Don't Believe the Media Fearmongering About Spending Cuts
In 2019, discretionary spending was $1.338 trillion—or some $320 billion less than what Republicans want that side of the budget to be.

If you read news coverage about the brewing battle over raising the debt ceiling, you might think it's a fight between demons and angels. On one side, you have Republicans who are willing to risk a default on the government's debt unless they get spending cuts that will starve people. On the other side, you have Democrats who, guarding the interests of ordinary Americans, want a "clean" increase in the debt ceiling with no cuts in spending.
None of this is accurate. The concessions sought by Republicans are relatively small compared to what needs to be done. In fact, the truly problematic position is the one that blindly insists that we shouldn't cut spending or worry about government debt.
Does the debt ceiling supply the right moment to seek commitments to cut spending? I think so, if only because this year's negotiation might offer a rare window of opportunity that usually only happens during a financial crisis, something nobody wants. Republicans might do a bit more than merely pay lip service to fiscal responsibility and force Democrats to consider spending cuts. Yet, let's face it: These negotiations were never going to produce any kind of meaningful and broad fiscal reform.
That's in part because modern Republicans aren't paragons of fiscal responsibility. When one of them is in the Oval Office, they spend like drunken sailors, and most of their members cannot be called economic freedom fighters. This lack of unity, paired with the scale of the debt problem, was always going to result in insufficient demands, especially under a tight debt-limit deadline.
And as every serious budget observer knows, insisting on spending cuts that would make a real difference would require putting on the table real reform of entitlement programs. Today, many Republicans explicitly oppose such reforms.
So, let's see what is on the chopping block. First, there's cancellation of unused COVID-19 relief appropriations, which will probably save less than $60 billion. Most of these would have expired anyway, but periodically purging the massive overhang of appropriations from earlier years is good budgetary hygiene.
Next, we get a rollback of discretionary spending back to FY 2022 levels and something of a freeze thereafter. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that means that in FY 2024, discretionary spending—which represents only 30 percent of the budget—would fall to about $1.7 trillion from the currently projected $1.9 trillion. Mandatory spending due to entitlements, however, would continue to balloon—from $3.8 trillion this year to $5.9 trillion in FY 2033, for a total budget of about $8 trillion.
This plan would block student debt forgiveness, reduce some special-interest tax credits (but save biofuel tax credits to please the Iowa caucus), and cut the $80 billion increase to the IRS budget. While symbolic of a change, these cuts won't make much of a dent in the projected $20.2 trillion deficit over 10 years.
Yet story after story in the media alerts readers of the horrible things that could happen if these paltry cuts are implemented. Flight delays would mount due to air traffic control budget reductions; hunger would afflict children; suicides would skyrocket. Woe would sweep over the republic.
Really? I don't recall chronic flight delays or a food crisis in, say, 2019. Yet at the time discretionary spending was $1.338 trillion, or some $320 billion less than what Republicans want that side of the budget to be after their cuts. I wish people would stop fearmongering for a second so we can have a real conversation about our fiscal future.
Such a conversation might acknowledge that in the next 10 years, the federal government will spend over $80 trillion, most of it on three programs, while it will only collect $60 trillion as revenue. We could also talk about the fact that over $10 trillion will be used to pay interest on the debt. This figure will be even higher if inflation persists or if interest rates rise further. And since these payments require more borrowing, they could fuel inflation further. The debt held by the public will grow by some $20 trillion by FY2033.
Instead of pretending Republicans are monsters for demanding small budget reductions, Democrats need to start putting facts ahead of politics. And even if Republicans succeed in getting small cuts, the GOP must acknowledge that much more needs to be done. Maybe then, after the current debt ceiling crisis passes, we can start talking about truly meaningful changes.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
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
People who believe in liberty need to find a new label for themselves, because "libertarian" is lost
https://twitter.com/ToddHagopian/status/1651340473020055552?t=bb2uuU7oCMsk_9rAwYRdOQ&s=19
I don't really give a fuck what you think about Trans people. If you misgender anyone repeatedly, and on purpose - you are not edgy, you are just an asshole
Awwww, wrong name calling is so bad, but yet you can call someone an asshole.
Mike, great work. I appreciate your work since I presently make more than $36,000 a month from one straightforward internet business! I am aware that you are now making a good living online starting sb-05 with merely $29,000, and they are simple internet operational chores.
.
.
Just click the link—————>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
There's room for debate over what qualities are innate, but behaving an asshole is absolutely and unquestionably a choice. Don't wanna be called a thief? Don't take people's stuff except though mutually voluntary exchange. Don't wanna be called a murderer? Don't kill someone without a damn good reason. Don't wanna be called an asshole? Don't be rude and disrespectful to people unless they've clearly said or done something that deserves contempt.
I'd say castrating oneself in the pursuit of a fetish is certainly worthy of contempt.
I don’t really give a fuck what you think about Trans people.
You know who doesn't care about trans people? The healthcare system and its scalpels.
Wrong. They care deeply, like Hormel cares about hogs.
Proud asshole here. Never thought I was being edgy, just accepting reality. I will never affirm 2+2=5 no matter how long I spend in room 101.
Never thought I was being edgy, just accepting reality.
It really comes across as the most out-of-touch "Trans Cool Mom" thing a parent could say.
Cool Mom: Just because all your friends jump off a bridge doesn't mean you have to jump off a bridge too. I just want you to be safe and spend time with the family. We do cool things. We're cool too, right?
Trans Cool Mom: If you want to cut your genitayleea off because all your friends are cutting their genitayleea off, I support you. I just want you to be tolerant of other people. If you misgender anyone repeatedly and on purpose you aren't being edgy, you're just being an asshole.
Teen: [deflective eyeroll] Whatever brah.
In the age where 2+2=5, And logic states that people with X-X chromosomes are females and those with X-Y chromosomes are males, we are then supposed to suspend those facts, at the point of being prosecuted, to pretend those facts don't matter and we are to reinforce someone's mental illness in doing so.
America has flown over the cuckoo's nest.
That's Mr. Asshole to you.
I'm an engineer, I won't work with trannies
If if someone is willing to lie about their gender how do I know they won't falsify other data?
Racist! Plugging a DC machine into an AC outlet will work just fine, with enough virtue signaling.
No need to troubleshoot faulty connections. Just pretend that terminals, leads, plugs, pads, ports, outlets, sockets… all male and female connectors are 100% interchangeable with enough modification and function as expected 100% of the time.
I'd like to see someone do that with a 50 kilowatt transmitter. Or RADAR. Try installing something as innocuous as a diode or polarized capacitor in backwards and see how that works out.
Must be nice being psychic.
It's like 1980 - March of 2023 all over again.
On one side, you have Republicans who are willing to risk a default on the government's debt unless they get spending cuts that will starve people.
The only risk to default is if the Executive, headed by Joe, refuses to pay debts first. Full stop. Revenue > payments on the debt.
That quote also reveals the lie to any claim to libertarianism she has. It is not the government's job to compel me to pay for the lifestyle of others for nothing.
I get the impression that some people don't understand that the "quote" is merely representing what one side of the argument is saying, not the author's position.
Reason shitters gotta shit, even if that means shitting on a blatant strawman. At this point, I have higher regard for the spambots than many commenters here.
Congress decides taxes and spending. The only way the President can influence that is if he vetoes the budget.
Which would be good, but that will never happen.
Precisely. That's just signing on for the Democrats' talking point in demanding an increase in the debt ceiling: That the only alternative to increasing it is default, or maybe some stupid gimmick to circumvent the requirement that Congress approve borrowing, like a "Trillion dollar" platinum coin, or declaring not borrowing more money to be unconstitutional.
