ subside to reasoning again.

            2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

              Would have to start in the states run by Americans. But consider that an entire woke mob, many armed, couldn’t take down one armed teenager. Imagine Kyle Rittenhouse backed up by a dozen armed guys with knowledge of tactics and well equipped for battle.

              In any conflict between democrats and Americans, democrats lose.

              1. Vernon Depner   2 years ago (edited)

                The “democrats” would be backed up by the real armed forces and law enforcement. Armed rebel "Americans" would quickly be eliminated.

                1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

                  Some of them. Given how the supermajority of LEO’s and armed forces lean right, I don’t see them all backing the Biden Regime. And if even 1% of the population goes hot, it will be overwhelming.

                  Being a bunch of weak little pussies does not pay dividends for the democrats in any physical confrontation.

    2. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

      The problem is that the work these Departments and Agencies do will still remain and so will most of the cost. The cost is not agency but rather the work done by that department or agency. The problem is that it cannot be done from the top down but rather needs to be done from the bottom up. The work of the agency would need to be evaluated and then decide what is not needed and how the work will be accomplished.

      Kidnapping case where the victim crosses a state line are handled by the FBI. Who handles those crimes in the future? Who going to set standards for testing new drugs and who will review the data. I could go on and on.

      Downsizing what the government does is a good idea but it has to be done from the bottom up not the top down.

      1. The Angry Hippopotamus   2 years ago

        The work of the agency would need to be evaluated and then decide what is not needed

        Article I Section 8 is a good place to start and I can find no clause granting power to Congress for anything I listed.

      2. NOYB2   2 years ago

        You’re missing the point here. People who are saying “abolish the departments” are saying that the with these departments are doing is superfluous.

        How would we cope? The same way the EU does. If there is cooperation needed, the states can voluntarily agree to do it, under state control, with voluntary participation of each state.

  38. AlishaPerry   2 years ago (edited)

    Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…

    Visit following page for more information…………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

  39. Liberty Lover   2 years ago (edited)

    To Balance the Budget, Democrat’s Must Cut Unproven Woke Green Spending, Trim Entitlements, Trim Foreign aid to teach LGBT+ to other counties, End funding others wars, Not Just Raise Taxes

    While the GOP now controls the House, it is by a very narrow margin. The two parties need to come m a consensus on spending, no one party can ram through what they want right now. While spending originates in the House, the Senate and President have a lot of say in it too. Especially the President with his Veto power and the GOP not enough votes to override. For the TDS lunatics to put in all on the GOP is very disingenuous.

    We do need to cut the budget, and there is no way to do that at this point without causing pain for a lot of people, but that pain will be a lot less than the coming economic collapse if we stay on the Democratic led spending spree. The Democrats problem is if that happens in the next two years, Biden and the Democrats will be blamed, which will be appropriate. I realized this is a long term problem by both parties but Biden and the Democrat’s spending and policies are certainly hastening the end. Being in power has consequences. Presidents get the blame.

  40. raspberrydinners   2 years ago

    Good one reason. Pretending Rs give a flying fuck about balancing the budget one goddamn bit. They use it as a cudgel when a Dem is president and spend like drunken sailors when it's an R president. Rinse/repeat.

    How any person can be so fucking dumb to think they're at all any of the following is beyond me:
    1) Party of personal responsibility (Trump- the bucks stops over there somewhere)
    2) fiscally conservative (see above)
    3) Party of freedom (Florida anyone?)

    1. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

      “spend like drunken sailors when it’s an R president” — Well; that’s a boldfaced lie. Democrats held the House and wrote the Cares Act (the big spending under Trump); your only case would be Republicans failed to stop Democrats massive spending. And which party was the only objection to it? Thomas Massie [R].

      The Democratic Trifecta has UN-debatable unprecedented spending every-time.

      1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        We really should get rid of the democrats and see what happens. It should be pretty easy to weed out the bad republicans at that point. Plus leaving a big vacuum to be filled by more libertarian leaning individuals.

        1. Liberty Lover   2 years ago (edited)

          Yet ever Republican Administration has out spent the previous Democratic Administration and every Democratic Administration has out spent the previous Republican Administration. To blame it on one party or the other is ridiculous. I do agree Republicans find fiscal responsibility only when out of power and try to limit Democratic spending and that is good. On the other hand Democrats have never seen a nickel they didn’t want to spend and enable the Republican spending, though they argue what it should be spent on. So both parties are culpable. Yet the party with the most power at the time is the party responsible at the moment (that would be the Democrats right now), and neither has done a good job over time.
          Remember, regardless of the make up of Congress, the President gets the blame.

          1. NOYB2   2 years ago (edited)

            The problem isn’t either party, the problem is the American voters: they want free crap from the government. Even the so called libertarians want to do things like abolish drug laws, permit vagrancy, and open borders but continue to socialize the costs.

