Whoops:
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who sits on the Appropriations Committee, admitted yesterday that the $100 billion figure is “funny math.” In an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, he went on to acknowledge that the GOP’s cuts are just a “rounding error when it comes to the overall budget and deficit”:
FLAKE: We’re proposing $100 billion in cuts — kind of. It’s a little funny math, as it always is here. But it’s a pretty significant cut to non-defense discretionary [spending]. But that’s a rounding error when it comes to the overall budget and deficit. It represents one-fifteenth of the current deficit that we’re running.
It's actually even worse than Flake says. He's correct that that the $100 billion figure is bogus. It represents a cut from President Obama's budget request, but since that request was never approved, the actual amount of the cuts is closer to $60 billion.
Flake says that this $60 billion cut represents about "one-fifteenth of the current deficit," but it's actually much smaller than that. According to the latest projections from the administration, the budget deficit this year will be $1.65 trillion. That means the GOP's proposal for $60 billion in spending cuts is would actually eliminate just 3.6% of the budget deficit. That's just shy of one-thirtieth of the deficit, nearly half as much as the minuscule one-fifteenth claimed by Flake.
It's important to recognize that while $60 billion is meaningless compared to the deficit as a whole, it nonetheless represents a very serious cut in critical programs. It would, for example, force deep cuts at the Social Security Administration, forcing the administration to furlough employees. And it would eliminate funding for critical investments in our nation's future, including alternative energy research programs that could lead to green jobs.
In short, the GOP spending bill is severe, but despite it's severity it doesn't materially impact the budget deficit. The only thing Republicans didn't slash was the deficit.
If Republicans were serious about long-term fiscal security, they'd listen to Paul Krugman. They'd focus on reducing health care costs and raising revenue. But they aren't serious, and as Jeff Flake accidentally admitted, their policies show it.
