Ezra Klein: Did the White House win on the cuts?

[flpoljunkie]

Did the White House win on the cuts?
By Ezra Klein

Tim Fernholz makes the case:

The specifics show that finding nearly $40 billion in cuts during the 2011 fiscal year required clever accounting and, for the White House, a willingness to concede on rhetoric to find gains on substance.

For example, the final cuts in the deal are advertised as $38.5 billion less than was appropriated in 2010, but after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds, and reductions in mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion.

White House officials said throughout the process that the composition of the cuts was more important than the top-line number, and that including mandatory cuts allowed that top line to grow while limiting the immediate impact of the cuts.

The move also keeps the 2011 discretionary baseline slightly higher, a terrain advantage for the Democrats heading into the 2012 spending process.

If you missed it, here’s my earlier post graphing where the cuts came from.

[nichomachus]

1. If there are any cuts at all, the White House lost

[rhombus]

2. With the GOP controlling the House?

Haha. Tell me how you expected Dems to increase spending with the GOP-tea party in control of the House.

[daa]

4. We controlled the house and senate and got nothing so

why do they win? let them get their 60 in the senate.

[krawhitham]

7. HCR?

do a little research

We got a ton in the last two years passed

[Phx_Dem]

6. Are you kidding me?! With a $14 trillion deficit, we shouldn't cut ANY

spending?

That's insane.

[krawhitham]

3. You need to take a class on government

[frazzled]

5. Yeah, cuts to the Pentagon budget? That's a loss?

Because that's the biggest cut in there. He didn't let the Republicans cut a lot of things: he got it pushed into military cuts he wanted anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Winning!!!

I question the point since Winning! is in the eye of the beholder.