The federal government is currently spending 25% of GDP. At the worst of the Covid spending binge, it hit 31%! A level never previously seen outside of WWII. In more normal times it has been in the 10-20% range for better than half a century.
If you wanted to balance the budget tomorrow, all you'd have to do is revert to pre-Covid spending levels, "only" 20% of GDP, and the budget would be instantly in balance.
And that's all that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would do: Not default, just force spending to be reduced to revenue minus interest on the debt, which equals 2018 spending levels.
I'm sure we all remember 2018. Bodies stacked up like cordwood in the streets, empty store shelves, the Hoovervilles full of unemployed...
The bottom line is that Democrats so love their spending that they'd cause a constitutional crisis to keep spending at what a few years ago they were insisting was just emergency levels that would be abandoned as soon as the emergency was past.
They're spending way more than 25% of GDP.
GDP includes government spending.
US GDP in 2022 was 24.56 trillion dollars.
Federal spending in 2022 was 6.27 trillion dollars.
That's 25.5% of the official GDP number, but it's 34.3% of the productive economy.
If the government jacked spending up to 18.29 trillion dollars, they would be spending all of it, but they could claim they increased GDP to 36.58 trillion! Happy Days are here again!
Yeah, and Yellen is saying they should pay government workers first. Which should be a fireable offense.
I don’t like ethanol subsidies but since the government decides how much ethanol we have to have in our gas, they should also foot the bill through subsidies. A better move would be to kill the ethanol requirements. Yes, in the end we pay one way or the other. Rather than complain about the subsidies wouldn’t it be better to complain about the requirements that make the subsidies necessary in the first place? If ethanol truly could be competitive than end requirements and subsidies. Don't whine about one half of the equation, but complain about the equation period.
Ethanol reformulation is of no real value in reducing emissions on cars past about 2002. The sole remaining purpose is giveaways from taxpayers.
Which is why it should end.
Subsidies may shift the burden around a bit, but without some source of non-tax revenue they ultimately do literally less than nothing to reduce prices since they distort the market. I tend to agree that the ideal response would be to phase out both ethanol requirements and subsidies. If farmers can't make a living without subsidies, then maybe they're in the wrong line of work. Besides which roughly three-quarters of subsidies are going to big time agribusiness, not exactly Ma and Pa down on the farm...
"get spending cuts that will starve people"
Everyone who believes Gov-Guns makes stuff raise their hands....
Now; Please explain to everyone how GUNS make sh*t.
The concessions sought by Republicans are relatively small compared to what needs to be done. In fact, the truly problematic position is the one that blindly insists that we shouldn’t cut spending or worry about government debt.
This is entirely my issue with Reason. Instead of applauding the 2% reduction in baseline budgeting and setting it to 1% from 3%, Reason attacks it as being equal to the DNC demands to spend 5% increases or more.
This is a debt ceiling fight where the GOP has one voice out of 3, but they attack the 1 out of 3 here almost more than the other 2 voices in the room. It is the pure definition of good being the enemy of perfect. Instead if praising the estimated 4.8T in reduction, they castigated both sides equally (gop a bit more in this article). Instead of saying it is a good start, let’s see more. This gives the DNC cover as if you blame both sides equally despite disparate outcomes, why modulate the worse outcome? It is literal cover for the Dems.
The deal for debt increases is removal of unspent covid funds, removal of recent spending increases, and a 2% reduction to baseline budgeting. Yes I would like more, much more… but this is at least a start that should at least be praised as a start.
This article almost singles out the GOP while ignoring the veto threat and statements from the DNC who want to spend far more. Why?
Should be perfect being the enemy of good.
As long as we're clear that Republicans are the enemy, it's all good.
Reason favors democrats, so this isn’t a surprise. The non RINO republicans would like to get spending under control and at least move towards a balanced budget, but the RINO’s and democrats fight them aggressively. Then of course we have the usurper Biden who won’t negotiate a $7 trillion budget.
