Home / Congress / Spending Cuts? Surely, You Jest.
Print Friendly and PDF

Spending Cuts? Surely, You Jest.

Written by Gary North on December 28, 2012

Quick. How much money will be cut from 2012’s level of federal spending in 2013 if there is no agreement to repeal the Budget Control Act of 2011?

Give a ball park estimate.

If you answered “none,” you’ve got it right.

The so-called sequestration is not a reduction in spending from today’s level. It is a cut from however much spending would have gone up. It will go up by less.

How much money is involved? A grand total of $109 billion. This, in a budget of $3.8 trillion.

Let’s do a word association exercise.  I will write a word. You tell me the word that follows.

My word is “chump.”

The reduction in the rate of increased spending will come at the expense of which agencies?

No one is saying. Articles mention the military and other unnamed agencies.

In short, this is all kabuki theater on the reduced spending side of the fiscal cliff’s equation. It will not make any economic difference that is worth bothering about.

The debate is over increased taxes. The players are trying to find a way to repeal the Budget Control Act of 2011. That also was kabuki theater, as today’s Congress is trying to prove. But the law is about to be implemented, contrary to majority opinion when Congress voted for it. “Budget control? No problem! We have a solution!” Now the solution is about to take effect. Congress will remain in session until it is replaced on January 3. It is a death watch.

Now they are playing positioning games to blame the other party for not being willing to cancel the tax hikes, stick it to the rich a little more, and allow the deficit to remain in the trillion-dollars-a-year range for another year or two or three or ten.

“Yes, we have no solutions. We have no solutions today.”

Continue Reading on www.reuters.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

5 thoughts on “Spending Cuts? Surely, You Jest.

  1. vietnamvet1971 says:

    The problem is this Monster called "The Big, Bad, Behemoth, Bloated, Bankrupt Gimme-mint" these Clowns up in DC have created, there will never be enough TAXES to Feed or keep it satisfied. To many Departments of Nothing worth keeping.

  2. And they want nothing to do with cutting spending on foreign aid. We should not be spending anything on foreign aid when we are nearly $17 trillion in debt, and most of it goes to countries that hate us.

  3. Dave Harten says:

    Our economic system here in the US is in some ways worse than pure comunisum. There you have , at least in theory, “Everybody contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their needs”. Here , a sizeable number of people are just receiving according to their needs and not making any contribution at all. Most of these people don’t like that kind of gimmie gimmie situation either.

  4. Sadly I once heard a liberal argue with a straight face that a 3.5% increase in spending for a government agency instead of the expected 5% increase in spending is a "spending cut." Because the agency would get 1.5% less then the expected increase. Nothing could get him to see logic and reason.

  5. GrustyOldGeezer says:

    We have this 'fiscal cliff' because politicians are REFUSING to do their jobs and CUT SPENDING.

    So I decided I would provide a list of places to cut spending, AND be able to lower taxes for everybody…


    Secretary of State KEEP

    Secretary of the Treasury KEEP (with controls)

    Secretary of Defense KEEP

    Attorney General KEEP (with standards)
    Below this is a list of positions to cut because of duplication of efforts and services at the State level.
    States MANAGE their lands and economies at a local level, the fed regulates and cannot manage at any level that does not include an over paid UNDERQUALIFIED political appointee trying to play "Important".

    Most of these are not mentioned in the Enumerated Powers Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution.

    Secretary of the Interior—– Functions are duplicated at the State Level and is unnecessary in todays world.

    Secretary of Agriculture—— Offers nothing beyond regulating private business for regulations sake

    Secretary of Commerce —-Offers nothing beyond regulations on Private Industry.

    Secretary of Labor ———– UNECESSARY payback to unions for political favors.

    Secretary of Health and Human Services ——- Neither is needed beyond a small office to correlate and disseminate information on health issues.

    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development —- STRICTLY LOCAL ISSUES and a direct affront to the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    Secretary of Transportation —— Formerly the interstate commerce commission loosely attributable to the Interstate Commerce Clause, but highly bastardized by congress and the Supreme Court.

    Secretary of Energy —- Another political payback for helping carter get elected.

    Secretary of Education —- FAILURE on a massive scale, and NOT MENTIONED in the Enumerated powers Article I, Section 8.

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs —– Used to an office in the Defense Department, should still be.

    Secretary of Homeland Security —-UNCONSTITUTIONAL usurpation of the Bill of Rights.

    I do so hope that the politicians and bureaucrats will take this list in the manner in which it is intended….