U.S. Senator finally admits publicly: Even the "automatic budget cuts" aren't cuts at all (Congress, interview)

[Little-Acorn]

Finally a Senator (Rand Paul, R-KY) has publicly let the cat out of the bag. At least, for those who didn't already know one of the more poorly-kept secrets of Washington DC.

As you know, the Supercommittee is required to make its recommendations by Wed., Nov. 23. Actually, that means they must be made by TODAY, Nov. 21, since any such recommendations must be published for 48 hours before being voted on. It's pretty clear no recommendations are forthcoming today. And if the Supercommittee can't agree on recommendations, then "sequestration" (automatic cuts) will go into place, to start on Jan. 1, 2013.

But today, a Senator finally let the cat out of the bag. Even the "automatic cuts", aren't cuts at all, as you and I know them. They do NOT mean that we will spend less in 2013, than in 2012. They are simply announcements that the forecast budgets will go up, but less than planned.

Sen. Rand Paul used Defense as an example, saying that where Defense spending was slated to increase by 23% over the next ten years, if the "automatic cuts" go into place, then it will only go up by 16% instead.
Yes, folks, even through all the screaming over the last year of "cutting spending" by Democrats and Republicans alike (even including newly-elected TEA Party Republicans who have held the line against tax increases)... none of them even intended to actually cut spending at all. They simply used the phrase "spending cuts" to fool all of us into believing that's what they meant, so that we would keep voting for them.

There has never been a single CUT offered. Ever. Over the entire charade of "negotiations" these many years.

Just reductions in the rates of increase, which is a very different thing.

The article below, links to a CNN videwo where Candy Crowley is interviewing Sen. Rand Paul. At the 2:00 minute mark, Paul explains that even the "automatic cuts" aren't cuts at all.

Have a nice day.

-----------------------------------------------

Common Sense with Paul Jacob

The Un-Super Committee

by Paul Jacob

(snip)

“I think we need to be honest about it,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul pointed out yesterday on CNN ( Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com ). “Spending is still rising under any of these plans. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”

(See the 2:00 minute mark in the video at the above URL -Ed.)

“The curve of spending in our country is going up at about 7.5 percent a year,” Sen. Paul went on to explain. “If you were to freeze spending for ten years, no cuts . . . they would call that a $9 trillion cut.”

So, as we face a debt crisis, the Super Committee couldn’t even manage to lessen their planned massive increases in spending.

Or talk straight with the American people.

Why? Perhaps because official Washington knows that spending is the real source of their power.

[KUchief25]

Chopping 120 billion a year for ten years could be done in five minutes. It's all a big dog and pony show.

[d4g4m]

Yes, because of what is known as 'base line budgeting', the democrats get away with saying 'draconian cuts' when in fact instead of getting a budget promise of 23% but get only 16%, it's called a 'cut' in spending when all it really is a reduction in spending increases.
Then the MSM announces 'there's a 7% cut in spending'. But the majority uninformed don't realize that there is an increase of 16%
There are NEVER any cuts in any government spending.
Meanwhile, in the next ten years, the federal government will be spending about $40 Trillion and they can't find $120 Billion a year to slow the growth of spending.

[Little-Acorn]

I believe this is the first time it has ever been admitted publicly by an elected member of Congress.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by d4g4m

Yes, because of what is known as 'base line budgeting', the democrats get away with saying 'draconian cuts' when in fact instead of getting a budget promise of 23% but get only 16%, it's called a 'cut' in spending when all it really is a reduction in spending increases.
Then the MSM announces 'there's a 7% cut in spending'. But the majority uninformed don't realize that there is an increase of 16%
There are NEVER any cuts in any government spending.
Meanwhile, in the next ten years, the federal government will be spending about $40 Trillion and they can't find $120 Billion a year to slow the growth of spending.

What a wonderful example of all too common media bias, especially from left-wing publications like the New York Times.

[Little-Acorn]

Originally Posted by Mircea

What a wonderful example of all too common media bias, especially from left-wing publications like the New York Times.

Thing is, ALL media outlets I have seen, keep referring to these as "spending cuts", when they aren't.

[Memphis1979]

IF (and that should be a bigger font) the President keeps his veto threat, then yes, they are real.

But thats a massive if, the likes Washington hasn't seen in over 12 years.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

I believe this is the first time it has ever been admitted publicly by an elected member of Congress.

It is NOT the first time I have heard it from a member of Congress.

I believe it was back in the 80's when I heard it.

[chickenfriedbananas]

My understanding of this whole mess is, the cuts are automatic in the sense that this is the current proposal that will be sent to the House. The proposals ('auto cuts') were actually part of the last deal. Both parties acknowledged that the budget, as proposed, wasn't ideal, so they pledged to continue negotiating to see if they could revise their figures, which they apparently cannot. So this current proposal moves forward. The budgets can still be amended and blocked before final passage.

It's obviously a bit of over-simplification done by the media, which wants a neat little headline that fits on its front page. But there's no question that the debt impasse continues to be a mess for congress, and us. I'm not going to say Democrats are blameless, but they have been far more willing to sacrifice funding or funding increases for popular social programs, than Republicans have been when it comes to raising taxes on the highest earners. The real shame is, Grover Norquist and a handful of lobbyists are controlling politics, and our economic future.

[jdrtx]

Rand's father has been saying it for years.Voters have a last chance next November.