Krauthammer Mocks 'Inside Washington' Host's Claim Tea Party Wants 'Big, Big Budget Cuts'
A consistent media meme in the past few months has been that Republicans are asking for Draconian cuts to the federal budget.
On Friday's "Inside Washington," Charles Krauthammer didn't let the host get away with furthering this nonsense (video follows with transcript and commentary):
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINNESOTA): They want to shut the government down and they want to turn you into their scapegoat and say it is the Tea Party's fault for shutting the government down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PETERSON: That’s Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann at a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill Thursday. Tea Party folks want big, big cuts in the budget, right?
That's how Peterson began a segment on this subject. When Krauthammer got his chance to speak, he went right after him for it:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I do want to correct your intro where you said the Tea Party wanted to do big, big cuts. The big, big cuts are $30 billion in addition to what the Democrats want. The budget for this year is three hundred, seven hundred and fifty thousand billion dollars. So of that…
PETERSON: Bigger cuts I should have said.
NINA TOTENBERG: You should have said bigger.
KRAUTHAMMER: three thousand, seven hundred and fifty thousand.
PETERSON: Bigger.
KRAUTHAMMER: The point is it’s minuscule, everybody understands, and it’s insane that we’re going to shut down a government where we have a $1.6 trillion deficit over a trivial amount.
In reality, Krauthammer's math was a little off. $3.7 trillion is 3,750 billion. But we know what he meant.
The larger issue here is that the budget has grown by $1.1 trillion in the last four years or 41 percent. The Republicans aren't asking for "big, big cuts."
Big, big cuts would be going back to 2007's spending level with an inflation adjustment which would require reducing next year's budget by almost $900 billion.
As no one is proposing this, the concept that what the Republicans or the Tea Party are asking for is extreme, reckless, or recessionary is a lot of nonsense that the Democrats and their media minions what to advance scare citizens into opposing even the slightest fiscal restraint.
In reality, the Republicans should be asking for far larger cuts that resulted in a compromise budget far more responsible than what is going to come out of this silly dance.
If right out of the gate in January the new Congressional leadership had proposed a $3.2 trillion budget for example, the spending package Democrats would have agreed to would result in hundreds of billions less red ink rather than the paltry tens of billions we're going to get.
Sure, the media would have screamed bloody murder, but that's what they're doing now over these trivial reductions, so who cares?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
We Already Knew This
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 1:19pm.
The MSM Media Accoutant can't deal with percentages, decimal points, or even large dollar amounts; it fogs their brains. What's sad about all of this back and forth regarding $30 - $60 billion in cuts is that it drowns out the stupidity of the diisagreement to begin with, and demonstrates how subserviant the electorate has become to the political elite who, by virtue of the Democrat majority and President, have allowed this country to be run without a budget for six months - that's what we should be screaming about. That's what they should be arguing about; that's what they should be held accountable for. A country virtually on bankruptcy's doorstep is functioning without proper financial controls and we're worried about $30 -60 billion in cuts.
Big, big cuts would be going
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 1:37pm.
So, essentially, we just don't have a new stimulus each year. And since the stimulus was due to a dire emergency in the economy -and the White House has said that we've turned the corner and no dire emergency exists, we don't need to re-stimulate it.
Right?
Absurdity cubed
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 2:00pm.
That's my calculus of the media's "mean republicans shutting down the government" meme, over a miniscule amount of funding.
70,000 children will DIE world wide. That, of course, is just another number some liberal pulled out of his butt to try to scare the stupid into shutting their eyes.
What is criminal is that we are asking our unborn grandchildren to pay for this insanity.
And speaking of insanity....(and sorry to change the subject)....Obama has directed the military and all other agencies of the federal government to use green energy exclusively by 2016!!!! Does anyone understand what that requires for a fleet of vehicles? I do, for a small fleet, because I had to do the cost estimates. But this moron wants our fighter jets to fly on corn cobs. I AM BEYOND DISGUST!!!! And you can bet your bottom dollar that Obama and the democrats will try to push through more of this idiot cash for clunker crap and GE rebate-style "grants" for state and municipal governments to switch over their fleets. We're already seeing grants for building charging stations for electric cars. Excuse me while I puke. Not only do I get to pay an insane amount of money at the pump, but my tax dollars get to subsidize some idiot greenie who is driving a golf cart and then plugging it in at my expense.
