"One can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
--Lewis Carroll,
"Through the Looking Glass"
It shouldn't surprise. The president of the United States also claims that he's reduced the debt. Even as he/we have borrowed trillions. No wonder in his budget released late this week, up is down and down is up.
President Biden proposed a $6.8 trillion budget the other day.
Before we get to specifics and the down/up arguments about the debt, let that sink in. His proposed budget is nearly $7 trillion. In the last year of Barack Obama's administration, the federal government spent less than $4 trillion. And nobody accused the Obama administration and the Congress it worked with that year of being cheap. Remember, Obamacare had come online years earlier. And now the current occupant of the White House wants to increase the 2017 budget by 75 percent.
Even more unbelievable are statements describing the budget.
Dispatches say that the president and his people have put together a budget that "reduces future budget deficits." But make sure you see that word "future." The president's people say this never-never budget proposal would decrease future deficits by $3 trillion.
That's like saying you planned to put $50 on the credit card tonight, but instead will "save" a bunch of money by only putting $40 on it.
We turn to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget for clarification. You can guess what that outfit studies. According to its analysis of this proposal, "Debt would hit a new record by 2027, rising from 98 percent of GDP at the end of 2023 to 106 percent by 2027 and 110 percent by 2033. Nominal debt would grow by $19 trillion, from $24.6 trillion today to $43.6 trillion by 2033."
Forty-three-point-six trillion. In 10 years.
The committee says the budget would reduce "projected deficits" as the president says, by $3 trillion. But it also says "The budget relies on somewhat optimistic economic assumptions, including stronger long-term growth, lower unemployment, and lower long-term interest rates than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) ... ."
And the kicker(s):
"This budget falls well short of the deficit reduction needed to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path. We are disappointed that the spending cuts in this budget--given the massive spending growth in recent years--amount to less than 1 percent of the budget and are coupled by four times as much in spending increases. We are pleased the budget begins to address Medicare but extremely disappointed it neglects Social Security, putting seniors' benefits at risk.
"The president deserves credit for putting forward $3 trillion of deficit reduction, which could be an achievable near-term bipartisan goal in upcoming negotiations. However, deficit reduction will ultimately need to be nearly three times that large, and it is disappointing the budget has put forward so many costly proposals without first putting the nation's fiscal house in order."
The committee, which seems more interested in numbers than partisanship, gives the president credit for growing the debt "more slowly" than other plans. But that's not what the president says publicly. He says he "cuts" the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years. That's just not happening.
He proposes $400 billion for child care. Another $150 billion for home care. Nearly $400 billion for expanded Obamacare. Another $325 for paid leave. Yet another $300 billion for "free" community college. The paper says he wants $100 billion for additional housing assistance, too. All that on top of the must-spends like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the military.
Does that sound like a budget that cuts spending?
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said the spending blueprint was "an unserious proposal."
It's also not a very honest one.