The president might be technically correct in this sense: In none of those years did federal spending fall by as much as $38 billion in nominal dollars. But any real comparison would use inflation-adjusted dollars or percentage of the budget, and by those standards there are no “big, big cuts” here. (Boehner specifically called it the “largest real [that is, inflation-adjusted] dollar spending cut in American history,” which is so clearly wrong that it must surely have been a misstatement.)See? Obama's a liar. But progressives are liars, so it shouldn't be surprising. What is surprising is that Speaker Boehner was going along with the lie, as Boaz points out. Progressives are calling him a "hostage taker" and a "street hoodlum" who will "kill your kid." These are hardly the kind of folks to whom you want to give in.
The fundamental point here is that federal spending rose by more than a trillion dollars during Bush’s first seven years, and then by almost another trillion in barely three fiscal years. And then we had a titanic battle over whether to trim $38 billion.
The idea that the Democrats “have shown that they heard the message that government spends too much” or that the Republicans—the party that increased federal spending by a trillion dollars while nobody was looking during the Bush years—have “imposed a small-government agenda on Washington” is ludicrous. After these meager cuts, the federal government will spend more than twice as much as it did when Bill Clinton left the White House.
So, I'm disagreeing with Spree a little bit here. These aren't big cuts and conservatives shouldn't go too easy on the GOP leadership. The tea party scored a victory, but it's just a start. Backing off now with breed complacency. Keep the pressue on.
0 comments:
Post a Comment