Okay, rant over.
I truly hope the Republicans have the guts to shut the whole damn thing down.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
thugocracy
Submitted by Rackie on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 2:12pm.
Notice how all the liberal thugs tried to shut him down by talking over Charles all at once when he exposed their oily arguement. cockroaches, everyone of them.
Uhm, uhm, uhm, $900 billion
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 2:28pm.
Uhm, uhm, uhm, $900 billion is a big cut you say... going back to the 2007 level of spending where we had what $300 billion budget deficit??? Uhm, uhm, uhm, I don't know how to tell ya there Noel but to me BIG means ZERO DEFICIT SPENDING as in living within your means... not the compromise position the GOP originally had as in simply rolling back ALL of the extras Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid added ON TOP OF the 2007 budget level of spending.
I guess we can debate the meaning of big??? But it seems to me the two extreme sides of the debate are Conservative/Libertarian position of ZERO BUDGET DEFICIT versus the Democrat/Liberal position of $1.6 TRILLION ANNUAL DEFICIT SPENDING. The GOP compromise of 2007 budget spending level is livable as a step in the proper direction given the MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT which we will be paying interest upon. Simply printing money to pay the interest is a NON STARTER.
It seems to me by attempting to minimize the amount that "big" represents you undercut our negotiating stance. This is why the Democrats came out with the laughable $6 billion and moved up to $33 billion when the GOP came first with $61 billion.
dscott
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 12:07am.
dscott,
You're not really suggesting that a $900 billion cut back to 2007 levels plus inflation isn't big, are you? When compared to what's being discussed now?
What we just learned is Ryan is going to propose cuts of over $4 trillion in the next ten years. That's $400 billion a year. I'm proposing more than twice that, and you don't think it's big?
BTW, our 2007 deficit was $160 billion. Drop in the bucket compared to what we're doing now. Gold would plummet and the dollar would scream as would treasury paper if we made such a cut in our deficit.
But I guess you're right. That wouldn't be big. ns
Looking at this "relatively"
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 2:57am.
Looking at this "relatively" speaking, a $900 billion annual cut in a budget that over spends revenues by what $1.6 TRILLION ANNUALLY? A 56% cut in annual deficit spending I would characterize as MODEST because deficit spending even at that level would be $700 billion a year and still be considered UNSUSTAINABLE.
Ryan is proposing a 25% cut in annual deficit spending with $400 billion a year. This leaves us with an annual deficit of $1.2 TRILLION a year. In what universe is that sustainable?
Remember also that Obama's economic forecast is unrealistic which means any deficit figure they give is LOWBALLING the eventual amount. This makes the $1.6 Trillion deficit figure unfortunately more realistic in a nightmarish manner for the foreseeable future since Obama was projecting $1 trillion annual deficits for the next 10 years!
Let's now put this in some harsh perspective. The 2011 total revenue are projected at some $2.2 Trillion and the outlays are budgeted at $3.8 Trillion. Remember also that Obama didn't count the interest on that borrowed money EITHER! In other words the outlays are 172% greater than revenues. A $900 billion cut would be 24% of annual outlays. A 400 billion cut would be 10.5% of annual outlays. A $1.6 trillion cut would be 42% of annual outlays. The bottom line is the budget has to be cut at a minimum of $1.6 Trillion a year JUST to maintain the current indebtedness with the expectation as interest rates go up our interest payments will put us into even more deficit spending!!!!! The Fed is already mumbling about hiking interest rates.
What Ryan is proposing is merely delaying the inevitable only a couple of years, i.e. an economic crash in which the Dollar becomes worthless because the Fed will believe it has no choice but to buy all US bonds (with freshly printed money) because NO FOOL IS GOING TO BUY AND HOLD A financial instrument that looses value as the Dollar exchange rate evaporates. No amount of interest rate hikes and principal guarantees will compensate the holder of a bond when the money it is denominated in is worthless.
So to answer your question, NO, $900 billion is NOT big, it's modest but doesn't address the real issue. $1.6 Trillion is big and just a start. $400 billion is an illusion since it is based on a 10 year projection that is what? with cuts that are back loaded? I haven't gone over the Ryan proposal details, but given the past supposed cut proposals they always seemed to be that way. Sorry Noel, unless one's perspective on the outlay/deficit situation takes into account the ramifications of continued deficit spending at these levels there won't be anything left to dicker over. When you got a pile of nothing, you got nothing.
My suggestion at this point is move into tangible assets and stocks (which are based upon tangibles) so when the Dollar devalues at least when a NEW DOLLAR is issued you will still have something.
"Sure, the media would have
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 2:37pm.
"Sure, the media would have screamed bloody murder, but that's what they're doing now over these trivial reductions, so who cares?"
On the other hand, by screaming over this itty bitty amount, they have essentially rendered their negotiating position as untenable come the 2012 budget. NO ONE can take them seriously at this point since they with the absurd $6 billion first offer have made a joke out of themselves to the average person who sees the number $1.6 TRILLION. In essence, the liberals foolishly rendered their chief weapon blunt by claiming thousands of children are going to die on a $61 billion reduction in this fiscal year. Are you listening GOP? Play that the charge over and over again each time they put up a fuss over spending reductions. Better yet, find the old CSPAN tapes of the Reagan budget battles where they had witnesses come in before Congressional Committees to claim they and their children were going to starve to death BECAUSE of Reagan reducing the rate of INCREASE.
How about an exercise in demonstration of foolishness?
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 2:48pm.
Seeing as how the Democrats want to claim these cuts are so "draconian" and "Extreme", how about the Republicans literally double Obama's budget. Double the whole thing.
The soundbites from the Democrats about the insane level of borrowing and spending that would be would be so precious.....to the point of deeeeeliciousness.
Proposed Cuts
Submitted by m1xram on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 5:58pm.
Nobody's proposing "big, big cuts". Well then, I'll propose them. As someone who makes sub-poverty wages I propose we don't spend money we don't have. Cut the budget by more than the $1.6T deficit and we can begin the recovery.
Some people, we know who they are, will complain that we don't care about this group or that group. This just demonstrates their hypocrisy. When the final collapse comes millions will suffer, but that's their plan because they don't really care about others.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Use a darn bar graph, someone!
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 6:41pm.
Will someone just pull out a simple bar graph to explain to people how much money this is?
For example, if you'd roll out a sheet of paper with a bar about 5 feet high, a cut of $30 billion would be less than 1/2 inch high.
Good grief, use a simple prop instead of quoting numbers (incorrectly) that no one can relate to ... especially liberals!
Please!
I disagree. The Tea Party
Submitted by Satchmo on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 11:08pm.
I disagree. The Tea Party does want big, big cuts. Massive cuts. This is why there was such a Republican wave from state houses to Congress this past November. I'm tired of hearing about 2007 spending levels. We need to back much, much farther than 2007.
Perspective.
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 2:08am.
$30 billion in cuts is less than the $45 billion tax break that the Obama administration gave GM. That $45 billion GM tax break is $45 billion in lost revenues.
Big, BIG cuts.
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Sun, 04/03/2011 - 1:44pm.
epic - EPIC math fail.
1.1 TRILLION Dollar (estimates from 1.1 - 1.7) Spending DEFICIT for 2012.
61 BILLION dollars is about 5% of the DEFICIT and about 1% of the estimated budget as a whole.
We have dramatically differing perspectives of the adjective "big" when used in this context.
Hat tip Ace of Spades: Ryan's
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:10pm.
Hat tip Ace of Spades:
Ryan's Plan: Necessary But Not Sufficient
http://minx.cc/?post=314334