« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What Spending Cuts?

We constantly hear about the age of austerity and painful spending cuts that are being enacted in Washington.  The only problem is that they don’t exist.

Earlier this week, the CBO published a report on the budget deficit for the first 9 months of Fiscal Year 2012 (October 2011-June 2012).  The headline figure of the report shows that the 9-month deficit stands at $905 billion, down from $971 billion this time last year.  But here’s the kicker: the entirety of that $66 billion “shrinkage” in the deficit came from the $90 billion increase in revenues.  The lion’s share of that comes from an increase in corporate tax receipts, due to new rules governing how quickly firms may deduct the cost of their investments in equipment.

After revenues are factored in, spending actually increased by $24 billion relative to the same period in FY 2011.  The main increase in spending came from TARP.  Spending on TARP grew by $62 billion through June.  Outlays for Social Security payments increased by $30 billion, while net spending on Medicare increased by $14 billion.  Spending on Medicaid decreased, but that was only the result of  expiring mandated increases from the stimulus.  Spending on the largest two programs alone will top $1.33 trillion ($770 billion for Social Security and $560 billion for Medicare).

It is clear as day that we have a spending problem, or more precisely, a big-government dependency problem.  We see how just a slight (very slight) uptick in economic activity has resulted in higher revenues.  Obviously, a real economic boom, engendered by pro-growth non-interventionist policies, would net even greater revenue without raising taxes.  It’s the spending that’s the problem.  Despite the increase in revenues, we have added almost $1.6 trillion to the debt since the passage of the Budget [Out of] Control Act almost a year ago.  The debt now stands at $15.88 trillion.

Outside of Washington, this is not rocket science.

COMMENTS

  • Brookhaven

    As long as congress has a standard where an increase in spending can be called a cut, we’ll never have true budget cuts.

    And, don’t look to the GOP to fix this. When they had control of the house, senate, and the presidency, they didn’t eliminate baseline budgeting.

  • jiminga

    spending cuts mean a reduction in the growth of spending. After all, politicians need to be re-elected by “investing” in stuff.

  • stevends

    - The $62 billion change in TARP is simply an accounting issue. The legislation for that was passed in 2008.

    - The other increases (SS, Medicare and Veterans) are cooked into the law. As more people get old, spending on this will go up, unless the law is changed. You could argue that the law should be changed and projected spending should be reduced on these issues, but it is political suicide.

    - The real issue is spending as a percentage of GDP. Because of the TARP issue, this report indicates that at least some progress is being made on that front. Largely because of the ending of the stimulus and the very slow winding down of the wars and the great recession.

    - Economic growth and lower unemployment is what we really need. Easier said than done.

    • renl57

      Economic growth and lower unemployment could be achieved by lowering tax rates across the board, while eliminating loopholes and subsidies to broaden the tax base.

      Economically this is quite feasible; it’s been done before. But you need a leader in the White House who can use the bully pulpit to sell the idea.

      • stevends

        figure out a way to pass pro-growth policies.

        It’s just that getting something through congress another thing.

    • jddrouin

      Actually, the real issue is spending relative to income.

  • mlowry

    We have a democratic republic unique in history. In simple terms that means that we elect our representatives, who then are supposed to make decisions about governance in our best interest.

    But they are not representing us. The system is broken.

    Something seems to happen to most of them when they arrive in Congress. What were expressed as firm principles during the campaign morphs into ?getting something done?, which has come to mean compromising those principles at every turn.

    ?I want smaller government? becomes a fierce defense of every program and department, and ultimately becomes ?we need more money?. This is not in our best interest.

    We need representatives who will hold to their principles even when it?s politically difficult.