The House GOP Debt Ceiling Plan Would Restore Spending Caps. Good.
The most important part of the Limit, Grow, Save Act is the limits.

With budget deficits rising to unsustainable levels and the federal debt limit becoming a dangerous political hot potato, Congress and the White House struck a deal to limit the growth of future spending.
That was 12 years ago. But the spending caps imposed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011—while imperfect, occasionally bent, and eventually discarded by the very Republicans who originally championed them—essentially worked: From 2012 through 2015, annual federal budget deficits fell from over $1.2 trillion to about $430 billion, the lowest level recorded since 2007. The election of President Donald Trump snuffed out Republican interest in fiscal restraint, but the theory that guided those few years of budgeting remains strong. To best way to stop Congress from approving massive amounts of borrowing to fund an overextended federal budget is to put some artificial limits in place.
Which brings us to the Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, the Republican-backed framework for a debt ceiling agreement. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) unveiled the bill last week. If passed, it would do a lot of little things to help reduce federal spending, such as blocking student debt forgiveness, undoing some recently created green energy tax credits, and revoking the huge budget increase given to the IRS last year. Those are all worthwhile ideas.
The bill would also do one really big, very important thing: reinstate some limits on Congress's ability to spend and spend and spend.
Specifically, the proposal would reset the federal budget baseline to where it was last year—that is, before the December passage of the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill that jacked up spending across the board—and would limit future budget growth to one percent annually for the next decade.
Of the roughly $4 trillion that would be saved over the next 10 years under the Republican plan, about $3.2 trillion of those savings come from the proposed limits on discretionary spending, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). The group's analysis of the Republican proposal finds that the national debt "would rise only about half as fast as currently projected" if Congress were to impose and abide by the discretionary spending limits in the proposal.

While we wait for more detailed analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Wharton Budget Model, the CRFB's assessment of the Limit, Save, Grow Act is an encouraging sign. The group calls the package a "welcome step in the right direction" and says the bill would "help the Federal Reserve fight inflation in the near term and generate significant savings at a time when they're desperately needed."
The Republican proposal is already being subject to misleading attacks that claim the spending caps would result in "cuts," even though the federal budget would continue to grow. The National Education Association, for example, is asking members to oppose what it calls "devastating cuts of 22 percent or more in essential government programs."
That's utter nonsense. Even after the $130 billion cut that would be necessary to bring federal spending back to last year's levels, the bill would set 2023's budgetary authority at levels that are 40 percent higher than they were in 2017. That's a giant increase in government spending over just seven years and a nice illustration of the wildly unsustainable course that the federal budget has been following.
And of course, spending will continue to grow in future years—though perhaps not as quickly as some special interests would like.
Artificial constraints on spending and borrowing are imperfect tools. Even if the Limit, Save, Grow Act becomes law—which is a long shot right now—future Congresses will be able to discard the discretionary spending caps at will. Like all the rules that govern how lawmakers can operate, they are only as good as the willingness to obey them.
But recent history suggests they're better than nothing. Budget deficits are on an unsustainable course, and the debt ceiling is a major issue. It's time for Congress and the White House to impose new spending caps.
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
Tucker Carlson leaving Fox effective immediately.
Don Lemon "star anchor" at CNN also out.
My most recent pay test was for a 12-hour-per-week internet job for $9,500. For months, my sister’s friend has been making an average of 15,000, and she puts in about 20 hours every week. As soon as I gave it a try, I was shocked at how simple it was…
Do this instead—— http://hardincomejob90.blogspot.com
Working together on a reboot of the Odd Couple?
I would watch that. It wouldn’t even need to be scripted.
Or even SNL. “Don you ignorant slut.”
Beyond parody:
https://babylonbee.com/news/fox-news-fires-the-only-reason-people-watch-fox-news
There is something stangely familar about that line. Just can't seem to put my finger on it....
He was the biggest draw on Fox. This has to be a money thing with Carlson. He'll show up somewhere else.
Maybe. I've seen enough suspicions on Twitter of it being a political thing.
Would explain why never got more J6 footage.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
The Republican proposal is already being subject to misleading attacks that claim the spending caps would result in "cuts," even though the federal budget would continue to grow.
Republicans and Democrats are equally bad on spending. A pox on both their houses. Both sides.
Rinse, repeat.
When a Republican is president, the Republicans are WORSE than Democrats on spending.
