The Savings from Trump's Spending Cuts Would Be Smaller Than Advertised
Budget

The Savings from Trump's Spending Cuts Would Be Smaller Than Advertised

iStockphoto

At The Weekly Standard, Chris Deaton writes that the White House’s plan to cut $15.4 billion in spending “is a drop in a bucket floating on a sea” — and the real amount it would lop off the deficit is an estimated $3 billion. The other $12 billion “comes from a combination of expired, zombie funds still on the books, and budget authority that was untapped as of May.”

More from Deaton:

"House majority leader Kevin McCarthy wrote this week in the Washington Examiner that the de facto $3-billion rescission amounted to 'a much-needed spring cleaning.' Perhaps—of one corner of one room in a rather large mansion. … [F]or any simple argument of accountability, efficiency, or transparency, there is a larger and better argument for not passing $1.3 trillion budgets harum-scarum in the first place. Doing so is the result of Congress lacking an orderly budget and appropriations process—which is to say nothing of Washington lacking a spine to make Medicare and Social Security sustainable in the long run. There is an irony here: Defining fiscal responsibility down to rescinding money that never was going to be spent and sounding the alarm of an impending debt crisis are unmistakably related."

TOP READS FROM THE FISCAL TIMES