But republicans are the baddies………
Do you actually believe any of this bullshit, or is this some kind of weird performance art? Spending grows fastest when the GOP is in power. No more than a tiny handful of Republican officials even bother to pay lip service to fiscal responsibility unless they have a Dem to bash, and it's painfully obvious few of them really mean it even then. Bush II made this painfully obvious, and the Trump administration ground our collective face in it. "But the Dems are worse!" is an incredibly weak argument. I don't see any reason to prefer an elephant shit sandwich to a donkey shit sandwich. But as long people insist on playing the Rupblicrat game, we're going to keep right on being fed shit.
Lay off 10% of the federal work force immediately. Give the rest a 5% pay cut and no raises for the next 2 years. Then switch all new federal employees to 401k plans instead of pensions.
Washington DC has the highest average salary of any city in the US. People used to trade off below-market wages for job security and better benefits to work for the government. Now they get gold-plated everything.
Deys gimmedats want more gimmedats.
"Don't Believe the Media Fearmongering About Spending Cuts"
Too late because White Mike, Buttplug and M4E have said they're planning on doing exactly that.
The only concerns I have is that we don't cut spending so far that Ukraine doesn't get its fair share of the pie and that Joe doesn't get his customary 10%.
'On the other side, you have Democrats who, guarding the interests of ordinary Americans, want a "clean" increase in the debt ceiling with no cuts in spending.'
Umm, perhaps Democrats are guarding the interests of progressive elites and dysfunctionally-dependent captive voters, and thus can only see infinite increases in spending.
If you read the liberal news coverage, you are indoctrinated and brainwashed.
"Yet story after story in the media alerts readers of the horrible things that could happen if these paltry cuts are implemented. Flight delays would mount due to air traffic control budget reductions; hunger would afflict children; suicides would skyrocket. Woe would sweep over the republic."
It would help your credibility at Reason with the common man if you didn't treat such obvious propaganda as legitimate. Instead of responding with "Really?" Like some teenager who is criticizing their parent before asking what's for dinner. You should be pointing out the incredible immorality of what is going on and remember to be disgusted by it. It's why it would be better to just write an article centered around the libertarian values you wish government to aspire too and motivate people to value as well. Rather than an article the just details the numbers of what our rulers our doing to us.
Reasons “Boffs-sides!” is deplorable and biased. They act as if GOP & Leftists have equal social sway - yet the MSM & Big Tech are so biased as to make the GOP the Featherweight underdog.
Reasons Lefty bias is showing, big time.
The GOP's abandonment of any limited government principles and substitution of culture war bullshit are what has marginalized them, and no amount of whining about the big, bad media is going to change that.
At least Reason still runs a libertarian article now and then.
Federal spending has gone up by 50% in just the past 5 years, from 4 trillion to 6 trillion per year. Trump and Biden and Congress and the “gimme my stimulus check” voters are to blame.
The whole federal government ran on 4 trillion a year just 5 years ago, and it was way too big even then. Cut spending back to those levels, and the budget will be balanced right away (tax revenues are running right around 4 trillion), and the debt ceiling can remain a ceiling.
If not, the whole thing is going to come crashing down.
Or just obey the US Constitution (the very definition of the USA).
Did congress defund the FBI? Or the IRS or the D.O.E. or any of the other uneeded and unwanted bureaucracies Americans are paying taxes for? Have they done anything to stop pedo Joe from hiring additional 87,000 IRS gestapo?
Of course we shouldn't believe the MSM fearmongering, in fact we shouldn't believe anything the MSM says. 100% lies, 100% of the time. Objectivity no longer exists. It's all about activism and "getting Trump". Ever since Hearst and his brand of yellow journalism along with Pulitzer ginned up a needless war with Spain, the press has been a compliant mouthpiece for the government, the CIA and the FBI. Without shame or remorse.
"There are two things I live by, number one , I don't believe anything the government says and number two I don't take very seriously anything the main stream media says." George Carlin.
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry.