Given a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Washington and mainstream media outlets these days, one could be forgiven for believing that the United States has entered a new age of unprecedented austerity. This is hardly the case. Indeed, despite the best efforts of an insurgent Republican majority in the House of Representatives — elected in 2010 as a rebuke to Democratic fiscal recklessness — federal spending continues to rise.
Advertisement
When Congress passed the Budget Control Act (BCA) — legislation to raise the debt ceiling that called for about $1.8 trillion in spending cuts over ten years — in August, the agreement was hailed by both sides as “the deepest spending cut since World War II” (freshman GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois) that would bring federal spending “to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the Eisenhower administration” (President Obama).
Of course, it is easy for Congress and the president to take credit for large spending cuts when the majority of those cuts aren’t scheduled to occur until the later part of the next decade. Actually cutting spending now has proved far more difficult, and Washington’s inability to reign in federal spending in the near term offers plenty of reasons to doubt whether those future cuts will ever occur.
Although the BCA scheduled a majority of its proposed spending cuts for the latter part of the ten-year budget window, the discretionary-spending level set for fiscal year 2012 ($1.043 trillion) did constitute a modest $7 billion decrease compared to what the government spent in fiscal year 2011 ($1.050 trillion). At least, that’s what was supposed to happen.
The BCA also included a provision (which most lawmakers only recently became aware of) that exempts federal “emergency” spending from the annual caps. Over the weekend, the Senate voted 72–27 to approve an additional $8.6 billion in emergency disaster relief on top of the $1.043 trillion limit. But when it came time to vote on a House-approved measure to pay for the additional funding — via a A Republican effort, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, to offset the additional funding with a 1.83 percent across-the-board rescission, the Senate declined, 43–56, largely on party lines. Every Democrat voted no.
They defended their opposition to paying for the disaster relief by arguing they were simply abiding by the terms of the BCA. However, the fact remains that when the final tab is calculated, including disaster spending and a number of other exempted appropriations, discretionary spending for fiscal year 2012 comes in at about $1.054 trillion — a $4 billion increase compared with last year.
Only in Washington would this be considered a sign of austerity. And yet President Obama and his Democratic allies continue to insist that the government has done just about everything it can to reign in the federal budget (short of raising taxes, of course). Voters looking for a defining embodiment of the choice they will be presented with in 2012 should look no further: Given the opportunity to approve a minuscule spending cut that would, however slightly, change the course of spending in Washington, Senate Democrats refused.
But this disheartening fact — the federal government will spend more next year than it did this year — also poses a problem for Republicans. Indeed, a significant number of House GOP freshmen supported the BCA, hailing it as an historic spending cut. But they were sent to Washington to demand that the federal government starting spending less now, and that’s just not happening. And to point this out in an effort to counter Democratic claims that austerity is already upon us would be to essentially acknowledge their lack of success. “People keep hearing that federal spending is going down,” says a GOP Senate aide. “But spending is still going up. That’s why we have a 9 percent approval rating.”
On the other hand, one could argue that given the temerity of their goal — challenging the entrenched culture of rampant spending in Washington — Republicans in Congress have fared reasonably well. As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, argued on the Senate floor recently: “House Republicans have worked vigilantly all year to change our debt course. . . . The great shame is that they never had willing partners in President Obama and his Democratic-led Senate.”
Speaking in Osawatomie, Kan., earlier this month, President Obama boasted that he has “already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law” before proceeding to make the case for a massive tax increase. In 2012, voters should demand that he explain why a federal government that can’t even cut $7 billion from a $1 trillion budget (0.7 percent) deserves a single dime in additional tax revenue.
— Andrew Stiles is the Franklin Center’s 2011 Thomas L. Rhodes Journalism Fellow.
"The BCA also included a provision (which most lawmakers only recently became aware of) that exempts federal “emergency” spending from the annual caps."
"... to offset the additional funding with a 1.83 percent across-the-board rescission, the Senate declined, 43–56, largely on party lines. Every Democrat voted no."
"They defended their opposition to paying for the disaster relief by arguing they were simply abiding by the terms of the BCA. However, the fact remains that when the final tab is calculated, including disaster spending and a number of other exempted appropriations, discretionary spending for fiscal year 2012 comes in at about $1.054 trillion — a $4 billion increase compared with last year. "
As I predicted. The Republicans have, yet again, been taken advantage of by the Democrats. They should be feeling rather cheap right now. How do they look at themselves in the mirror?
There was this girl at my old high school. She would believe anything anyone told her. She wanted to be respected and treated well but just the right word or two in her ear and she was in the back seat like a flash.
It never seemed to dawn on her that those guys who got her into the back seat might not be telling the truth. That words of respect and actual respect are not the same thing. And so, thoughout all my years at high school, she just had one let down after another. But the telling thing is she never learned.
