A modest improvement, but let’s face it: At this point, no one’s supporting the bill on its merits. If you’re backing it, it’s because it’s the best we can do to avert a default right now and because, if it passes the Senate somehow, it would force The One to choke on his quasi-threat to veto any short-term deal at the last minute. There’s some fun in that, I suppose.
The new bill does, at least, keep his promise to produce savings in an amount greater than or equal to the amount of the debt-ceiling increase, which will be $900 billionif this is enacted. It’s hard to get excited about the difference between $1 billion in savings next year, which the old bill provided, and $22 billion, which the new one ensures, when we’re running multitrillion dollar deficits. But Yuval Levin makes a fair point. The lower we can get CBO’s baseline now, the deeper future Congresses will have to cut to sell their proposals:
These are still very small numbers in the scheme of federal spending, but the greater front-loading actually matters a lot. One reason is that the 2012 and 2013 budgets are the only ones that will actually be under the control of this congress. But even more important is the greater reduction of the baseline itself since, as we’ve witnessed in the past 24 hours, the CBO baseline is the measure of all future cuts—it sets the bar. This debt limit fight has set a precedent that from now on increases in the debt ceiling will need to be accompanied by equivalent cuts in spending, and those cuts will be measured by the CBO baseline, so cutting it by this much in the first two years will really shape the next round of the budget wars, which will come very soon. Front-loaded cuts have a kind of ratchet effect. And the larger cuts to the baseline in the following years (the revised bill’s cuts are larger every year than the original bill’s cuts) matter for the same reason—even if they don’t fully materialize (since one congress can’t bind another), they define the measure of future spending in every round of budget debates, which means that they make all future cuts larger in real terms.
Reid’s bill would produce $30 billion in savings this year, but guess where that comes from. Right: The phantom “savings” from winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which, contra Levin, reminds us that it’s not that hard to beat those CBO baselines with a creative gimmick or two.
The Hill
Since Obama has already said any short term bill is DOA, and even includes his buddy, Harry Reid’s bill in that pile, this one is heading for death somewhere, the Senate or Obama’s desk.
@Nan G:
IF the Boehner plan passed AND is scored by the CBO, then it would likely use the same current law baseline used by the Gang of Six to claim a false $1.5 trillion tax cut —
because it would
assume that the Bush tax cuts and various tax “extenders” expire, and
that millions of middle class families pay the AMT who are normally exempted thanks to the AMT patch.
The good news is that that this false accounting was exposed when the Gang of Six released its plan, so now we know what to look for.
WHY DON’T THEY CONCENTRATE ONLY ON THIS ADMINISTRATION’S EXPANSES TO BE CUT THEY ARE THE BIG SPENDERS AND LEAVE THE NEXT NEW ELECT GOVERNMENT TO HIS OWN DECISIONS TO CARVE THE EXPANSES AS THE NEXT GOVERNMENT WILL BE FOR THE PEOPLE AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH THEIR OWN BUDGET,
THIS CRISIS SHOULD ONLY REFER TO THE SPECIFIC CULPRITS THE ONE THAT IS IN POWER NOW, NOT FORCING A LAW OF DEBT CEILING IN THE THROAT OF WHO IS COMING AFTER TO BE PUNISH
BY A LEGISLATION APPLIED NOW AND FOR 10 NEXT YEARS TO HURT THE NEXT GOVERNMENT
WHICH IS NOT AT FAULT.
LIKE BUYING A USED CAR AND PAY THE ON TOP OF THE PRICE THE PREVIOUS OWNER’S DEBT THAT HE LEFT WITHOUT PAYING
The Boehner plan is not enough in reductions.