海角大神

Does President Obama have a plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years? That鈥檚 an assertion he makes constantly on the stump. It鈥檚 one of the bullet points in the economic manifesto his campaign issued this week, too. The slim blue booklet calls the plan a 鈥渂alanced approach鈥� to reducing Uncle Sam鈥檚 flow of red ink, with $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 in additional tax revenue from wealthy families and corporations.

Are these figures solid or notional, meat and potatoes or pie in the sky? Let鈥檚 unpack them a bit so we can gain some understanding of where Mr. Obama might steer the ship USS Federal Budget if he wins reelection on Nov. 6.

We鈥檒l start by making a point obvious to those of us who consider Congressional Budget Office reports bedtime reading. When Obama says he鈥檒l cut the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade, he鈥檚 not saying the US will be $4 trillion in the black over that period. What he鈥檚 insisting is that the US will accumulate $4 trillion less in red ink than it would have otherwise if it follows his outline.

So the debt, which is the accumulation of annual deficits, would still go up. Just not so fast. (Yes, the debt would go up under President Romney as well. He talks about putting the US on a 鈥減athway鈥� to balanced budgets, as opposed to balancing the budget right away.)

This raises a question: So Obama is saving $4 trillion compared to what? That鈥檚 a lot harder to answer than you might think. It involves budget baselines, and current law, and potential future changes, and what happens to the Bush tax cuts, and all sorts of trend lines that can change faster than a teenager鈥檚 phone bill. We won鈥檛 get into it.

Let鈥檚 just say that CBO judges the $4 trillion number to be within reason. Compared with CBO鈥檚 best guess as to where fiscal policy really stands otherwise, the Obama fiscal outline cuts the deficit over 10 years by $4.3 trillion, according to a March analysis of the president鈥檚 2013 budget submission.

However, this doesn鈥檛 mean that the $4 trillion is not ... well, 鈥渟quishy鈥� might be too strong a word. 鈥淔lexible,鈥� maybe, or 鈥渃reative.鈥� Let鈥檚 just say it鈥檚 not as solid as Miguel Cabrera鈥檚 bat.

First of all, it includes about $1 trillion in cuts that have already occurred, pursuant to last year鈥檚 budget deal with Congress. The administration doesn鈥檛 hide this 鈥� the new campaign economic booklet notes that 鈥淭he President has already signed $1 trillion in spending cuts into law.鈥澛� But 鈥渟igned into law鈥� does not equal 鈥渄ue only to me.鈥� Congress, specifically congressional Republicans, had something to do with those reductions as well.

Second, a big chunk of the future reductions are due to the end of major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. About $848 billion of the cuts come from this category, to be precise.

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler judges this to be 鈥減hantom savings,鈥� akin to claiming credit for a tuition-size reduction in your household budget the year after your child graduates from college. Other experts aren鈥檛 so sure, noting that Obama campaigned in 2008 on winding down US military forces in the Middle East. You can judge this yourself, keeping in mind that Obama (and a President Romney) would have left at least a token force in Iraq if the Iraqi government had signed a status of forces agreement.

Third, another large portion of savings comes from interest savings. The administration calculates that its reductions in other areas would result in the government paying about $800 billion less in interest on the debt over the decade. While this may be accurate, it does not exactly reflect a tough budget choice per se.

The administration figures that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy would raise $1.4 trillion over the decade. That鈥檚 the biggest change the president鈥檚 budget plan posits on the revenue side of the equation. If you subtract the war savings and predicted lower interest costs, the ratio of proposed budget cuts to tax increases is not $2.50 for every $1. It鈥檚 about 54 cents in cuts for every 46 cents in new revenue, according to the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Ten years is a long time in terms of government policy, and Congress changes to the federal budget every year. The chance that Obama鈥檚 $4 trillion deficit reduction plan as currently outlined would survive over a decade is vanishingly small. Think back 10 years 鈥� how would a Bush-era 2002 fiscal projection look today, given all the fiscal turmoil that has struck the nation?

Obama鈥檚 plans, like Mitt Romney鈥檚, are thus not so much blueprints as expressions of values. They reflect how the candidates want the voters to see them. Voters should weigh the numbers both men submit to the public in that light.