10 to 1 Cuts vs. "Revenue"

Much has been made of the question in last night's debate where the candidates were asked if they would walk away from a budget deal that promised $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. The candidates unanimously walked away. And so they should. The cuts never happen, as Reagan discovered with TEFRA. He was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increase. He got the tax increase but future Congresses were not bound by the $3 in cuts which never materialized. No matter the ratio, the tax increase will come but the cuts won't. It's like that email where the Nigerian lawyer promises you a million dollars if you forward him $500. Sounds like a great deal. Do you walk away? What if it was $10 million? $100 million? The ratio is irrelevant.

If you change the tax code, the new tax structure continues until modified by some future Congress. On the other hand, cuts don't have that same structural longevity. If Congress cuts Program B by $1 billion this year, there is nothing to prevent them from restoring it next year. Worse still, the Congress can play the 'We would have spent' game. How does that work? Well, Congress was planning on spending $5 billion on Program C but instead only spent $4 billion. That's counted as a $1 billion cut. A cut should be when you look at what you spent last year and spend less than that amount. Such rarely happens. However, oddly enough, it happened last year. Lacking a new trillion dollar stimulus, 2010 saw a 2% reduction in federal spending. Before that, the last time spending was less was 1955.

If someone offers 10 to 1, one should skip the taxes and just take the $9 in cuts. Same difference, right? If someone offered you $10 if you paid them a dollar, wouldn't it be easier if they just gave you $9? Should give you the same balance, right? But that's not the point. That's not the goal of the person offering 'cuts' for taxes. A tax for cuts deal is doomed from the start and should never be accepted, no matter what ratio is offered.