The Super Committee has now failed to reach a deal to cut a measley $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Although this is obviously ridiculous, and we don’t really need an explanation of that, it is always fun to hammer Congressional failures.
The CBO estimates that the government will spend $45.7 trillion in the next 10 years but will only bring in $39 trillion in revenue (what’s another $6.7 trillion to our debt, anyway?). How embarrassing is it, then, that the Super Committee could not cut $1.2 trillion from the projected $45.7 trillion in government spending?
Well, let’s put it into perspective (in a very simplified manner). Let’s say there is a young couple that makes $150,000/year and over 10 years they will bring in $1.5 million together. They’ve been known to borrow and spend more than they have (even they are fully aware of the problem), making their parents and family nervous for their future. This trend continues and the couple is on their way to spend a little over $1.76 million over the next 10 years, which means they will accumulate a total debt of roughly $260,000. Recognizing the fact that this is unsustainable, the parents of the young couple finally intervene and tell them to start cutting back on the excessive spending. The couple then sits down and decides that they are willing to make a change. They are going to cut $47,500 from their future spending and reduce their projected debt to $212,500.
Crisis averted? Not in the slightest. Would the parents be happy with this conclusion? Absolutely not. Obviously, their children are on the path to financial ruin. But this measley cut that does not suffice — reducing added debt by 18% and overall spending by 2.7% — is what the Super Committee couldn’t even accomplish. The Committee failed at coming up with an inadequate solution, which exemplifies how inefficient and incompetent Congress is right now; they are not even capable of achieving less-than-mediocre results.
I’ll add insult to injury, now. Although the Supper Committee could not cut $1.2 trillion dollars in 10 years, Representative Ron Paul has proposed a budget that will cut $1 trillion in spending while lowering taxes…in just one year. Even more, Senators Rand Paul, Mile Lee, and Jim DeMint offered the Super Committee direct help by making public an outline of how to reduce the deficit by $6 trillion in the next 10 years (they were nice enough to ask for only $4 trillion, though). Even moderate Mitt Romney has managed to come up with $500 billion of cuts in his possible first term in the White House, which is a far cry from what needs to be done but — if duplicated in his second term — would be on par with cutting $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
My point is that this task should not have been hard. But there should never have been a Super Committee in the first place. The out of control spending in Washington should have been cut off at the start to prevent the need for an “emergency” committee to convene. One of the only remedies for this problem is to put the right type of people in office. In 2012, I can only hope that real limited-government conservatives obtain a strong portion of seats in Congress. Otherwise, we can expect more failures leading to financial disaster.Published in