I saw Rep. Mack on MSNBC this morning speaking about his proposal to reduce spending by 1% each year for six years. I thought it was interesting and wanted to learn more. According to Mack, if Congress and the White House cannot come up with a 1% cut each year, a mandatory trigger would go into effect making across-the-board cuts to achieve it. It sounds to be a little more sane than some of the stuff we've been hearing lately. It has the appearance of something which would share the pain. Do any of you think this plan has a chance?


http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/connie-mack-unveils-one-percent-solution-cap-federal-spending

Sounds interesting. I certainly would like to learn more about it!

Cool concept...needs to be 5% per year to have meaningful impact though.

fish82;788652 wrote:Cool concept...needs to be 5% per year to have meaningful impact though.

Yeah, what would it take, like 20 years to get to a balanced budget making a 1% cut each year?

stlouiedipalma;788483 wrote:I saw Rep. Mack on MSNBC this morning speaking about his proposal to reduce spending by 1% each year for six years. I thought it was interesting and wanted to learn more. According to Mack, if Congress and the White House cannot come up with a 1% cut each year, a mandatory trigger would go into effect making across-the-board cuts to achieve it. It sounds to be a little more sane than some of the stuff we've been hearing lately. It has the appearance of something which would share the pain. Do any of you think this plan has a chance?


http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/connie-mack-unveils-one-percent-solution-cap-federal-spending

First off, they have to decide what is a "cut". Is a "cut" an actual spending decrease from the previous year? Or...and this how Congress has been living for 30 years...is a cut a reduction in the baseline budget scheduled increase? Baseline budgeting involves forecasting future spending amounts. When someone proposes spending less than what the baseline indicates, they get all wee-wee'd up and hail any cutback as draconian and irresponsible.

If this is an actual proposed trigger for reducing spending from one year to the next, then I'd be very interested. Like fish said, it would also have to be more than 1%...probably more like 3 to 5% to have any effect over time.

1% is like me cutting back $20 a month on my total spending, its a drop in a bucket.

5% a year would actually do something, and like BGF said, it needs to be REAL spending cuts, not 5% less than budgetted increases.

Don't we need like 20% across the board to get to a balanced budget? 5% a year would take 4 years to get there, maybe a little quicker if the economy recovers and starts filling the coffers. In 4 years, we'd probably add another few trillion to the debt. Which sounds like a "mere pittance" now but just about 10-15 years ago that's more than the entire debt.

The good news is the country is waking up to the crisis and that is going to make cuts more politically acceptable. The big question is if there's really enough buy-in from voters to achieve this - many people will be in favor of more responsible spending until they see a reduction in their govt handout, causing them to scream bloody murder.

I have a feeling we haven't truly seen class warfare close to the scale of what's coming. The poor and less fortunate, heck even the average, have largely been satiated over the years with handouts that amount to being bought off (while the rich were being bought off with tax cuts). This could get real ugly.

jmog;788713 wrote: 5% a year would actually do something, and like BGF said, it needs to be REAL spending cuts, not 5% less than budgetted increases.

It's sad. I feel like the folks in Washington won't know how to operate dealing with a REAL spending cut.

From what I got out of the piece on TV and the article, he states they can balance in 6 years with the 1% cut each year and halting additional spending. He also said that when he says "across-the-board", he means everything gets cut. From the linked article,

"Mack -- joined by fellow Florida Republicans Jeff Miller, Dennis Ross and Allen West -- is sponsoring a plan that would mandate a 1 percent reduction in federal spending from 2012 until 2017, before imposing a mandatory spending cap in 2018. That cap would mandate the total cost of the federal government not to exceed 18 percent of the total Gross Domestic Product."

"Mack maintains that his proposal will reduce the maximum cost of all federal operations from $3.382 trillion in 2012 to $3.184 trillion by 2018. While Mack’s plan will establish spending caps that the federal government cannot exceed, he also calls for Congress and the president to team up to find solutions to produce the 1 percent reductions before imposing the 1 percent spending cuts across the board."

He has to either be assuming we get back to 4-5% unemployment within a year, or he's looking at some hefty tax increases to make it happen at 1%. The gubmint is only has about 2.1 trillion worth of revenue to work with as of today.

fish82;791410 wrote:He has to either be assuming we get back to 4-5% unemployment within a year, or he's looking at some hefty tax increases to make it happen at 1%. The gubmint is only has about 2.1 trillion worth of revenue to work with as of today.

Eh plenty of time for some fiscal hocus pocus. If that doesn't help then the Obama-loving media will gladly spin it to make 10% unemployment seem like good times.