In 2010, President Obama demanded $3.55 trillion from taxpaying citizens for federal expenditures.
The less incendiary way to put it is, that's what the federal budget called for, based on discretionary and non-discretionary spending.
I like the first version better.
This week, Senate Democrats rejected a proposal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to slice about $74 billion out of that pie.
My math skills are shaky, so double check me if you think I've got it wrong, but that's about a 2% cut, right? That is to say, not so much. Certainly not enough to make a dent in the federal debt. Certainly not enough to avoid crippling tax rates in the future for every American now in college, or younger. But, okay, you've got to start somewhere, and 2% is 2% and the only way to get to 20% is to start at 2% and keep fighting.
So how did the Senate Democrats react to this 2% solution? They freaked out. From the Daily Caller:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan to slash $74 billion from the federal budget “unworkable” and “more draconian than we originally anticipated,” but said he would not consider a government shutdown “under any circumstances.”
That's 2%, folks. 2% is "draconian" and "unworkable." And notice, too, the talk about a "government shutdown," which is what Reid dearly wants to happen. But the only people talking about a shutdown are hopeful Democrats. They think it's 1995 all over again. They think Boehner is Gingrich. I think they're in for a rocky couple of years. History repeats itself, that's true, but never as closely as you want it to.
Paul Ryan just wants his 2%. And I'm pretty sure the voters do, too.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Not nearly enough. I like Rand Paul's objectives. If they lead with Rand Paul's numbers they might get Paul Ryan's numbers although I would consider his numbers a defeat.
Dec '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Get used to this. The Dems will fight and demagogue every cut proposed by the Republicans, except in defense spending.
Then they'll propose bi-partisan compromise, by which they mean higher taxes and very small symbolic cuts, if any.
Jul '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
First of all, let's get our terminology straight.
To Democrats INCREASING spending by less than 10% is a Draconian Cut, Mean Spirited and without regard for the People!
So a 2% Cut in the Real World Becomes a 10.9% cut in the minds of Democrats
Hence: Draconian!.
Dec '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Jaydee_007: To Democrats INCREASING spending by less than 10% is a Draconian Cut, Mean Spirited and without regard for the People!
So a 2% Cut in the Real World Becomes a 10.9% cut in the minds of Democrats
Right. A true spending freeze, without an increase that tracks inflation, is a massive spending cut in the mind of a Democrat.
Aug '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
The bigger question is why someone hasn't called Harry on his racist anti-Draconian remarks!
I think he needs to apologize to Princess Ardala post-haste.
Jul '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
"Cut, Baby, Cut"
May '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
One difference between today and 1995 when "the Republicans shut down the federal government," is the proliferation of alternative media. I think that's potentially huge.
Do you remember the big story over those days back in 1995? National Parks. Vacationing families couldn't get into the National Parks. That was the big impact on people's lives when the government shut its doors, except for a skeleton crew to run the essential services. This should have been a big victory for the smaller government crowd, as it demonstrated that, except for a skeleton crew to run essential services and, perhaps, the National Parks, we didn't need the federal government at all. Somehow, though, the Republicans got hammered for shutting down the federal government, which was apparently axiomatically bad.
I think we'll be much better able to make our case this time, if it comes to that.
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
About Draco - whose name sounds like an insurance company to me now, as in "I saved more money by cutting like Draco!" - wikipedia notes one of his harsh punishments:
"any debtor whose status was lower than that of his creditor was forced into slavery."
Times have changed; at least now we only have to work five months in servitude.
Sep '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
I think Ryan and the Republicans have made a tactical error here. 2% is the desired cut in expenditures and the Dem's is 0%. Negotiation wise they will now have to settle for 1%. Instead, he should have started at 4 or 5%, to settle for his desired number and appear to be "working things out with Obama".
Jul '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Gary Johnson wants to cut 47% out of federal spending.
Me like.
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Good point. But I think a lot of this is circling and growling -- what's clear, I hope, is that the Dems are against any meaningful cuts.
Sep '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
James Lileks: About Draco - whose name sounds like an insurance company to me now, as in "I saved more money by cutting like Draco!" - wikipedia notes one of his harsh punishments:
"any debtor whose status was lower than that of his creditor was forced into slavery."
