When Is A Spending Cut NOT A Spending Cut?

6 Mar

One of John Stossel’s latest, titled “Sequester:  Not Even a Cut” revealing, once again, that the so-called “cuts” are pretty much just a decrease in the rate of increase of government spending.  Excerpts below, but the full item can be found at

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_john_stossel/sequester_not_even_a_cut

Excerpt:

If you’re reading this, you’ve survived the “sequester” cuts!

That may surprise you, since President Obama likened the sequester to taking a “meat cleaver” to government, causing FBI agents to be furloughed, prosecutors to let criminals escape and medical research to grind to a halt!

The media hyped it, too. The NBC Nightly News said, “The sequester could cripple air travel, force firefighter layoffs — even kick preschoolers out of child care!”

The truth is that the terrifying sequester cuts weren’t even cuts. They were merely a small reduction in government’s planned increase in spending. A very small reduction.

After a decade, the federal government will simply spend about $4.6 trillion a year instead of $4.5 trillion (in 2012 dollars).

And still members of Congress, Republicans included, look for ways to delay the cuts, like spreading them out over 10 years instead of making any now. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked, “If we cannot do this little bit … how are we ever going to balance the budget?”

After a decade, the federal government will simply spend about $4.6 trillion a year instead of $4.5 trillion (in 2012 dollars).

And still members of Congress, Republicans included, look for ways to delay the cuts, like spreading them out over 10 years instead of making any now. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked, “If we cannot do this little bit … how are we ever going to balance the budget?”

[End of excerpt]

I am so ashamed of our elected “leaders” in D.C. that I can barely stand it.  And to add to the shame – apparently they themselves have no shame.  May God help us.

I still don’t get it, though.  Instead of “cuts”, wouldn’t the word (and the action) “freeze” have been a much better way for Republicans to get it across to the American people that we really aren’t cutting anything?  And at the same time, we would have lowered the spending level of the government, instead of just slowing the rate of increase?

Advertisements

2 Responses to “When Is A Spending Cut NOT A Spending Cut?”

  1. Joseph Edward Wages March 7, 2013 at 10:18 am #

    Just to piggyback on your thought. Trading spending cuts for tax increases is a farce, a real non-sequitur. If the gubbermint is cutting expenses why do they need more income. It’s pure baloney. Yet our last present hope, the GOPers, fall for this every time.

    • illero March 7, 2013 at 11:48 am #

      Thanks for your thoughts, Joe. You know, I wouldn’t even rabidly oppose slightly higher taxes if 1) we could pass a balanced budget amendment, and 2) I could see us actually cut back spending to where we could see real progress in achieving the balanced budget. I do happen to believe that spending cuts alone will never get us to a balance, much less to a paying down of the debt — but I want to see REAL spending constraint before consideration of higher taxes.

Please reply here -- I value your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: