Dramatic Spending Cuts
Russ Roberts puts the sequester “cuts” into perspective:
Today’s front page Washington Post story on the coming budget cuts says that government will have to “dramatically trim” spending. The cuts I read about amount to $1.2 trillion over ten years.
On the surface, $1.2 trillion is a large amount of money. But when you divide by ten, the number of years, you get $120 billion. That is not large relative to a $3.7 trillion budget. Those are not dramatic cuts in the overall level of government spending.
But as Dan Mitchell points out, it’s actually not even that “impressive.”
All it does is restrain spending so that it grows by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.
6 Comments to “Dramatic Spending Cuts”
Same old nonsense. The left screams that a proposed trivial cut in the growth of government spending constitutes “draconian”, “cruel”, “dangerous” “cuts” in government spending — and the cowards that posture as champions of freedom on the right let them get away with it.
Why does one story say $1.2 trillion over 10 years, while the other says ($2.5T - $2.4T) = $100 billion? A factor of 12 difference.
Is it possible that no one has any idea what the numbers are any more?
The government’s current level of discourse regarding budget cuts is a mockery of every producer, saver, and tax payer. We need rational replacements for these destructive politicians and the degenerate culture behind them—and we need them now.
The degenerate culture behind them is the electorate and those who don’t vote, except for Objectivists and maybe the very best among other people of reason. We’re the only rational replacements for that degenerate culture and their ‘politicians’, but there isn’t enough of us to kick’em outa the way by vote. If we COULD vote them out of the way, that would be doing it without actually applying physical violence, such violence being response (retaliation) against initiation. Of course, that’s the way to do it, by VOTE.
But, let’s realize, violence is behind EVERY majority vote over rights, whether the vote favors or disfavors rights. If it favors rights, the implied violence is responsive (retaliatory). If it disfavors rights, the implied violence is initiatory. If it’s a vote over whether or not something IS a right (like voting, or civil, rights), the same applies.
With ACTUAL, inalienable individual rights established, either by vote or by violence [either way, involving responsive (retaliatory) force], then, any more voting, within that establishment, is not over rights, but over how to enforce them. GIVEN THAT, violence is NOT behind majority votes.
We must get rid of the degenerate culture thru its attrition while replacing it with people educated thru reason. Otherwise, the ‘deluge’.
I think the cuts that really need to be made, if made all by themselves and not along with anything else, would truly be bad. They must be made while holding the line on taxes, then reducing them, plus reductions in regulations and on the grip on money by the Fed. similar to, or greater than, the spending reductions. Along the way, military & defense readiness must be assured and kept.
Regulations and the grip of the Fed. on money must be reduced to zero. Spending outside the proper function of gvt. must be reduced to zero. Voluntary means of gvt. financing must be established, and taxes reduced to zero. This way, spending cuts would be truly great. It would open up the field of economics. How long would it take people, freed up, to move in? What would happen to unemployment and hordes of other problems?
In reason the only thing certain is life, and crime out of gvt. & kept out of gvt. and all crime driven underground and kept there. As for death, so what?, as much life as we can live, that’s what.
As for death, so what?
We are alive for a short time and dead for an eternity - might as well make the most of it.