In response to:

Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us these “Deep Spending Cuts” You Keep Writing About

cchuba Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 8:01 AM
Mitchell is including the entire U.S. budget including entitlements, the sequester cuts are only pertaining to discretionary and defense so he should present his data for those portions of the budget that amount to about $1.5T worth of gov't spending. I do believe that they call for a true cut of $85B in the first year, which is a good thing, followed by increases based on the inflation rate. In other words, the baseline is being reduced by 5%.
MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 9:07 AM
I disagree. There is no such thing as entitlements, it's just a word politicians use to fool you into thinking you have a contractual right to social security, medicare and medicaid. Congress can eliminate these programs at any time.

All government spending results from the force used to take the money from us. I'd prefer that force not be used to address our medical and retirement needs, and instead we be responsible for our own health and retirement.
cchuba Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 12:24 PM
It complicates the issue because both social security and medicare have separate benefit formulas and are funded differently from dedicated payroll taxes. Throwing SS and medicare into the fray does not tell you how much daily gov't operations are impacted by the sequester cuts. Now I don't believe that it is as big a deal as the politicians and the complicit media are making it out to be but including medicare and social security funding is a bit too much sweeping it under the rug.
RJBJr Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 8:42 AM
Good point. Mitchell has made a good start, but he does need to include the discretionary part of the budget. I think most of the increases in future years I are due to social security (more retirees) and medical expenses. These are areas Oblamer refuses to discuss. So, the sequester problem is totally due to an incompetent administration.

Sigh. I feel like a modern-day Sisyphus. Except I’m not pushing a rock up a hill, only to then watch it roll back down.

I have a far more frustrating job. I have to read the same nonsense day after day about “deep spending cuts” even though I keep explaining to journalists that a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

The latest example comes from the New York Times, which just reported about “deep automatic spending cuts that will...

Related Tags: New York NeW