Why ALL budget balancers are full of hot air

Mike Lee, (R-Energy Solutions), trying to be a U.S. Senator from Utah, accidentally brought up a huge truth in a recent debate.

He said he’d cut the federal budget by 40 percent to balance it.

He claims now he was kidding, and that’s a darn good thing because it is impossible to cut the budget by 40 percent, not if you do it Lee’s way, which is far to reverential to all the sacred cows.

This article in the NY Times explains it better than I could, but bottom line is: Unless you cut agree to Social Security and the Military, both things Lee says are sacred, as well as slashing Medicare, education, and all that other stuff, there is no way possible to balance the federal budget.

Not without a huge tax hike, and Lee would, of course, extend the Bush tax cuts, not ever raise taxes.

So, he’s full of hot air. But so is everyone else. Without raising taxes and really slashing spending, there’s just no way to do it. Instead Bush cut taxes, Obama cut taxes, and now Lee and all the Republicans want to cut taxes.

And that, they all say, will balance the budget.

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Why ALL budget balancers are full of hot air

  1. ctrentelman says:

    just saw a wapost story that says Rep. leader john boehner promises a $100 billion cut in spending when the Republicans take power..

    If you check the numbers in the times link above you can see that that almost qualifies as a rounding error in the numbers we’re talking about.

    More hot air, in short. He’s hoping that Americans don’t know the difference between “billion” and “trillion.” I worry he may be right.

    And, yes, I know it is “too” not “to.” Sorry.

    And I like the new reCaptcha even less than the old one.

  2. Bob Becker says:

    Saw elsewhere a claim that the Senate [total membership 100] today has 71 millionaires in it. If true, that may explain a lot about why the tax laws, time after time after time, are skewed to favor the wealthy, and why subsidies for the rich [known as welfare if it goes to the non-wealthy] are a permanent part of the federal budget.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>