Cuts

The President and his supporters in congress are lauding his budget, emphasizing the “cuts” that will occur over the next decade and suggesting that the taxes he’ll raise come only from the “rich,” making them morally acceptable.

John Stossel comments:

President Obama said in his State of the Union speech last month, “We’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings.”

That was reassuring.

The new budget he released this week promises $4 trillion in “deficit reduction” -- about half in tax increases and half in spending cuts. But like most politicians, Obama misleads.

Cato Institute economist Dan Mitchell, a recent guest on my Fox Business show, cut through the fog to get at the truth of the $2 trillion “cut.”

“We have a budget of, what, almost $4 trillion? So if we’re doing $2 trillion of cuts,” Mitchell said, “we’re cutting government in half. That sounds wonderful.”

But what the president was talking about is not even a cut. The politicians just agreed that over the next 10 years, instead of increasing spending by $9.48 trillion, they’d increase it by “just” $7.3 trillion. Calling that a “cut” is nonsense.

Mitchell gave an analogy: “What if I came to you and said, ‘I’ve been on a diet for the last month, and I’ve gained 10 pounds. Isn't that great?’ You would say: ‘Wait, what are you talking about? That’s insane.’ And I said: ‘I was going to gain 15 pounds. I’ve only gained 10 pounds, therefore my diet is successful.’"

Democrats use this deceit when they want more social spending. Republicans use it for military spending.

And the press buys it. The Washington Post has been writing about “draconian cuts.”

“The politicians know this game,” Mitchell said. “The special interests know this game. Everyone gets a bigger budget every year. ... And we wind up, sooner or later, being Greece.”

We are definitely on the road to bankruptcy.

As I write this, unrest in Greece continues. Greeks will not abide any cuts to their entitlements, even though the cuts are by no means draconian. As we approach a time when more than half of the U.S public will have some form of government support, I have to wonder whether the reaction in the United States would be any different.

I find it interesting that the majority of MSM outlets are giving the Greek story very little coverage, and if they do cover it, they almost never provide a detailed discussion for the reasons that Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy. Normally, video and photos of violent protests, stores burning, overturned cars, and people asserting their “rights” make it onto front pages and prime time news ad nauseum. Recall the 'Arab Spring' coverage. But Greece? Crickets.

Could it be that the President’s many supporters in the media are just a bit uncomfortable with the story, worrying that the viewing public might draw parallels with the financial trajectory of our country, with the President’s irresponsible fiscal management, and huge deficits he has run up over the past three years. Nah, that couldn’t be the reason for limited coverage of Greece, could it?