The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They have seen this so many times before and for so many decades that feigning surprise now is at best disingenuous and at worst an admission of rank stupidity. Probably both. I wonder if Republicans will ever learn?
Guess who, in this tale of politics, is the easily duped girl and who are the boys.
Beyond its intended purpose, I would like to see a balanced budget amendment, mainly to protect a possible Republican victory in 2012. Without one, I'm afraid we'll see the same thing happen in Washington as what happened to Gov. Walker in Wisconsin. Once real austerity starts to happen, look for the American people to revolt and turn on the power that be. We can talk a great game, but when the axe falls, I don't see us collectively having the stomach to whack $1.4T a year from Big Brother's spending, even over say 5-7 years. So priority #1 in the first 100 days, because you'll need it for cover later.
The saddest part, all they really had to do is cut the 2012 budget by 5% (a real cut) and re-set the baseline. 5% would have been 180-Billion. 10-years later, we would have had the 1.8-trillion. No organization exists that can't take a one-time 5% cut. It would have been relatively painless and they know it.
The problem is, they can't allow any actual cuts because that would prove they were possible.
P.J. O'Roarke in his book "Parliament of Who--res" (sic) described the DC budgeting process in horrifying detail. This book was written years and years ago and nothing has changed.
He advocated specific depaertment and agency cuts and then for all other departments and agencies he advocated a straight %10 cut. He called this O'Roarke's Law of Economic Circumcision. To wit, you can cut %10 off of anything without really hurting it.
My idea is to pick at random a number from "0" to "9" and terminate every government employee -- federal, state, and local -- whose Social Security number ends with that digit. An instant, completely mechanical across-the-board 10% cut of salary, and nearly as big a cut of benefits. Welcome to the private sector, much esteemed public servants.
Yes, I've thought the same thing. A 5% cut across the board would be easy. Then, holding spending static without the scheduled increases for 10 years would be the next easy step to take. These two steps would eventually balance the budget.
It's frustrating when people use the word "difficult" (as the author does) when describing budget cuts. It's not difficult. They just refuse to do it. Their most basic job is to spend money prudently and they refuse to do so. I also hate "journalists" using the word "painful" when describing all budget cuts. That's an opinion, not a fact. Actually, it may be more "painful" without budget cuts.
Funny, jhegstr, prior to reading you comment I submitted my own which provided what I see as the only possible escape clause from the otherwise inevitable collapse you predict.
I wonder if the moderator will allow my "solution" to appear?
Unless and until American citizens who have military training - specifically snipers, explosives experts, special forces veterans - get desperate enough to deal with the problem of corrupt, unaccountable politicians... there will only be further decline.
It's that bad.
At this point in time, other than a Vince Flynn scenario... a Tom Clancy scenario... I see no hope for ourselves, let alone our children and grandchildren.
Charlie Rangel... still a member of the House... that right there tells you all you need to know.
Actually, there is no reason that we should not be able to return to 2008 ($2.2T) spending levels today. The way we got to these ruinous $3.7T annual budgets is through the current services baseline budget process. We all probably thought that the 2009 stimulus, TARP, and auto bailouts were one time expenses designed to salvage the economy. We would be wrong. Once these spending bills were passed, they became part of the current services baseline. In effect, Washington has been spending the equivalent of those programs every year since. Who knows on what?
We are well on our way to a Greek style debt crisis.
Fiscal conservatives are missing an opportunity. Republicans bemoan the $15 growing debt but do not explain what the consequences are to the American people. I'm not sure myself. Please paint me a picture of what "economic collapse" means to me and to the Nation, Republican candidates. Explain clearly to the people what is going to happen in personal terms, if we continue with Obama's big spending policies.
You have a good point, RJBJr. For a fact based, beautifully reasoned primer on what our unsustainable debt means for America, there is no better source than Mark Steyn's recently released "After America." I challenge any sentient American citizen to read his book and come away from it with anything other than great fear for the continuation of the marvelous American Experiment. But, it isn't enough for Republicans to paint a frightful picture of our future. They need to present a simple agenda for the revitalization of our country: serious corporate and individual tax reform, including the elimination of all corporate tax loopholes; entitlement reform as spelled out by Paul Ryan; meaningful spending cuts; and a willingness to reexamine our national defense spending priorities. In short, there has to be a 'morning in America' vision that draws people to the conservative agenda. We can't simply repeat endlessly what a disaster Obama has been. While I'm less than enthusiastic about Mitt Romney, he framed the alternative well in his recent USA Today op-ed: do we opt for an entitlement society a la the Dems, or do we choose to revive our national spirits via an opportunity society? Pretty well said.
Follow
