Barry wants to look like he wants cuts but doesn't want to actually cut anything. Besides, these aren't actual cuts: they are cuts to the rate of growth in spending, not cuts in spending. The federal government will still spend more this year than last. Look at it this way. Let's say you make $100,000 a year. (I choose this number for math purposes.) Then you draw up a budget that says you will spend $140,000 next year, and $160,000 the year after that. Someone points out to you that you don't have $140,000, nor do you have $160,000. You imperiously tell them that you'll spend this year's budget (for which you do not have the money) but you will cut the next year's budget by 1.2 percent -- a little less than two grand, so instead of spending $160,000 in year two, you will spend $158,000. That is what the federal government calls a spending cut. And that is what Barry proposed in 2011 to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Not actual cuts -- cuts in spending growth. Everybody who thinks they could run their household budget like that, raise your hand Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Friday, February 22, 2013
Finally, the media begins to notice reality
At least a little, anyway. It would appear that Jonathan Karl at ABC has realized that the sequester cuts are a) not actually cuts and 2) not devastating to federal services. Frankly, I wouldn't care if they were, but this whole sky-is-falling shit that Barry is tossing out there is getting old. Especially considering that the sequester was the White House's idea, at least according to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame, not exactly a conservative) and former White House chief of staff Jack Lew (soon, apparently, to be Treasury secretary). And it wasn't that long ago that Barry promised to veto any effort to undo the sequester cuts that Barry is now frantically scrambling to undo:
Barry wants to look like he wants cuts but doesn't want to actually cut anything. Besides, these aren't actual cuts: they are cuts to the rate of growth in spending, not cuts in spending. The federal government will still spend more this year than last. Look at it this way. Let's say you make $100,000 a year. (I choose this number for math purposes.) Then you draw up a budget that says you will spend $140,000 next year, and $160,000 the year after that. Someone points out to you that you don't have $140,000, nor do you have $160,000. You imperiously tell them that you'll spend this year's budget (for which you do not have the money) but you will cut the next year's budget by 1.2 percent -- a little less than two grand, so instead of spending $160,000 in year two, you will spend $158,000. That is what the federal government calls a spending cut. And that is what Barry proposed in 2011 to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Not actual cuts -- cuts in spending growth. Everybody who thinks they could run their household budget like that, raise your hand Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Barry wants to look like he wants cuts but doesn't want to actually cut anything. Besides, these aren't actual cuts: they are cuts to the rate of growth in spending, not cuts in spending. The federal government will still spend more this year than last. Look at it this way. Let's say you make $100,000 a year. (I choose this number for math purposes.) Then you draw up a budget that says you will spend $140,000 next year, and $160,000 the year after that. Someone points out to you that you don't have $140,000, nor do you have $160,000. You imperiously tell them that you'll spend this year's budget (for which you do not have the money) but you will cut the next year's budget by 1.2 percent -- a little less than two grand, so instead of spending $160,000 in year two, you will spend $158,000. That is what the federal government calls a spending cut. And that is what Barry proposed in 2011 to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Not actual cuts -- cuts in spending growth. Everybody who thinks they could run their household budget like that, raise your hand Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment