Agreed.

And while I want that 43% reduced to 0%, I realize that doing it instantly isn’t feasible while still avoiding total collapse. I also realize that limiting the damage is not as good as actually working to pay the debt down. Only actual spending cuts enacted in the same years that legislators and presidents are in office will start to do this. Cuts “over 10 years” (years that body is no longer guaranteed to be in power) is only meaningful for the one to five years those politicians will still be in office to enforce them, and perhaps not even that long.

Washington seems only capable of action when the alternatives to dithering and political posturing are perceived as catastrophic. All the incentives in place encourage largess with the fruits of your labor. Demonized “radical” elements like Tea Party house members seem to be the only faction putting the brakes on at the moment. And while this deal will be a sorry excuse for brakes, it is indeed better than more accelerator. So I support it to that extent.

So, yay.

Did I post a picture of me wearing a party hat? I certainly don’t recall posting a picture of me wearing a party hat.

But I do believe it’s better than the status quo (a clean debt ceiling increase). And frankly, I believe it would have been better than not raising the debt ceiling at all, because a 40% drop in spending overnight is something we’re NOT prepared to deal with. And the backlash from that could have scuttled any future cuts, while this possibly emboldened those in favor of spending cuts.

You’re right that it’s an anemic win. But it is a win. And given the trajectory of the last 2 1/2 years, that’s at least the start of a nice trend.

But the deal is not a spending cut. It’s a budget cut. Let’s be clear.

The trajectory is a couple percent better than it would have been, but reckoning still looms. As Ron Paul put it:

This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda.

43 cents of every dollar Uncle Sam spends is borrowed. Until that ratio moves closer to zero cents by more than a percentage or two, I think party hats are a bit premature.

As Brad said, the numbers aren’t enough to get excited about, but it’s an interesting precedent.

It’s a delicate balance.

I appreciate and agree with the sentiment here… I think this isn’t a hugely meaningful improvement. But let’s look at two things:

1) The historical precedent is to allow clean debt ceiling increases. Getting *anything* out of it, especially with no new tax revenues, is a positive.

2) This is just step 1. Getting $2T in budget cuts over the next decade isn’t going to solve our spending problem, but it creates a new baseline to work from. As I point out in today’s post, making a deal here doesn’t mean that future issues aren’t opportunities to negotiate further.

I too want to disband the federal government, but I don’t think it’s going to happen overnight, and as Megan McArdle keeps pointing out, if you push the system over the brink, the voters WILL punish you to the extent that you won’t have the chance to do it again. It took 100 years to build Leviathan; we can’t dismantle it in one vote. The key is to KEEP PRESSURE on small-government legislators so they don’t allow this to be the finish line.

They’ve successfully kicked the can down the road at a cost of around $7000 more debt for every man, woman, and child in the country.

I have about as much confidence in this commission as I do in having congress do something fiscally sane. Which is to say zero.

The federal government is broken and should be disbanded.

It’s better than the endless march of increased spending, but I hope no one is offended when I let out a big yawn.