Obviously, the left hates the report from the Fiscal Commission. Any talk of cutting spending makes them howl in psychic pain.
George Stephanopoulos declared that the commission “called the bluff” of the those calling on the government to cut spending.
Stephanopoulos condescendingly began, “A week after voters seemed to say that they wanted more aggressive action against the deficit, the chairmen of a presidential commission are calling their bluff.” GMA featured two segments on the topic, but never once actually mentioned the deficit number, $1.3 trillion.
Reporter Jake Tapper featured Barack Obama’s speech from South Korea in which the President attacked Republican campaign rhetoric on the debt: “And unfortunately, a lot of the talk didn’t match up with reality.” Left unmentioned was the Obama’s own record spending.
What a jerk.
Dan Mitchell has a different take.
I have many pet peeves, but one that causes me endless frustration is the Washington “spending cut” scam. This happens when politicians increase spending, but claim that they’re cutting spending because they previously had planned to make government even bigger.
The proposal unveiled yesterday by the Co-Chairman of President Obama’s Fiscal Commission is a good example. If you read through their report, it sounds like there are lots of spending cuts. But they never explain that these supposed cuts are really just reductions in previously-planned increases.
Here’s the bottom line. As shown in the graph, it is quite simple to balance the budget (and permanently extend all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts) if politicians simply limit spending growth. You can balance the budget within a few years with an overall cap on spending at current-year levels. But if you prefer a more moderate approach, you can let spending increase 2 percent each year and balance the budget by the end of the decade.
Mitchell went on to explain that the commission wants to increase spending and raise taxes to pay for it. You’d think that’s something liberals would get on board with.