the headlines you saw and will hear about are that $38 billion was cut from the budget. but when the congressional budget office studied it, they report that in reality only $352 million is being cut. how can that be? heres an example:
For instance, Congress allotted more than $20 million necessary to build the Capitol Visitor Center at the U.S. Capitol building. The visitor center is now completed, but the U.S. Capitol still is technically owed the rest of its budget for that project. The budget deal the House votes on today takes back $15 million from that project.
only in washington is coming in under budget and then deciding to not use the money originally allocated considered a budget cut.
so now we have two budgets out there to discuss and hash over; one from president obama and one from congressman paul ryan. if you listen to the heated rhetoric from both sides, you would come to conclusion that these two budget proposals are polar opposites of one another. in reality, there is a 7% difference in the spending.
the washington post and the boston globe have put out some useful tools to help illustrate the difference between the plans as well as to look at federal spending for the past 30 years.
it was interesting to review the head-to-head comparison in contrast with the stereotypes or misinformation that you hear day-to-day.
** "the republicans draconian cuts are stealing away social security" -- the GOP budget calls for $1 billion less in spending than obamas budget ($770B v. $769B)
** "president obama doesnt care about national security" -- obamas budget calls for $3 billion MORE spending than the GOP budget ($703B v. $700B)
there are real budget problems that we need to grapple with in the coming years. medicare and social security currently account for about 1/3 of the budget. with baby boomers aging and retiring, this percentage is only going to increase. in light of the bickering over the $38B in "cuts", i dont see how our elected leaders are possibly going to address the big issues. the real answer that no one will discuss because it may effect their future elections is that we need to BOTH raise taxes on everyone AND cut unnecessary spending.
i can swallow a tax increase but only after the federal government illustrates some ability to rein in the spending. but when you see things like harry reid complaining about the "heartless" loss of federal funds for a cowboy poetry festival or watch as massachusetts builds a shrine to ted kennedy with $38M in taxpayer money, you dont get the sense that any spending restraint can happen.
//
Posts
