• 657 days Will The ECB Continue To Hike Rates?
  • 658 days Forbes: Aramco Remains Largest Company In The Middle East
  • 659 days Caltech Scientists Succesfully Beam Back Solar Power From Space
  • 1,059 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 1,064 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 1,066 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 1,069 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 1,069 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 1,070 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 1,072 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 1,072 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 1,076 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 1,076 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 1,077 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 1,079 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 1,080 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 1,083 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 1,084 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 1,084 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 1,086 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
The Problem With Modern Monetary Theory

The Problem With Modern Monetary Theory

Modern monetary theory has been…

Zombie Foreclosures On The Rise In The U.S.

Zombie Foreclosures On The Rise In The U.S.

During the quarter there were…

Strong U.S. Dollar Weighs On Blue Chip Earnings

Strong U.S. Dollar Weighs On Blue Chip Earnings

Earnings season is well underway,…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

When a Cut is Not a Cut

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment