The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Bad in the Debt Deal

Text Size

The Bad in the Debt Deal

By Joseph Lawler on 8.1.11 @ 9:53AM

Overall, the debt deal struck yesterday between President Obama and congressional leaders seems to be a favorable one for conservatives. There are a few downsides, though.

One larger-scale problem is that the plan substitutes near-term discretionary spending cuts for long-term entitlement reforms (with some promise of marginal entitlement reforms later this year). Although this was unavoidable because of the political demands of the parties, it's worth reflecting on. The deal won't come close to resolving the long-term debt problem, and it may not even prevent a credit ratings downgrade. The only reason that the cuts are coming from discretionary spending is because that's the lowest-priority spending for both parties. Although there's nothing objectionable about eventually returning to Eisenhower-era levels of discretionary spending (as this plan will, according to Obama), we're not also limiting the government to its Eisenhower-era number of activities. We're just funding all of the same programs less.

Another, more specific criticism of this plan is the amount of defense spending cuts included. It calls for $350 billion of cuts immediately, and includes a trigger that could cut up to $500 billion more if the two parties are unable to compromise to meet certain deficit-reduction criteria on time.

As Sen. Tom Coburn has pointed out in his budget proposal, cutting fully $1 trillion from the defense budget over 10 years would "put the Pentagon back on the level of annual funding it had just five years ago at the height of the Iraq surge." In other words, it should be eminently feasible to cuts $850 billion.

The problem is that significant defense spending cuts are going to require changing the missions of the U.S. military at some point. We can't plan to engage in every Libyan war that arises, for instance, while planning to seriously reduce military spending. If Obama is planning to rethink the role of the U.S. in the world, then the defense savings outlined in the deal (about half the savings overall, not counting interest on the debt) could be feasible. Otherwise, they seem illusory. Bear in mind that the $500 billion in defense cuts included in the trigger are, effectively, leverage for Obama and Democrats to use against Republicans, even though Obama is the one determining U.S. foreign policy. Something is a little backward here.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

Too Many Tims| 8.1.11 @ 10:19AM

We must not let down our brave robots flying over Libya.

SCPOret| 8.1.11 @ 10:21AM

Last night they proved they are like a Popeye cartoon - "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" Only theirs is "I'll give you cuts next year for a debt ceiling increase today" Why not, it's the same scam they have run against the stupid party for years, and like Charlie Brown the stupid party always falls for it.
Then they pass the buck again to the next congress, which is not bound by their promises. The same scam they used on Reagan, and Bush senior.
The American people are sheep who keep allowing this Pelosi to continue. Throw the bums out.

VICTORY IN 2012

Have you considered| 8.1.11 @ 11:00AM

SCPOret, you are correct.

I read over at TheHill, that the FY2012 budget will be "cut" by a whopping 7 Billion, and the FY2013 budget will be "cut" by 3 Billion. So...10 Billion over then next two years.

This will not give Moody's et al enough cover. They will have to lower the US credit rating...if they hope to maintain ANY credibility.

I'll gladly blow smoke today, for an election victory tomorrow.

Every Single Member up in 2012 needs to face a primary challenger...even the ostensible Tea Party members who vote for this piece of dung.

Bob| 8.1.11 @ 10:34AM

A great victory for the President, debt-ceiling raised and neutralized as a campaign issue. Huge defense cuts immediate and entitlement cuts put out to pasture. No immediate tax hikes for sure but they will come when what's his name's tax cuts expire. No balanced budgets or amendment either. The Tea Bags outsmarted themselves, the President only wanted to raise the debt-ceiling without conditions and the Republicans delivered in spades including the demise of Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex. Rest In Peace Ike.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 10:47AM

“If the final bill is passed by establishment Republicans and House Democrats and does not include a balanced budget amendment as a requirement, it will be completely unacceptable and will be seen as a violation of the mandate that the tea party and likeminded people gave Republicans in 2010,” said Ryan Hecker, the leader of a crowd-sourced tea party effort called the Contract from America.

“The tea party didn’t help elect Republicans because they liked Republicans. They elected Republicans to give them a second chance. And if they go moderate on this, then they have ruined their second chance, and there will be a real effort to replace them with those who will stand up for economic conservative values,” said Hecker, who helped conservative House Republicans rally support for the amendment.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And Now.

Stand And Fight.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 10:37AM

The Big Government Ruling Elite Says,"Let's Fool The Voters Again"

"Major ratings firms -- namely Standard & Poor's and Moody's -- have said even if the country raises the debt ceiling and doesn't default, there's a strong likelihood that the triple-A bond rating will be cut to double-A unless a budget can be crafted that results in $4 trillion in savings, the result of the massive debt load the country has accumulated in recent years. The nation's outstanding debt is more than $14 trillion.

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade "is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody's have to cover (themselves) since they've been speaking out on the debt cap so much."

Big Java| 8.1.11 @ 11:03AM

Ah, the illusion.

RJ| 8.1.11 @ 12:10PM

The "bi-partisan" deal only proves that neither party will deal with the real problem - too much debt. The Beltway simply wants the thieving to go on as long as it can before the economy completely blows up. We are facing economic catastrophe, but it is business as usual in Washington.

MyGirlFriday| 8.1.11 @ 2:12PM

Mr. Lawler,

With all due respect, I believe you left out a few "BAD" ideas in the new debt deal. The commission set up by Harry Reid (you won't see any Jim DeMint's or conservatives on this commission just squishy RINO's) which will negotiate the triggers in November and December (like Obamacare was) the time that families are busy with holidays, and in the dead of night you watch tax increases will be made. Even Eric Cantor was just quoted by Harry Reid that "Revenues" would be made during the commission meetings. So we give Obama trillions more to give to his Union supporters for reelection, more money HHS/Sebalius to set up Obamacare, more to the EPA, NRLB, etc. and then raise taxes (for his left base while campaigning) not to mention kill any hope for job growth. All the while entitlements are what are crushing the country are kicked down the road. And you suggest that this is favorable to conservatives? And don't you think the middle east, China, and Russia will be applauding the cuts to our defense and aligning themselves and their military accordingly? This president mouths cuts in defense (for his left base) yet we are now involved in six wars. We hear not one word from the left regarding Obama's wars. Let's just face it, the only thing this flimflam of president cares about is getting reelected and this debt deal surely helps him meet that objective.