The art of compromise...

I heard this last night on AM talk radio coming home (my car pool doesn't have satellite radio unless I'm driving):

If the GOP can agree to a 12% reduction in the planned budget for the Defense Department (something DNC leadership has called for for more than two years now), then it seems logical and "bipartisan" to expect an equal reduction in ALL areas of government spending (meaning discretionary spending, mind you... the "budgetary stuff")... right?

Cutting 12% from the 2010 defense budget would save the taxpayer $115 billion, and wouldn't cost the military anything more than the amount the budget INCREASED from 2009 to 2010 (12.1%). We did pretty well for ourselves in 2009 spending-wise... I think we could make it another year at that level, too.

Cutting 12% from the REST of the Federal discretionary budget saves an additional $85 billion... but more importantly, that $200 billion in overall "savings" that would never have to come out of the general fund at all would save the "mandatory spending budget" (the money that MUST be spent, regardless) a whopping $608 billion... because it wouldn't have to remove funds that are already allocated to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national debt interest, etc. That kind of savings ALONE, if maintained for more than one year, can keep SSI and the rest solvent for 6 years... just that one year of savings keeps everything else "solvent" for another (meaning ADDITIONAL) six years.

Now, to completely pay off our debt, we'd have to do this for another 17 years... and that simply isn't going to happen. To balance the budget, however (or, in other words, to spend no more than we take in at current unadjusted dollars), we'd need to do this for only 3 years... ONLY THREE YEARS!!!!!!!! Three years of no more tax increases, three years of no additional spending, and we are flush in spending versus income. Imagine how much faster that could happen if we actually INCREASED our revenue by following the Reagan example of lowering taxes across the board! An 8% overall tax cut (meaning top to bottom brackets... which is basically what Reagan did... when it was all averaged out) could increase revenue over those same three years by 9% (8.8% in the Reagan example)... and if the rate of inflation stays at 1.5%, then our revenue increases faster than the cost of business climbs and the US is better off each and every year.

Reid and the rest call this "Reagan-omics" or trickle-down economics... worn out chestnuts from an old, cold fire if ever there was any... but it isn't. This is measurable and specific action with historical precedent and tangible cause-and-effect policies... and since the Dems have NO counter for this sort of argument, WHY AM I MAKING IT AND NOT THE GOP????