If Congress Tells You It Will Save $$ ‘Over Ten Years’ They Are Lying

Over the last few decades, Congressmen have fallen into this scheme of telling us all that their budget deals will “save money over a ten-year period.” Don’t fall for this. It is an outright lie.

No, I am not being hyperbolic, here. The claim that any budget deal will save any money at all over five or ten-year time spans is simply an outright lie and every congressman knows it. When you hear a Congressman, Republican or Democrat, tell you this, they simply aren’t telling the truth.

In fact, it isn’t really even built into the system for one Congress to pass a budget that holds ten future Congresses to its strictures. This is why the Constitution insists that a new budget be passed every year. One Congress can only budget for itself, not any future Congresses.

We have a perfect example of this with the very budget in the news today, the Ryan/Murray budget.

In 2011 Congress agreed to a budget scheme that contained discretionary spending limits. As Sean Davis recently reported, these limits were agreed to by over 70 percent of House Republicans and signed into law by President Obama.

But, wait. Now Ryan/Murray comes along and dispenses with all those limits and hikes spending without any mind at all to the “law” enacted in 2011.

How did this happen? Because any congressional budget agreement made in 2011 has no permanent restrictions on a Congress in 20123.

As Davis points out, we should not fall for this lie that the Ryan/Murray budget will save money “over ten years.” Why? “For starters, because the people swearing to uphold new caps ten years from now are the same ones eviscerating the caps they agreed to barely two years ago,” Davis writes.

So, with this new deal, Democrats have pulled the wool over Ryan’s naive eyes–unless you believe he knew full well and is complicit with the lies–and eliminated the sequestration rules that mandated spending caps. Now, miraculously, the Democrats get huge hikes in spending with higher “caps.”

And, guess what? Next year they will raise those caps too and get even higher spending “limits”–which effectively aren’t limits at all.

So, if you hear a Congressman tell you that, “sure, we aren’t getting any spending cuts today, but the good new is this bill features massive cuts over ten years,” what he is really saying is “sure we aren’t getting any cut today, but the good news is that we’ll get even higher spending over ten years!”

If Congress is telling you that savings will occur “over ten years” they are lying to you. Period.

Paul Ryan increases government spending, cuts military pensions
Arrogance: Obama Unveils New Portrait that is Dozens of Times Larger Than Washington's & Lincoln's
  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    What it really means is “We’ll save $XX billion over ten years, and spend three times that much elsewhere.”

  • arcman46

    I like Paul Ryan, but he has made a strategic mistake. One that I see the Republicans in both the Congress and the Senate make over and over. We saw that mistake happen with Rubio. That is trusting Democrats to be “bipartisan”. While Patty Murray is one of the dumbest people to have ever served in the Senate, she is also a partisan hack. If the Democrats pretend to be bipartisan, you can well bet that they are going to get a lot more out of the deal than the Republicans. My wish would be for the Republicans never to deal with Democrats. I realize that is both harsh, and unrealistic, because sometimes they’ll get it right, but for the most part when the Democrats win, America loses.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Sun rises in east, water is wet, ice is cold and shit does in fact stink. Perhaps the greatest irony however is that the chattering classes are so lost in space many of them actually need to have these sophomoric points explained to them. Yikes. In any event, voting has consequences, as does not voting, and the brutal reality is that with Obama in place until Jan. 2017, and the Senate having been Angled and Akined out of play, and a whole host of House Republicans being vulnerable to the Idiocracy effect, the result will be a lot more pork. Ryan’s far from dumb. He simply doesn’t want to take a risk of ending up the ranking member of his committee as opposed to being its chairman. That’s how things work in political Realityville. Causes and effects, risks and risk avoidance, and like fare.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Spoken like an establishment Republican RINO.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Sun rises in east, water is wet, ice is cold and shit does in fact come from Lawrence Westlake’s computer. You know Larry ol’ bean it really is a shame that your day nurse keeps letting you on the Internet like this. I mean, it may seem cathartic, but you really should take your meds just the same.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        …copious ammounts of…

        There’s a reason I refer to him as Flings poo and flees.

        • Jwb10001

          Flings poo, hits Glenn Beck’s crack pipe and probably has feas

  • LiberalNightmare

    If the republicans are going to vote like democrats, so will I.

  • Porkopolis

    Ryan is attempting to parlay a political tactical retreat that is resulting in a public display of cognitive dissonance.

  • Hank_M

    This whole “over ten years” crap drives me nuts. Nice way to make some imaginary savings sound large. Funny thing though, tax increases are usually
    only pennies a day.

  • Hank_M

    This whole “over ten years” crap drives me nuts. Nice way to make some imaginary savings sound large. Funny thing though, tax increases are usually
    only pennies a day.

  • 914

    They cannot even save money for one year. What kind of denial is this ten year crap? May a swarm of locust descend and remove them from our midst.

  • 914

    They cannot even save money for one year. What kind of denial is this ten year crap? May a swarm of locust descend and remove them from our midst.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE