Patrick.net

When a (Budget) Cut is Not a Cut

By FortWayne   Follow   Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 9:30am   683 views   10 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1898:when-a-cut-is-not-a-cut&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

....
We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

Viewing Comments 1-10 of 10     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Done! Follow Befriend (4) 159 threads 2,826 comments

   1   9:45am Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Raul Paul is too much of realist for 90% of the population. We need a fantastic Nut job to finish what Obama started. I think a four year dose of Palin, will yield a drive to clear out the Senate, the House, and new blood never considered before for a Presidential candidate in 2016.

2. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 107 threads 3,865 comments

   2   9:58am Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Tenouncetrout says Ron Paul is too much of realist for 90% of the population. We need a fantastic Nut job to finish what Obama started. I think a four year dose of Palin, will yield a drive to clear out the Senate, the House, and new blood never considered before for a Presidential candidate in 2016. Realism is the fact that democrats want entitlement spending to grow into infinite, republicans want military spending to go into infinite. Too few people love their country enough to care about it's future. To me Ron Paul seems like the only voice of reason against all this political mess of government scare tactics and strong-arming into more debt to make money for their cronies.

3. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   3   10:31am Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow. LOL. This is a debt-based economy. Cutting the oxygen will kill the patient. Not that I have the answer. See my sig.

4. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 174 threads 5,237 comments

   4   10:56am Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   It's hard not to see the appeal of Ron Paul, but even he speaks in decptive terms to make his point. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. Where's the deception? Maybe I will look up the numbers, but how much of that increase is Social Security and Medicare (including Bush's unpaid for part D?) Social security was taking in more than was going out back in 2004. Maybe it still is if you include interest on the trust fund, but the way this considered part of the budget has already done a lot of damage to the governments budgeting process. I'm glad Ron Paul in the race though, and I wish he could be the nominee, so that people's focus could be a little closer to reality. It would make for some truly interesting debates with Obama.

5. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 174 threads 5,237 comments

   5   11:18am Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I know that Wikipedia isn't as reliable a source as Ron Paul's campaign, but this is lifted directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has reported the 10-year revenue loss from extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010 at $2.9 trillion, with an additional $606 billion in debt service costs (interest), for a combined total of $3.5 trillion. CRS cited CBO estimates that extending the cuts permanently, including the repeal of the estate tax, would add 2% of GDP to the annual deficit.[88] The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote in 2010: "The 75-year Social Security shortfall is about the same size as the cost, over that period, of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans (those with incomes above $250,000 a year). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat."[89] A good discussion of the Laffer Curve follows that quote, on the same Wikipedia page under the heading "Can reducing income tax rates increase government revenue?"

6. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 107 threads 3,865 comments

   6   2:33pm Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   marcus you'll find this interesting. Even on NPR, there was a discussion and the discussion concluded that all government had to do was simply do nothing and spending and debt would be fine since spending would go back down to 2004. But it didn't happen. Way too many wanted a taxpayer sponsored Credit Card to play with, and they did, they raised the debt ceiling and increased spending with the last budget deal.

7. HousingWatcher Follow Befriend 285 threads 1,760 comments

   7   3:37pm Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   "Even on NPR, there was a discussion and the discussion concluded that all government had to do was simply do nothing and spending and debt would be fine since spending would go back down to 2004." Doing nothing means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2012, as scheduled, and to cease passing any more "doc fixes," resulting in an automatic 25% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. Doing nothing and allowing these things to happen would be the single most effective way to balance the budget without draconian spending cuts.

8. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   8   7:34pm Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   HousingWatcher says resulting in an automatic 25% cut in Medicare payments to doctors. yeay, let's totally eliminate Medicare as a program. Great way to save money.

9. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   9   7:57pm Sun 14 Aug 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says Where's the deception? One deception is not understanding that government pumping $6.1T into the economy now is why the Feds can collect $950B in income taxes now. Fed spending (ex SSA) alone is $3T this year. Cut that to $1.4T and you're going to simply obliterate millions of jobs in government and industries that sell stuff to government. 2011 Fed Spending: Pensions 793.2 Health Care 882.0 Education 129.8 Defense 964.8 Welfare 495.6 Protection 60.7 Transportation 94.5 General Government 33.2 Other Spending 158.4 Interest 206.7 Welfare is mainly: Family and children 107.2 Unemployment 134.8 (!) Housing 69.4 (!) $70B/yr on housing subsidies is just insane. That is one million $70,000/year construction jobs, enough to build all the housing we needed FFS. 2004: Pensions 530.8 Health Care 509.5 Education 96.4 Defense 542.6 Welfare 244.3 Protection 45.6 Transportation 64.6 General Government 23.5 Other Spending 75.5 Interest 160.2 Welfare in 2004 was: Family and children 46.0 Unemployment 45.0 Housing 36.8 So between 2004 and 2011: SSA is up ~$300B (60%) Medicare is up ~$400B (80%) Education is up $30B (30%) Defense is up $400B (80%) Welfare is up $250B (100%) Everything else is up 30%, which is 2X inflation. On the revenue side, in 2004 ind. income tax was $800B and corp was $200B. In 2011, $950B and . . . $200B. Clearly US corporations are paying too much income tax. To fix things, we need to revamp Medicare. Cut prices down to global norms and revoke the licenses of doctors not taking Medicare patients. That would save $400B. And we need to cut the DOD back to 2004 levels. That would save another $400B in defense spending, but of course blow open the welfare budget since you can't cut $400B of spending without destroying millions of livelihoods and hundreds of communities dependent on Uncle Sugar. There. I got spending down to $2.2T not counting SSA. We can just raise taxes to cover the difference.

10. American in Japan Follow Befriend (28) 149 threads 1,398 comments

    10   1:04am Sat 24 Sep 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   @Troy I see more effort to make budget cuts with you than I do with any Tea Party reps or Republicans. Good show!