Nope.
Data says yep.
Cite?
What data? From where? And how does a democrat controlled congress factor in?
Your word means nothing.
Maybe he meant Data from Star Trek.
ACTUAL data says NO. They are not much better, but they couldn't be worse.
It always goes up. I'm not sure it's possible to tease out all of the factors on who deserves most blame. I'd say Democrats own more of the spending, but Republicans are fucking useless for never attempting to seriously do anything about it.
In the end, it's the voters. To quote Milton Friedman:
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”
The Democrats actively want more spending, the Republicans respond to the reality that if they ever make an attempt to lower spending they will be out of office. That's a difference, I suppose, but it's not enough of a difference to matter.
Though I'll gladly blame Gingrich for deliberately spiking the balanced budget amendment. I think that moment was really when the chances of avoiding a fiscal crash went to zero.
Without a constitutional mandate to balance the budget, it's never going to be balanced again, short of a crash so severe that nobody will loan the federal government money even at the point of a gun.
The gop has many attempts to reign it in, such as Paul Ryan under Obama, contract for America, etc. Problem is the state defending neocon center that caters to the left.
Republicans under an R president are worse that Democrats under an R president, true. But they have still been rather a lot better than Democrats under a D president. Least spend-thrift (but still pretty bad) have been Republicans under a D president.
Never-mind every spending under an R president was pitched and over-overwhelmingly supported by a D congress. Heck; The D's only complain has been it's not enough spending....
You keep saying that, but OUTRIGHT REFUSE to even hint at where the underlying data would be found. That is because, at least subconsciously, you KNOW the actual data doesn't support your claim.
Republicans rarely make things better, but they don't do anywhere near as much to make them worse.
Both large deficit reductions happened because of Dem presidents - Clinton and Obama.
Who controlled the House during those times?
Don’t make him cry.
Obama came right out of the door TRIPLING the deficit by 3-TIMES!!! Exactly as Biden has done. Take your LIES and shove them up your *ss.
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.
"revoking the huge budget increase given to the IRS last year. Those are all worthwhile ideas."
This "worthwhile idea" will simply allow more criminals to cheat on their taxes and get away with it, increasing the debt. Obviously the author has a different agenda than the national debt.
Have you not ready any of the articles here about the IRS budget increase? They are not targeting intentional criminals - they never have. The IRS overwhelmingly audits the poorest and most vulnerable over failures to understand a tax code so complex that their own staff can't (and won't) explain it.
Earned Income Tax Credit fraud is one of the biggest things they go after.
I'll grant you that the Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the biggest things they go after. From the reports I've seen, though, it's a lot less 'fraud' and a lot more 'clueless mistakes'. People qualifying for the EITC aren't generally able to afford a professional tax preparer and the IRS' instructions are less than a model of clarity.
That bill is a big mistake.
When Biden said he would not negotiate, they should have immediately started the real budget process, and promised the debt increase would be in the last bill passed.
They had the time, but not the balls.
Not a bad suggestion.
Biden is right not to negotiate with terrorists.
Negotiate with terrorists? Biden can't even negotiate a stairway.
“Better than nothing” … based upon what criteria? If Congress does nothing at this point the debt ceiling will not be raised, Federal spending will stop (at least spending on the most popular programs) and Washington, D.C., will pretend to go into crisis mode with finger pointing and blame shifting ensuing until the Republicans cave – again! – and they all go back to business as usual. However, when the Republicans cave, they will no longer be doing “nothing” which violates the premise of the thought experiment of “doing nothing.” So "doing nothing" would clearly be better for America.
More than anything the Congress needs to get back to regular order for budgeting. This would likely be more successful than any gimmicks. As the article notes spending caps were good until they were dropped, gimmick are short lived. Kevin McCarthy should put the debt ceiling in the rearview mirror and start the budgeting process. The are members on both sides of the aisle that will support this approach.
I think Congress needs to budget only those federal functions authorized in the Constitution. Fat chance, right?
Budget deficits are on an unsustainable course, and the debt ceiling is a major issue. It's time for Congress and the White House to impose new spending caps.
Lol there is a 0% chance of this happening.
How about don't raise the debt ceiling? Why even have it if it has to be raised every few years?
I'd like a constitutional amendment that says that an annual budget cannot be more than the previous year's tax receipts. In my fantasy world.
Well, if men can be women, your fantasies can come true as well.
How about a constitutional amendment repealing the income tax, and another one guaranteeing the freedom to produce/consume competing currencies to the US dollar?
I mean, if we're gonna propose fantasy worlds... 🙂
"The election of President Donald Trump snuffed out Republican interest in fiscal restraint"
Just a reminder: In his first year Trump actually submitted a budget proposal with cuts. Congress responded with a spending increase passed by a bipartisan, veto proof majority.
Now, I'll readily admit that, having had it proven to him in the most graphic way possible that spending cuts were off the table, he gave up on them. But, please, let's not pretend it was Trump who purged the GOP of any interest in fiscal restraint. That was all on the Republican Congress, and mostly on the Republican Congressional leadership, who didn't even try to hold the line.
It’s the never Trumoers and the democrats that are the problem.
Trump Cult victim above.
Please explain to the commentariat again how you got your original handle banned from Reason. I believe it had something to do with posting CP links to a thread and then Reason having to scrub that thread of comments afterward. Oh, and don't lie, your original handle was "Sarah Palin's Buttplug", no "2".
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.
Yes lets not pretend
The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast.” He added: “We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!”
Color me shocked that the education industry thinks that slowing growth amounts to 'cuts', but if we're being honest this is how pretty much every special interest is going to spin it and the membership and standard moron voter will believe it without a single moment of reflection.
People have figured out they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury, and as such the American experiment is just about over. I don't believe there is anything that can really be done about that anymore.
"People have figured out they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury"
^^^ BINGO ^^^
When the US Constitution got thrown in the garbage it was only a matter of time before it became a Gov-Gun 'em down gangland "armed-theft" political system. Which is *exactly* what it is.
From 2012 through 2015, annual federal budget deficits fell from over $1.2 trillion to about $430 billion, the lowest level recorded since 2007.
Wingnuts say this didn't happen although Obama promised to do exactly the same thing while campaigning.
Cite?
Obama pledges to cut nation's deficit in half
President Obama blames health care costs for a rising federal deficit and promises to cut the $1.3 trillion debt in half by the end of his term.
EMAIL | PRINT | SHARE | RSS
February 23, 2009: 4:41 PM ET
A link, dumbass.
Obama promised to cut health care costs - and his signature program delivered approximately zero savings to that promise. In fact, subsequent studies show that Obamacare probably drove a slight increase in aggregate health care costs.
The deficit fell despite Obama, not because of him. Note the timing you had to cherry-pick. Yes, deficits fell from 2012 to 2015 while Obama was president. Now look up who was in control of Congress at the time.
Remember that 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.
No, they say that you're a lying piece of shit who tries to attribute that to Obama when it was Congress who slowed the spending down. I forget who controlled congress for the three years where the deficit didn't change much and then who took over and it started going down again?
I wouldn’t expect honesty from an unrepentant child molester.
Oh look, it is the two main members of the Denny Hastert conservative fan club. Get your Lazy-Boys positioned to watch the boys shower you two.
Would you care to explain why you were banned?
Please explain, we're dying to hear it.
None of this matters, nor will any minor measures and half measures accomplish anything going forward.
They are going to drive us straight off the cliff at full speed and nothing can stop them. Prepare accordingly.
Yes. It's too late to avoid complete financial collapse. The resources do not exist to make good on our current debt, and it continues to grow. Young people will have to rebuild in the ruins.
Obama intends to cut the federal deficit in half primarily by spending less on the war in Iraq, raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year and streamlining government, an administration official told CNN Saturday.
.
The president's budget proposal will project that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit inherited from the Bush administration will be halved to $533 billion by 2013, or from 9.2% of the gross domestic product to 3%, the official said.
.
Obama's plans to cut the deficit may be complicated by the continuing economic downturn, which threatens to reduce tax revenues. A group of leading economists is now forecasting a far deeper and more painful recession ahead in the first half of the year, with a solid recovery not taking hold until 2010.
https://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/news/economy/fiscal_summit/index.htm
How it is done, Peanuts.
Right Also from your article:
Greenstein minimized the impact of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan on the budget shortfall, saying that the plan amounts to only one-tenth of 1% of the gross domestic product.
Not exactly chump change, adding $787 billion as a "stimulus".
Obama intends to cut the federal deficit in half primarily by spending less on the war in Iraq, raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year and streamlining government, an administration official told CNN Saturday.
All of which were lies and never happened.
And according to estimates by economists Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and William Gale of the Brookings Institution, the deficit - largely because of the recession and the new economic stimulus effort - will average at least $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, even if the stimulus is limited to two years and the jobs picture improves dramatically.
Obama, as usual, was blowing hot air for people like you who believed such shit.
imagine thinking Obama is some kind of example on how to deal with federal budget deficit. good lord.
From 2012 through 2015, annual federal budget deficits fell from over $1.2 trillion to about $430 billion, the lowest level recorded since 2007
So Reason is lying?
Obama promised and delivered.
Why are you such a partisan shill? Just say he got something right.
lol you're doing great.
Why do you not give some credit for those reductions to the Republican house of the time? Seriously dude, you would have (marginally) more credibility if you gave some credit to the other side when it is deserved.
From 2012 through 2015, annual federal budget deficits fell from over $1.2 trillion to about $430 billion, the lowest level recorded since 2007 --- (Reason.com today)
Obama did it, you moron.
Who controlled the House during that time? You know, the purse strings?
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.
The two legacy parties are equally hypocrites. When the opposition party is in power, they're against whatever they want to do, but whenever their own party is "in", they're suddenly for it.
Neither party can be trusted with the levers of power.
no one can be trusted with levers of power.
The real understanding comes when you realize the government should not even have these levers to pull.
+10000000000 Exactly....
All that would be required is to F'En OBEY the GD definition of the USA (US Constitution). Instead of letting it get conquered by treasonous "democracy" [Na]tional So[zi]alists.
Hey, could you write in English next time? So much random capitalization, abbreviations and bizarre parentheticals. Just say what you mean without all the cutesy nonsense.
Unlike households or states, sovereign nations can print money, and the only constrait is inflation. Some spending can counteract inflation, such as spending on public projects that increase productivity and create jobs. The whole argument about the debt limit is based on the lie that the government must balance the budget In fact, the poorest nations on earth have the least debt and the wealthierst have the most national debt
It is also absurd to first authorize spending and then argue whether to pay for it. The Republican threat to create a global depression by defaulting on the debt is a game of chicken and Republicans know that they usually lose in this game.
Spending to create green energy will reduce the cost of electricity and thus is anti-inflationary. All money spent on war ("defense") is inflationary......the threat of default "if we don't get to cut foodstamps, healthcare, etc" is a form of terrorism.
Debasing the currency with hyperinflation is just another way of defaulting. One way or the other, payments on the debt will effectively stop and our financial system will collapse.
Wow, that's some impressive spin you've convinced yourself of.
Let's start with your "spending to create green energy" which, in every country so far, has increased the cost of electricity. Even Obama said that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket".
Money spent on defense may be inflationary - or it could actually be keeping the wolves from the door. There is a lot of waste in the defense budget that should certainly be cleaned up but leaving yourself utterly defenseless is an invitation to every bully in the world to take your lunch money. It's hard to call that sane, much less deflationary.
Calling your political opponents "terrorists" because they disagree with your social priorities is, well, long-accepted practice but it hardly marks you as someone to be taken seriously. It is also deeply disrespectful of the victims of actual terrorism.
You show up, pitching this bullshit, and then, thankfully disappear. Please fuck and die.
The House GOP Debt Ceiling Plan Would Restore Spending Caps. Good. Yet not one mention of Dictator Joe Biden saying give me a blank check for spending or I will shut the government down and blame it on the GOP. I refuse to negotiate!!!!
Well, it has worked every time previously: If the Democrats shut down the government in response to Republicans refusing to increase spending, the media almost uniformly report it as the Republicans shutting it down.
I've said this before, I'll say it again: The stupidest thing the Republicans ever did, and there's a lot of competition, was letting the Democrats get control of the media without putting up a fight.
Yes; Good indeed. How about a SCOTUS that would actually enforce the US Constitution and block all UN-Constitutional spending? As the USA is suppose to operate.
I've lived through countless deficit cutting measures. The problem is that when the Democrats have the power, the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibilty. When the Republicans have the power, there is no party of fiscal responsibility. I beleive Rand Paul said that.
Sounds about right.
One thing no one calling for a "clean" increase in the debt limit will admit it that the reason for a debt limit to exist is to force Congress to reassess spending when it is reached. If it is just increased without conditions, it may as well not exist.