The budget baseline con
Both the White House and House Republicans are pretending that their goal is “reducing the deficit,” which they suggest means making real spending choices. They are talking about a “$4 trillion plan,” or something, regardless of how that number is reached.
Here’s the reality: Those numbers have no real meaning because they are conjured in the wilderness of mirrors that is the federal budget process. Since 1974, Capitol Hill’s “baseline” has automatically increased spending every year according to Congressional Budget Office projections, which means before anyone has submitted a budget or cast a single vote. Tax and spending changes are then measured off that inflated baseline, not in absolute terms.
The most absurd current example is Mr. Obama’s claim that his “$4 trillion” plan reduces the deficit by about $800 billion over 10 years by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those “savings,” as he calls them, are measured against a White House budget office spending baseline that is fictional. Those wars are already being unwound and everyone knows the money will never be spent. But they are called “savings” to gull the public and make the deficit reduction add up to a large-sounding $4 trillion.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Witless and gutless wonders from the right deserve full destruction.
Schadenfreude on December 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Big Bird
forest on December 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM
It’s nice of the WSJ to print this, to bad the people who elected Pres Obama don’t read the WSJ.
LincolntheHun on December 5, 2012 at 12:46 PM
One of the planks of the Conservative Party (conservativepartyusa.org) is to eliminate baseline budgeting.
I agree; let’s say that Congress and the President agree to a 6% cut in a particular program. The problem is, the baseline increase is 10%; obviously, this means there’s no real reduction in spending, but only a 4% increase. Let’s simply eliminate this accounting gimmick once and for all.
psrch on December 5, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Very true. Rand Paul laid it out perfectly – none of these plans reduce anything. It’s a freaking con, and the serfs and lemmings are blindly falling for it.
MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM
And then when Obama proposes to increase spending by $200 billion or whatever, he claims that he’s actually cutting it by $600 billion.
Let’s not forget that the “one-time” “stimulus” has also been folded into the baseline, so that Obama can claim to be holding spending more or less constant while actually spending the equivalent of a new stimulus every single year.
That, incidentally should be the response to anyone who claims that we need a new stimulus because the first one wasn’t big enough. We’ve had four “stimuluses” already – what more do you want?
sadarj on December 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Perhaps the WSJ could publish in the form of a comic book….
That’s assuming they can read.
Galt2009 on December 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Not to mention the borrowing from FICA tax surpluses to lower the official deficit number while simultaneously claiming that we still have trillions in the Social Security “lockbox”. My father, who is a CPA, is fond of saying, “If I used the same accounting practices as the federal government, I’d be sitting in jail!”
sadarj on December 5, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Imagine if the government had to follow the same accounting practices that it forces on corporations.
gwelf on December 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM
The federal government is built on the principle og keeping everybody happy by feeding them more and more money. Democrats and Republicans and non-partisans, all depend on getting that next year’s Christmas list called a budget, or at least a few good continuing resolutions.
But if there was ever a time to break the old paradigm, it’s now. Demand real cuts, and let the executive agencies whine about what they can’t do. I think you would find surprisingly broad public support from everyone except the special interests, who will never be happy without more money for their pet causes.
This is the ground to fight Obama on. If businesses are having to lay people off left and right, why should the federal government be immune to spending cuts?
tom on December 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM
I’m gonna’ save so much money by not buying a yacht next year that I’m going to not buy TWO yachts! If I keep this up, I’ll be rich soon!
gregbert on December 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Yeah…they need to go on Comedy Central, advertise on every show that Obama made a guest appearance. That’s where his base is…at home, watching mindless drivel on TV.
ProfShadow on December 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM
And with the money I save by not buying two yachts, I’ll be able to reduce my personal financial deficit while also investing in a new car.
sadarj on December 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Just wondering… is “ObamaCable” an “entitlement” like the “ObamaPhone” apparently has become?
NB: I know Obama Phone wasn’t started under Obama…it is the meme I’m referring to above.
ProfShadow on December 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM
You all know that this baseline has included the 2009 omnibus bill passed in January 2009 and the almost trillion dollar stimulus passed in 2009. These spending levels were in the baseline for each continuing resolution passed for eac year since 2009 because of Harry Reid’s refusal to pass a budget since 2009. Thus, the ongoing trillion dollar deficits.
karenhasfreedom on December 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM