Less is really more

According to this morning's headlines, the republicans in the house have proposed 32 billion in spending cuts in this year's proposed budget. far less than the 100 billion they promised last fall when they were trying to get elected.

Now it seems, the justification is that they are 'prorating' the cuts based upon the fact that the first four months of the fiscal year are over.  I'm sorry, I was always a little fuzzy in math? But it seems to me that the numbers aren't working. As a matter of fact? The numbers are bass akwards.

Have a look.... and read more

After clamoring loudly about their plans to curtail federal spending, House Republicans announced Thursday that they would cut $32 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year — a minuscule amount compared with a projected annual deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion. 

The Republican proposal is effectively $58 billion less than the domestic and foreign aid programs in President Obama’s budget request for 2011 — far short of the $100 billion in cuts that Representative John A. Boehner promised before the November elections that catapulted Republicans into the House majority and made him the speaker.
Republicans said that their cuts, prorated for the balance of the fiscal year, still fulfilled their campaign pledge to reduce to 2008 levels the government’s discretionary spending on everything other than national security. They said that the Democrats’ failure to approve a budget or pass any of the normal spending bills precluded further cuts.

Now it may just be my lack of comprehension and understanding, but I was thinking......


If we have say eight months left in the fiscal year? And say the target goal was 100 billion? Then that would mean that we need to reduce the budget by at least two thirds of 100 million. Which would be something like 66 Billion? Right?


But see, this is where the fuzzy math gets complicated. Those in Washington (who understand things like this far better than me) realize that "less is more." So they naturally took the seeming two thirds reduction needed to fulfill their promise and reduced that to a one third saving and in their budgetary understanding of the people's money? That makes sense to them.

Promise fulfilled. 


Then again there was this.....

One leading fiscal conservative, Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said that the cuts were not big enough. In a statement, he said that “anything short of our pledge to cut $100 billion” would “be getting off on the wrong foot.”

Of course the name says it all. This guy is obviously a flake....