            No party can go against that. But if a majority of the American voters ever tolerates shrinking government, Republicans are going to deliver and Democrats are still going to fight it.

  41. Johnathan Galt   2 years ago

    2022 budget numbers:
    Entitlements - $3.5 trillion
    Defense - $1.1 trillion
    Everything else - $0.6 trillion
    Total Spending - $5.2 trillion
    Revenues - $4.2 trillion
    Shortfall - $1 trillion

    A balanced budget will require 20% cuts across the board. That means only $2.8 trillion for Entitlements - which includes interest on the debt ($1 trillion) - which CANNOT be cut. Oops, that means that it will require 40% cuts to SS, Medicare, etc.

    1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago (edited)

      Or just cut entitlements. Endless bullshit there to cut. Start with all finding to illegals.

      1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        Meant to say ‘just cut entitlements by 30%’

    2. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

      All anyone need do to cut government looting and squandering is vote Libertarian. Voting Communist and Fascist got the mess the way it is with spoiler vote fractions under 3% on average. (https://bit.ly/3FnmxRb)

      1. NOYB2   2 years ago

        Libertarians are useless at cutting government looting.

        In fact, just look at these pages: most libertarians are happy to continue government looting while pushing policies that will increase government spending.

        The only way to shrink government is for the country to become conservative first. That’s how all libertarian leaving small government societies have arisen.

        1. Ersatz   2 years ago

          and that will only happen after a catastrophe [economic, natural - yellowstone caldera ... you get the picture]

          the widows mite is easy to sacrifice - it was only going to last for a day anyhow so what the heck? Americans will sacrifice their freebees when the freebees are worthless - and that will be either a) when feckless govt destroys the financial system and economy or b) some kind of national or global disaster [note - i'm not positing the unicorn of climate crisis here]

  42. Libertariantranslator   2 years ago

    To provide for the Common Defense is in the original Constitution. To copy the Communist Manifesto Plank 2 was inserted as Amendment 16 thanks to Teedy Rosenfeld. Transfer payments from producers to non-producers were added after GOProhibitionists wrecked the economy and helped Hitler rise to power. Most of the bipartisan New Deal was copied from what Republicans proudly called the New Germany... until 1942.

    1. NOYB2   2 years ago

      The welfare state was created German conservatives in order to ward off communists. It wasn’t that they wanted government handouts, it's that providing them was the only alternative to the threat of a socialist revolution.

      Your history of the New Deal and the US economy is bullshit.

  43. CE   2 years ago

    Taxes bring in around 4 trillion dollars per year, which was enough to run the whole government just 5 years ago. So cut spending back to 2018 levels and no more deficit. It's not like the government was too small in 2018.

  44. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

    I’ve always gotten the impression that she’s kind of dumb. At least relative to someone holding her position. So maybe not quite Tony dumb (85 IQ), but on the dim side of her profession.

  45. Pear Satirical   2 years ago

    Much like her boss.

  46. ultimac   2 years ago

    1. Cut spending? Yes, absolutely. No topic should be off the table and this really is the best way to achieve fiscal health. Fewer government jobs means more folk available for all those Help Wanted signs by eliminating redundant and unconstitutional government agencies, and penalizing as necessary all agencies for their poor accounting practices, military + entitlements are quite egregious I'm afraid.
    2. Increase revenue? That just gives more money to the idiots to spend recklessly. Less power to them can only be good for us. If they really wanted to maximize revenue though is they would adjust rates to do so (but that usually means taxes go down) along with doing whatever they could to get government out of the way of hampering economic activity ( which usually means eliminate regulation that have no net benefit -- going to be a lot of them).

  47. John Gall   2 years ago

    Don't 'cut' spending, eliminate it. First, ALL of the subsidies provided 'green', or alternative energy sources (which aren't alternatives, because they need to be subsidized, to make them 'alternative'.

    I'm 7'2",if I'm on stilts.

  48. markm23   2 years ago

    Several entire departments should be cut. But 90% of those Republicans that talk about smaller government to win elections don't mean it once government power is in _their_ hands.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Class Action Threat to Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

Damon Root | 7.15.2025 7:00 AM

Brickbat: Terminating X

Charles Oliver | 7.15.2025 4:00 AM

The Original Alcatraz Closed for Costing Too Much. Alligator Alcatraz Should Too.

Autumn Billings | 7.14.2025 5:05 PM

The Department of Justice Just Sided with RFK Jr. Group's Claim That News Orgs Can't Boycott Misinformation

Jack Nicastro | 7.14.2025 4:58 PM

Hundreds of 'Alligator Alcatraz' Detainees Don't Have Criminal Records

C.J. Ciaramella | 7.14.2025 4:00 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

© 2024 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

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

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

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!