So they swapped out $63 billion in cuts for an alleged $85 billion in spending decreases / fee increases (assuming that they don't undo what they did there), for a grand total of reducing the deficit by... $23 billion.
They should've stuck with the automatic cuts.
They automatic cuts are really dumb though. For example, the sequester, as currently written, forces the Defense Department to pay for 91% of an aircraft carrier. It just slashes everything by a fixed amount, without regard to whether it makes any sense.
I was under the impression that it cut appropriations individually, not every choice in spending made by departments. Granted, I'm sure some of this (especially in the military) does mean some absurd things, but at least they were cutting something (especially in the over-bloated military). Sure, it'd be better to make cuts that actually make sense, but left to juts do it on their own, it's pretty clear it'll never get done.
I'm confused about your opinion then. As I said, the sequester imposed cuts, but those cuts were made in a very stupid across the board way, that everyone agreed was problematic. Now, with this budget deal, there will still be cuts, but they'll be applied in a less stupid way. So do you think this budget deal is better than the status quo or not? Why *not* make the cuts in a somewhat less stupid way?
Yes, I understand that you might prefer a larger deal than this (a "grand bargain"), but that was never going to happen. Given the choice between leaving the sequester alone, and modifying it with this budget deal, what is the argument for leaving the sequester alone?
