Conservative Plan to Cap Federal Spending Is Disingenuous and Dangerous

[JohnWxy]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/spending_cap.html


The American people reacted with horror after Republicans in the House of Representatives passed their budget plan this past spring to eliminate Medicare as we know it, decimate Medicaid, and slash education, transportation, and scientific research funding down to unprecedented levels. With the din of disapproval ringing in their ears, conservatives changed tactics. This week the House will vote on a proposal to cap federal spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of our economy.

This proposal might sound good in a press release. And it certainly allows its supporters to avoid calling for specific cuts to popular programs. But capping federal spending at 18 percent of GDP—a level not seen in half a century—would actually require cuts that are even larger than those in the original House Republican budget plan.

The last time federal spending dipped below 18 percent of GDP was 1966. Back then there were 100 million fewer people living in the United States, the median age was nearly eight years younger, and the average cost of health care was one-fifth of what it is now. In fact, no president in the last 50 years ever proposed a budget that would bring spending that low. President Reagan’s budget proposals never dropped below 21 percent of GDP, and actual spending under Reagan averaged over 22 percent. Even the budget passed by the Republican-led House, with all its draconian cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, keeps spending above 18 percent of GDP for the next 30 years.

So what would it take to bring spending to such an unrealistically low level? Of course, there are lots of different ways Congress could try to accomplish that goal. It could focus most of the cuts in one area or another, and try to protect this program or that. But it turns out that the level of cuts required is so dramatic, so draconian, that any way you slice it, Congress would end up making severe cuts to some very important programs.
(more)

[Zenlitened]

1. Let's just call it what it is: a cop-out.

If they don't want to do their jobs, they can step aside.

Pres. Obama actually had a good, concise, gut-level comment on this during his news conference last Friday: "We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do that; what we need to do is to do our jobs."

I would hope the WH and top Dems have put their heads together and agreed on a unified message for discussing this issue. They've got their main talking point right there, IMO.

One last point on the balanced budget amendment. I don’t know what version they’re going to be presenting, but some of the balanced budget amendments that have been floating up there -- this cap -- or cut, cap and balance, for example, when you look at the numbers, what you’re looking at is cuts of half-a-trillion dollars below the Ryan budget in any given year. I mean, it would require cutting Social Security or Medicare substantially.

And I think it’s important for everybody to understand that all of us believe that we need to get to a point where eventually we can balance the budget. We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do that; what we need to do is to do our jobs.

Link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president