Spending Cuts & Other Mythical Creatures
·
Thursday, July 7, 2011
·
In Washington-speak, $2 trillion in “cuts” actually means $1.8 trillion in spending increases:
From Austin Bragg and my old pal Caleb Brown at Cato.
From Austin Bragg and my old pal Caleb Brown at Cato.
About Dodd
Dodd, who used to run a blog named ipse dixit, is an attorney, a veteran of the United States Navy, and a fairly good poker player. He can kill a mime using only his thumb.
He joined the staff at OTB in May 2007. Follow Dodd on Twitter.
Yep, because the debate in Congress is really about cutting the rate of growth in spending. Something the House GOP isn’t telling their base but which is kind of inevitable considering that we still don’t have public consensus about reducing the size and scope of government.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Which is why any discussion about reducing the debt that does not include some pretty harsh tax increases is just so much self pleasuring.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Anybody who payed attention knows there is no tax-free meaningful deficit reductions possible without massive cuts in Medicare, Social Security and Defense.
All polls show a plurality of voters wont accept any of that. Is Congress really to blame?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Congress is elected to govern, not bend over for public polls. It’s precisely this reason that “democracy” was a 4-letter-word to the founders.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0