- #36
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Eh, from my understanding, such as it is, the House plan has a large and real difference this time. In the Reagan case Democrats in congress promised Reagan 3:1 cuts after the fact for taxes raised in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982" which Reagan signed, and after which the Congress reneged with a follow on appropriations bill which became law by overriding Reagan's veto. The point being from back then that the promised cuts were never law.russ_watters said:Any deal struck in the next few days will include no ACTUAL spending cuts, only PROMISED spending cuts. Given that Reagan agreed to a similar deal in the 80s and the spending cuts never happened, I wonder if the rating agencies care at all about the "deal" we get? Ultimately, spending cuts can only happen through a budget.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12341/HouseBudgetControlActLetterJuly27.pdf", if the Senate passes the House plan and Obama signs it, then the cuts spelled out there become law, and they will occur unless a majority of the House and Senate in coordination with the President all take positive action in the future to stop them from taking place. That is, if the future Congress never showed up then without this proposed law most authorized spending will increase on autopilot. Similarly, with this law in place, if a future Congress never showed up then the same authorized spending will fall by ~$1 trillion/10 years, and $22 billion in 2012.
This is nowhere near enough in cuts, but then it can be revisited in six months when the credit line again runs out.
Last edited by a moderator: