-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jim Antle’s post below says that most of the cuts in the Continuing Resolution are mere “smoke and mirrors.” It’s time for me to step up to the plate and explain some budgetary facts of life. I speak from fairly deep knowledge of this stuff. I was press secretary on the payroll of the House Appropriations Committee during the two years (1995-96) during which it cut $50 billion, in actual dollars, from domestic discretionary spending, back when that was a MUCH larger percentage of the overall domestic discretionary pie. In other words, those were MAJOR cuts, and they paved the way directly for the budget balance, and even surplus, that occurred later in the decade. During those two years, I (for obvious reasons) learned how this process works.
Anyway, yes, the cuts are not of the high quality of cuts we might like. Yes, there are a few which can only be characterized as smoke and mirrors. But no, the bulk of these cuts are not meaningless; most of them actually will keep money from being spent that otherwise would, yes, be spent. In other words, most of the complaints are groundless.
Here’s why. This is an Appropriations bill. Approps bills are primarily expressed through “budget authority,” not through “outlays.” A project in an Approps bill that receives budget authority in FY 2011 might not actually get spent — there may not be an “outlay” of the full amount — in 2011. If it is a construction project, that will almost certainly be the case. This late in the fiscal year — which began last October 1, and thus is more than halfway over — some of these projects may not even get the contracts signed before the end of the fiscal year. So cutting that project would not cut a single dollar from actual spending this year. But that does NOT — NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT — mean that cutting the project is a waste of time. If the budget authority is removed, it means that the money that absolutely would have been spent in future years now CANNOT be spent, by law. It saves real money.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but think about what happens if you re-finance a $300,000 house to cut the interest rate from 5% to 4.5%. In the first year, it saves almost no money, because you must pay a refinancing fee (and because, of course, it’s only one year of a 30-year mortgage). Does that mean that refinancing is useless? Of course not. Over the life of the mortgage, it will save tens of thousands of dollars. The first-year “outlay” might be nearly the same, but what matters is the long-term budget authority: the full payout of the mortgage. The savings are real. It’s the same thing with a lot of the items that critics are calling “smoke and mirrors” just because they don’t cut this year’s outlays. The criticism is utterly ill-informed and baseless.
Granted, there also are accounts that contain leftover money that supposedly wasn’t going to be spent anyway — so in this case, say the critics, cutting the budget authority doesn’t save money; it’s just forcing the official accounting to catch up with the reality of the unspent funds….. Well, yes and no. Or rather, maybe. The dirty little secret about unobligated funds is that many of them are in accounts that aren’t impressively tight. Executive branch bureaucracies, without approval of Congress, often can tap into those funds (in effect) for other purposes, merely by shifting them among accounts. Most funds are fungible. That’s why Sen. Tom Coburn is making such a big deal, overall (apart from this battle), about cutting hundreds of billions in unobligated funds: because as long as they remain on the books, they still can get spent, and in most cases will get spent. Therefore, eliminating the budget authority for these programs does indeed save real money. It’s not just an accounting trick. It takes away all legal authority to spend that money. It means the taxpayers will not be on the hook for the money.
Many of the Boehner-negotiated cuts that are being criticized as legerdemain are, in fact, real savings. They may not be immediate savings, and they may not be direct savings, but they are savings. They actually withhold real, honest-to-goodness, authority to spend.
Also important is that they force the overall spending baseline lower. So much of what happens in Washington budgets involves comparing spending year to year. If you take away budget authority EVEN FOR PROGRAMS THAT NEVER WOULD GET SPENT, you also make the official baseline for future years lower. It thus becomes far harder for the left to demagogue GOP spending proposals, because the proposals will be compared to a lower starting point than they would if the programs in question still remained on the official books. Anybody who doesn’t think this is an important budgetary victory is either ignorant or a fool.
For all these reasons, what Boehner and company accomplished is nothing to sneeze at. Sure, it might be reasonable to argue that he somehow might have succeeded, at the margins, in achieving further cuts or policy changes. It’s awfully easy to carp from the sidelines. But it is just not fair, and not honest, to say the claimed savings are illusory or, worse, a deception. And they certainly don’t represent a sell-out. Go ahead and withhold the cheers if you want. I’m not really cheering either. but fergoshsakes, stop the vitriol — and stop claiming that Boehner has acted deceitfully.
(I am not saying that Jim Antle made these accusations, by the way, but only that his post below brought up the idea of “smoke and mirrors” and thus catalyzed my explanation of what has, and hasn’t, happened here.)
More in my column out on this site tomorrow.
View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/04/14/no-fallout-is-necessary
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Panoply of Beauties
- Odds and Ends
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
CalMark| 4.14.11 @ 5:10PM
Wow. Lots of words. Lots of hard work in that post.
However, As an admiral once told a bunch of junior officers, "If you have to work really hard to justify your conclusion, you've probably got the wrong conclusion."
P.S. For everyone wondering why I turn up here so often: I'm one Obama's 8.8% (or whatever percentage it really is) and there are no jobs (177 applications and counting) to be found.
Rogue Elephant| 4.14.11 @ 5:46PM
It's called "spin" and bullsh**.
crazy| 4.14.11 @ 5:16PM
Regardless, don't expect anything different as long as Boehner, et al play along in the brinksmanship game. It's past time to change the game and get back to boring old committee hearings that force both sides write and defend legislation on C-Span and not move from one late-night bargaining session behind closed doors to another. The Pelosi House turned committee hearings into pro-forma sessions to push backroom deals to the floor. Let's see the Boehner house put the committees back to work.
Al Adab| 4.14.11 @ 5:30PM
I remain concerned about what might be in the bill. Does it include the banking transaction surcharge, or funding for ACORN, Planned Parenthood, SEIU and other things? What agency budgets are reduced? The fact that the Dems opposed makes me wonder, but so many GOPers as well. Hard to tell from this remove who's side might be which.
Can we now move on to the 2012 budget and actually reduce agency budgets; defund private concerns like above and end a plethora of industry sudsidies like ethanol, suger etc.? What might be a good baseline year budget to aim for 1999, 2000?
PattyMor| 4.14.11 @ 5:36PM
Its time to move on. The budget deal was passed and we are going over the cliff as a nation, unless the spending stops PDQ. There will soon be no way to recover from all this spending. Expect reduced benefits from social security, medicare and medicaid. Expect higher interest rate, higher gasoline prices, higher food prices (shortages are predicted, so stock up now, higher taxes, and higher clothing prices.
CalMark| 4.14.11 @ 6:10PM
You fight your battles where confronted with them.
You do not retreat, or, as in this case, surrender without firing a shot to fight another battle later.
If you operate like that, "later" never comes.
This was an epic fail by Boehner: horrible deal, divided caucus, votes begged from the enemy, the whip's office calling GOP dissenters traitors. We couldn't have possibly done worse.
Ivan| 4.14.11 @ 5:51PM
"Its time to move on. "
No it's not. It's time to call the bastards out and make clear we are not going to be such suckers anymore, to whom they can lie with impunity.
Truth is King| 4.14.11 @ 5:52PM
There is this thing called progress. Considering what the establishment Republicans haven't been concerned with doing as much in the past~ listening and acting upon what the grass roots conservatives want for the good of the country~ I have to call it at least a change in direction and some progress.
I think it's hopeful to hear someone like Boehner speaking real and at least voicing what he knows we want. I understand it isn't all that we wanted, and I hope and pray that We the People continue keep up the good pressure.
If not, there's the voting booth.
And, Paul Ryan is really emerging as a viable candidate for President IMHO. I am hoping he runs.
Truth Is King| 4.14.11 @ 6:16PM
Sorry I didn't get back to you right away on Tuesday night because my computer crashed, but I did take you up on your offer. I can change my screen name back if you like.
Truth is King| 4.14.11 @ 6:45PM
Glad you came back, I was afraid I ran you off. :^).
Happy to oblige, you may keep the name. If I decide to post here again, I will use my original name. (Margie).
As to your below post~ I agree with you that a government that funds Planned Parenthood is aligned against God. Did they keep the funding for this in?
The "stupid party" may be stupid, but the Democrat party is evil. I'm into destroying the democrat Socialist rule and the only way we have to do that is by continuing to elect conservatives to the Republican party~ and continue making our voices heard. Vote the weak ones out and the strong ones in.
Take care & keep up the good attitude!!
~Margie
Sunny| 4.14.11 @ 9:03PM
What? Those were crazy posts even for you, Margie.
Margie| 4.14.11 @ 10:03PM
Sorry, you'd have to go to the article 4/12 "Compromising To Win." and read the posts bet. me & God is Truth.
But somehow I really think you couldn't care less.
Toodles. :^)~
Sunny| 4.15.11 @ 2:41AM
Margie/God is Truth, you don't have to pretend; we know who you are.
Proverbs: Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall, you know.
Truth Is King| 4.14.11 @ 6:13PM
Save the rationalizing Quin. Until the Federal government stops funding the senseless slaughter of God's children through sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Infanticide The Stupid Party haven't accomplished anything resembling a moral or fiscal victory. A government that funds pre-meditated murder with taxpayer money does not have a clue & is aligned against God. Please think about this before declaring anyone ignorant or a fool for not cheering the current Stupid Party "leadership" on their budgetary "victory". The moment they took defunding Planned Infanticide off the table to please the Democrats they sold out God, the taxpayers, & themselves in that order. I have a huge problem with gov't officials who have no qualms about making me complicit in the crime against God & humanity known as abortion on demand by funding it with mine & my fellow Americans tax dollars! If you can see a "victory" in the events of this week on Capitol Hill you have blinders on!
C Bowen| 4.14.11 @ 6:15PM
Yeah, we get it. We just had to debt finance an invasion of Iraq right away because he had these scary weapons or not, but we can take along time to deal with these budget issues.
Sickening.
Sunny| 4.14.11 @ 9:04PM
RINOs and Democrats are spending us into oblivion.
Beth| 4.14.11 @ 10:15PM
As someone who is very familiar as well with the budget process due to having worked for DOD for years in finance/budget, I thank you for this, Quin.
For those of you saying it's "too many words" or "spin" or whatever - you are doing a really poor job hiding the fact that you think it's too complicated for you to understand (it really isn't complicated at all, if you care to actually read it). Or rather, you choose to not understand it.
The truth is, it doesn't matter what anyone says at this point - Reagan, Friedman, and Hayek could all rise from their respective graves and proclaim it Good, and say "hey, it actually erases the entire deficit!" and y'all would still call it "caving" and all the other silly demagogic epithets that have been thrown around over the last several days. People get WAY too personally invested in their opinions. I'm not sure why so many people of all political persuasions are SO very closed-minded these days, but it's really tiresome. I guess it's a by-product of the fever swamps and echo chambers of the internet. *sigh*
Idiocracy. We haz it.
Teflon93| 4.14.11 @ 10:27PM
Except the Democrats managed to get it all done. Including the ObamaCare abomination.
Consitution be damned, right?
Yosemeti Sam| 4.14.11 @ 10:24PM
Um, were the CBO calculations a - LIE?
What point for a CBO then?
Teflon93| 4.14.11 @ 10:26PM
I don't suppose there's anything Boehner could do that would piss you off, could he, Hillyer?
Wayne | 4.14.11 @ 11:11PM
And Planned Parenthood is funded, like a jab in the eye. It was a bad deal before the CBO report. Listening to Duncan Hunter, he now sounds like an arrogant Democrat, and he hides behind the military pay. Give me a break. We are NOT that stupid. They do not want to cut the government size. They just want to take over since they think they can run a massive government better than the Dems.
Larry| 4.14.11 @ 11:37PM
Quin, from what I read, you are saying "Thank God for small victories." If I had the confidence that the House leadership would be able to take this now and run with it in a way that they could play their hand much more strongly with the next budget battle, I'd feel as good as you. But I don't, and I won't.
I think there simply should be no budget for 2012, until after the election and (hopefully) a new President to be sworn in January 2013. We've had government by continuing resolution for years, we can stand it for one more year. The Democrats are simply not serious and will play obstructionist to anything that Paul Ryan and John Boehner will propose.
Steve| 4.14.11 @ 11:39PM
Thanks very much for this, Quin. It looks to me like 4th and 8 on the 30 yard line - in the first quarter - and the coach is being villified for calling a field goal instead of going for broke. Anybody got any other coach/quarterback to put in? We're running out of time to fix the impending debt disaster, but going for broke just to show our own loyalists that we're serious won't get results; we'll want the energy to fight the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget, which are far, far more significant. And for everybody who wants to trash Boehner in favor of a REAL conservative, I have a message: We Dumped Sue Lowden And All We Got Were These Lousy T-Shirts.
Teflon93| 4.15.11 @ 12:03AM
How'd running The Maverick work out for us?
Wasn't the supposed press adoration of him and his willingness to "buck" conservatives supposed to carry the GOP to victory in 2012?
And how did the Republicans going native in D.C. work out for us in 2006, when Pelosi and Reid literally refused to articulate anything but a "We're not Republicans" agenda and rode that to a landslide thanks to the crap Boehner et al pulled during the Bush years?
Your recipe's been tried before---it tasted lousy then; it won't taste any better now. Keep drinking plenty of Kool-Aid to choke it down, though.
For as long as we can afford "luxuries" like Kool-Aid, anyway.....
Sunny| 4.15.11 @ 2:44AM
God save us from RINOs and squishes.
We're only as strong as our weakest links--no wonder we get our a$$es kicked by the Commies.
martin j smith| 4.15.11 @ 8:00AM
I think that would go along in agreeing that we cut the vitriole. But, I do believe Boehner did a not so great job and should be criticized for it--and pushed further. I truly believe that he and McConnell are very bad at cou8ntering Obama's vitriole--not with the same stuff but real arguments. They MUST SHOW MORE WILLINGNESS TO CONFRONT OBMAMA NOT ONLY ON HIS POLICIES BUT THE DAMAGE ARE AND WILL DO TO THE NATION BOTH IN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC .
John| 4.15.11 @ 9:05AM
So WHAT IS THE REAL SAVING Quin? It's hard to tell and the details remain very murky and it's obviously very complex. From what I've been able to piece together it's probably around 20 billion but it's not going take effect for years in some cases. I'd say Boehner got screwed by Obama's budget wonks who are after all pretty good at this sort of stuff. The next battle over the debt ceiling is over really, there's no way they can force a default and Boehner has admitted as much. So is the 2012 budget going to be our sticking point?
Oldefarte| 4.15.11 @ 11:45AM
Quin, as usual you nailed it due to your previous professional expertise regarding governmental accounting [But no, the bulk of these cuts are not meaningless; most of them actually will keep money from being spent that otherwise would, yes, be spent]. Sadly, most of computer bloggers have no idea what accounting is, how is functions, its methodology/principles, etc; let alone GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING [ie butgets etc]. Your highlighting of legislated [currently unspent] expendatures was exceptional and should have been informational [but sadly, sometimes IGNORANCE IS BLISS] to all. The essential point is that any dollar of TAXPAYERS' MONEY SAVED/UNSPENT is a victory, whether it be $1 or $1trillion. As Patty Mor indicated above, it's time to MOVE ON, and the much much more important battles [than that just concluded, which was of a short-term nature] is the uncoming ones of the debt ceiling and 2012 budgetary battles. Point your political arrows rightfully at Paul Ryan's detractors [which are your own also] including El Chosen One, his snoozing VP, Sleezball Charlie of NY, ARSKISSIN Dick from Chicago, etc.........THE WAR HAS NOW STARTED AND D-DAY WILL BE 10/1/11, in reflection of 6/1/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jack| 4.15.11 @ 1:21PM
Brown noser.
djaymick| 4.15.11 @ 5:35PM
Thank you for your assessment. I guess this is my "learn something new each day" lesson.
spoofproof| 4.15.11 @ 8:54PM
Always remember, never forget:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exists NOT by any Right but ONLY at the Pleasure of We The People. We are not "on the hook". We will pay tax to this corrupt bureaucracy for precisely as long as there is a chance that reformation can occur. Bureaucrats and journalists at every level (city, county, state, federal) are skating on microscopically thin ice. We do not live in an authoritarian state. The United States of America are the Lands of Liberty. Live Free Or Die!
Joe Stal| 4.15.11 @ 10:09PM
The problem with your analysis is that cuts to spending that is going to happen years down the road can be easily reversed. In that sense they are quite meaningless as a change in government could easily lead to a change in spending policy. If I promised to cut my spending 5 years from now but only if I still live in the same house and my political opinions haven't changed than I haven't really cut my spending have I? I merely suggested I might spend less at some future date depending on the circumstances. That is what we have done here. Such a deal is a sham and you do a disservice to your readers to suggest otherwise.
Kevin Tierney| 4.16.11 @ 1:04PM
Joe,
While it is true "cuts can be reversed" by a future Congress, that's not a reason not to do them. If that were the case, it would be pointless to enact any budget or legislation ever, since no Congress is ipso facto binding on a future Congress.
Due to baseline budgeting, the Democrats will have less money to work with when they try to increase spending should they take power again. Given the way the trend has currently shifted, we are looking at a Republican House and Senate in 2012, if not also the Presidency. Big spending increases most likely will not happen.
In future instances, the Democrats might try, but it will be a lot harder to get it done. There's the political blowback (which they may not again care about) but also the realities of the day (there is less money to work with because of the cuts.)
This entire case was a lot of people having no clue what they were talking about pronouncing judgement on something. While Monday morning quarterbacking says Republicans should've done a better job explaining this (no doubt true) it should be equally true that perhaps conservatives should be a bit more careful before shooting off at the mouth on something. For all their protesting, a minority of congressman voted against the CR. that includes "Tea Partiers", people we revere like Paul Ryan, etc. Of that minority, an even smaller minority were freshmen Republicans. Sorry to say it, but those who protested this deal demonstrated they weren't ready for prime-time.