For those who may have been wondering…there’s still debate in Congress over what to do about the debt ceiling, the budget, taxes and spending. House Republicans say they are determined to wring savings out of the budget, maybe even balancing it (someday). Democrats are generally unconcerned about balancing any budget anytime soon.
But both major parties have said that any spending deal will leave Social Security and Medicare — two of the biggest federal programs, off the table. And there’s reluctance to touch veterans programs, defense spending and so on.
What, then, is left to cut, trim or slightly reduce? That’s a question the Congressional Budget Office took up at the request of Senate Democrats. The resulting report – based on several assumptions about both revenues and where cuts might fall – came up with a report that shows exactly what the political class doesn’t want people to understand:
The budget would be balanced in 2033 if all noninterest outlays were gradually reduced starting in 2024 so that they were 29 percent less than the amount in the agency’s baseline projections in 2033. Under that path, revenues equal the baseline amounts, which reflect the scheduled expiration of certain provisions of the 2017 tax act.
If those tax provisions were extended, revenues would be lower than they are in CBO’s baseline projections, and larger reductions in spending would be needed to balance the budget. In that case, the budget would be balanced in 2033 if noninterest spending was
gradually reduced from 2024 to 2033 so that in that final year it was 35 percent less than the amount in CBO’s baseline projections adjusted to incorporate the extension of the tax provisions.
If some categories of noninterest spending were not subject to those reductions, the cuts in other types of spending would have to be larger.
In other words, it is possible to balance the federal budget. But it won’t be cheap, easy or painless.
All of which makes it politically untenable – if not suicidal – for either major party to do what’s necessary to balance the books.
Given that neither Team Red nor Team Blue has any intention of getting things in balance, the best we can hope for looks like a moderation in the rate of budget increases. This, too, will guarantee the most savage (and dishonest) of political fights.
The only way to stop it is if voters insist on reductions that keep spending, if not in check, at least less reckless.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Colorado News Site Calls For ‘Shaming, Humiliating And Castigating’ Gun Owners
“House Republicans Vow To Reduce Spending, But Neither Party Will Make The Hardest Choices”
How an elected politician would comment on this: “Blah blah blah, blah blah.
While social security is a large item on the list of programs, the amounts of taxes taken over the past decades are also large. The problem is the poaching of those funds for other useless spending. So, the problem should not be solved by cutting the benefits of anyone who has been paying those high FICA taxes.
What’s left to cut? Let’s see, wasn’t it Rand Paul that published a list to things the Government was funding that surprised everyone? Like, helping Fed employees pay their taxes and some of the Grants were hysterical. How about funding and paying illegals for being in America, make the able bodied work for benefits, find a way to monitor and track Federal programs for fraud (we always find out after the moeny is gone).and get out of our personal lives.
Its the DC Estd that wont budge & we lose