Spending Cuts & Other Mythical Creatures

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.

FILED UNDER: Deficit and Debt
Dodd Harris
About Dodd Harris
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 contributed over 650 pieces to OTB between May 2007 and September 2013. Follow him on Twitter @Amuk3.


  1. 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.

  2. Rick DeMent says:

    Which is why any discussion about reducing the debt that does not include some pretty harsh tax increases is just so much self pleasuring.

  3. Murray says:

    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?

  4. progcivlib says:

    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.