Times have changed; at least now we only have to work five months in servitude. · Feb 4 at 12:52pm
James, I know you're thinking of that effete British Geico lizard, but when I hear Draco, I think of Maaco collision repair centers, helpfully headquartered in -- wait for it -- King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Which suggests the riff "Uh oh, better get Draco."
Edited on Feb 4, 2011 at 1:44pmSep '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
PJ has a point, to a point. Despite the proliferation of alternative media, the Dems still own the majority of news outlets where most people get their news. You know, the people who go about their everyday lives and vote our way when we are on message; as opposed to present company? When all we ask for is 2% and may just get 1%, we don't sound like we mean business and will demoralize the everyday voter. They will shrug their shoulders and not vote or could start listening to the other side thinking maybe they are right, since we don't seem to have very grand or bold plans.
Dec '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Rob Long
Good point. But I think a lot of this is circling and growling -- what's clear, I hope, is that the Dems are against any meaningful cuts. · Feb 4 at 1:18pm
I've been re-reading Conscience of a Conservative lately and it's been an important reminder for me of just how un-serious almost ALL politicians are about cutting back and reigning in. But it's also been an encouragement in the sense that when you do find people serious about it (i.e. Paul Ryan), they are people worth going to bat for...even if only in small ways as a private citizen.
I would recommend to the Ricochet family, both prominent figures and regular everyday folks alike, that we do everything in our power to support the good guys fighting these battles on our behalf. Even if they aren't our specific representative. The natural flow of political history is "bigger and bigger", and as Goldwater reminds us, it usually comes from both parties. So when we see people willing to draw lines in the sand, we can't just tell each other how great they are.
Tell them personally. Tell a friend.
Sep '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
After reading this post, and Senator Reid's hyperbole, and then after the dry heaving subsided it came to me. RIGHT NOW is the time we we're sure that the Democrats have officially shaken off the beating they took in the midterm elections. They are footloose, fancy free, and without a care in the world. Why I think I hear music building while Reid and Pelosi run barefoot through green meadows to 59th St. Bridge Song..."Life I love you all is grooooveeeey"
Jan '11
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Has any government, anywhere in the world, at any time, voluntarily cut itself back?
Hoping y'all can name some examples... I'm coming up blank, here.
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
What this means is that the 2012 election is highly likely to turn on three issues: the repeal of Obamacare, government spending cuts, and taxes. It also means that in neither house do the Democrats have a clue. If nothing dramatic happens between now and then, the Republicans will take the Senate and oust Obama. Every indicator points in the same direction -- from the election of Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader in the House to Harry Reid's rejection of Paul Ryan's proposal. We are fortunate in our opponents. They simply cannot imagine that what the voters said in 2010 they really meant.
Dec '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Your math is correct, Rob, but the fun point to consider is this: we are not even talking about holding spending constant, with respect to inflation.
The government chooses to ignore food and energy, when it calculates inflation rates, but even during normal periods, a rate of 1.5 percent rate of inflation is typical. Right now, we have energy increasing at well over 30 percent a year, for the past two years. Grocery prices are climbing well beyond published inflation rates.
But we can't hold down spending to just the level of inflation as the government pretends it is, to around 2 percent. Without being draconian, that is.
Jul '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Margaret Ball: Has any government, anywhere in the world, at any time, voluntarily cut itself back?
Hoping y'all can name some examples... I'm coming up blank, here. · Feb 4 at 4:50pm
Chile, under Pinochet. And Britain, under Thatcher.
Edited on Feb 4, 2011 at 5:14pmNov '10
Re: If Democrats Think a 2% Cut in Federal Expenditures is "Draconian," They're in for a Rough Couple of Years
Rob Long
Good point. But I think a lot of this is circling and growling -- what's clear, I hope, is that the Dems are against any meaningful cuts. · Feb 4 at 1:18pm
I think that the long term benefit is for the Republicans to show that they are mature, serious and committed. This just gets the ball moving in the right direction. For fiscal conservatives, it serves two purposes (both already articulated here); it clarifies the democrat's defiance of the voters in their rejection of ANY spending reductions and it gives the republicans a chance to move forward the idea that spending reductions must be one of the means used to recover our fiscal soundness.
If only we can make this clear and not back down.