"Only in Washington does a decrease in the proposed increase equal a spending cut"
About this Quote
Larry Elder skewers the peculiar logic of federal budgeting, where the yardstick is not last years actual spending but a projection called the baseline. Under the rules set in motion by the 1974 Congressional Budget Act and used by the Congressional Budget Office, Washington estimates what spending would be in future years if current policies continued, adjusted for factors like inflation, population, and program demand. Debates then revolve around how much to deviate from that path. When lawmakers slow the growth relative to the baseline, many actors label that deviation a cut, even if the dollar amount still rises year over year.
A simple example clarifies the rhetoric. An agency spends $100 billion this year. The baseline anticipates $110 billion next year. Congress appropriates $105 billion. The spending level is up $5 billion from this year, but down $5 billion from the projection. Advocates may call it a $5 billion cut; fiscal hawks may call it a partial slowdown. Both descriptions are technically true and politically useful, which is the point. Framing drives headlines and mobilizes constituents. Interest groups warn of cuts to protect budgets; lawmakers tout cuts to claim fiscal discipline; bureaucracies plan with the baseline as their default.
Public-choice economics helps explain why this language persists. Institutions tend to defend their baselines, because higher baselines anchor future negotiations and make any restraint appear draconian. Critics argue this masks the real growth of government and blurs accountability. Defenders counter that baseline budgeting is practical planning; if costs rise with inflation and caseloads, a lower-than-baseline increase can strain services and feel like a cut on the ground.
The line captures a deeper truth about policy debates: words and reference points shape reality. If citizens do not know whether a cut means less than last year or merely less than projected growth, it is hard to judge tradeoffs. Clearer language about levels versus growth rates would make fiscal choices more transparent.
A simple example clarifies the rhetoric. An agency spends $100 billion this year. The baseline anticipates $110 billion next year. Congress appropriates $105 billion. The spending level is up $5 billion from this year, but down $5 billion from the projection. Advocates may call it a $5 billion cut; fiscal hawks may call it a partial slowdown. Both descriptions are technically true and politically useful, which is the point. Framing drives headlines and mobilizes constituents. Interest groups warn of cuts to protect budgets; lawmakers tout cuts to claim fiscal discipline; bureaucracies plan with the baseline as their default.
Public-choice economics helps explain why this language persists. Institutions tend to defend their baselines, because higher baselines anchor future negotiations and make any restraint appear draconian. Critics argue this masks the real growth of government and blurs accountability. Defenders counter that baseline budgeting is practical planning; if costs rise with inflation and caseloads, a lower-than-baseline increase can strain services and feel like a cut on the ground.
The line captures a deeper truth about policy debates: words and reference points shape reality. If citizens do not know whether a cut means less than last year or merely less than projected growth, it is hard to judge tradeoffs. Clearer language about levels versus growth rates would make fiscal choices more transparent.
Quote Details
| Topic | Sarcastic |
|---|
More Quotes by Larry
Add to List
