In FY22, the budget authority for federal discretionary spending was $1.788 trillion. Actual discretionary spending came in at $1.664 trillion. But the House Freedom Caucus has long been stuck on a figure of $1.471 trillion as "real" FY22 spending, and they want the budget for next year (FY24) to match that.
This makes no sense since it doesn't even account for inflation, but put that aside. I've been wondering forever where this number comes from. It simply doesn't match anything that I've ever been able to dig up. Today, though, I might finally have figured it out thanks to the Heritage Foundation. Apparently it's the pre-COVID trendline extended out to 2024:
The Heritage number is about 1% higher than my trendline, probably due to slightly different assumptions, but never mind that. It's close enough to suggest that Heritage has this right. The Freedom Caucus number is just a trendline extended from one arbitrary point to another.
Here's the same chart but adjusted for inflation:
This produces almost precisely the topline number in the bipartisan Senate spending bill, which is based on the number agreed to during the debt ceiling negotiations. And while there's no special reason to use this trendline at all, if you're going to do it you at least need to adjust for inflation.
Anyway, I just wanted to share this since it's been bugging me for a while. The Freedom Caucus number is neither the "FY22 number" nor the "real FY22 number." In fact, it has nothing at all to do with FY22. It's apparently just a made-up number from drawing a trendline.
If anyone happens to have a different story about where the Freedom Caucus number came from, let me know in comments.
In other words we're heading back to the trend line already....but they feel the need to have a tantrum. They can't take yes for an answer.
Lol. In this instance, I think you may be right.
I'm happy to see that my representatives all scored 0% on the Heritage Scorecard. And that includes Diane Feinstein, who, in my view, is *way* too conservative.
Isn't Diane Feinstein, along with Mitch McConnell and Kevin Fetterman, somewhat mentally disabled? Three out of 100 senators in the United States are unfit. What does that say about this country?
I know you all like Biden, but he is not all here. I like Trump (don't diss me bro's, I understand all too well his limitations as a person), but Trump is not as sharp as he was in 2016. Are we really going to choose between these two old guys again?
If you're going to "diss" John Fetterman, at least take thirty-seven seconds to Google his first name. Or was that a "Freudian slip" and you meant Kevin McCarthy? Or Kevin Bacon? Six Degrees of Separation make him a pivotal guy.
Sorry about that. My own senior moment. Not sure where my brain went.
Maybe you lost it in WWII? I hear that Biden is leading us up to it, from one of the most stable geniuses the word has ever known.
F off Austin.
No, I don't think that Biden is leading us into WWIII. I also agree that Trump's behavior is erratic. Despite this and many other problems, he will most likely win the Republican nomination. This should make you happy because Biden can stay in his basement watching Matlock and win the contest. Then (depending on who controls the House and Senate), you can pass a federal law requiring all states to allow elective abortions until birth and maybe after, shut down all crisis pregnancy centers and put all pro-life activists in jail. It will be a beautiful world.
Wouldn't a presidential contest between Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis be far more interesting?
Article at Slate kind of on that subject:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/ron-desantis-gavin-newsom-fox-debate-what-happened.html
The article made some interesting points.
Finally, I apologize for my first reply. F* off is not helpful to my goal of having a dialogue.
Sure bro.
You don't believe me. Remember, judge, not lest you be judged. At least, that is what leftists always tell Conservatives. You feel I am a cruel/stupid person because of my beliefs. You either don't like the safety of your echo chamber being disturbed, or you are a bigot.
👍👍👍👍👍
Just another concern troll. And not that good at it.
Define concern troll? Maybe if I knew what is was, then I could get better at it.
Sorry about that; I was editing, and my four-minute window ended. I lost a bit of work there.
Yes, I am guilty of snark. Sometimes, I cannot help myself. I have a different perspective than the others who contribute to this blog. But I genuinely want to engage. I hear diversity is a good thing. Oh, but you guys only believe in diversity when it is people with different skin colors and sexual preferences, not diversity in thought.
Don't you all want to be challenged? I do, which is why I read and contribute to this blog.
Please don't feed this troll.
Please don't dehumanize me.
In this interview, John Fetterman seems to be doing much better. He looks put together. He was articulate and funny. Maybe he is recovering from the stroke and depression.
here is the link: https://youtu.be/v0CDd0XvQnM?si=HUO3s9gPjZRWxkqU
Then run for something yourself. Unless they are younger than you. Be the solution.
So, you are cool with Mitch McConnell staring blankly into space and going to a different planet for a few moments as he is gently led away from the podium by aides. Republicans don't seem to mind either, and that concerns me.
I don't understand the vitriol that my post engendered. I must have hit a nerve with the Biden worshippers.
Not with Biden worshippers just those who despise the Stable Genius, which is just about everyone here.
Referencing Matlock, abortions up to birth and locking anyone up for their opinions is not conducive to provoking reasoned conversation. I think you know that, and I put that under the heading of "trying to own the libs" rather than a genuine effort at providing a different perspective.
So, you don't think abortions up to birth are the correct way to go?
It really doesn't matter what I say or how I say it. I get slammed no matter what. So, sometimes when what I think of as a good-faith effort only results in vitriol from this blog. I get snarky.
"So, you are cool with Mitch McConnell staring blankly into space and going to a different planet for a few moments as he is gently led away from the podium by aides."
Yes, which is just one reason why I will not vote for Mitch McConnell for president.
Learn something new every day. "interim final rule". That needs its own blog posting...
It's apparently just a made-up number ...
UNIVERSITY ELITIST WOKE GROOMER WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?!?!
So now we are to disparage trend lines?
Not at all. But there's a place for them, and this isn't it.
The difference is that Kevin uses trend lines as an interpretative tool, while here it's being used to make a decision that has no particular reason to land on an essentially arbitrary trend line.
We often see disagreement here about whether Kevin's "trendy" interpretations are correct, but those are just opinions. This is national policy that makes a concrete difference.
For virtually any other economic indicator you've talked about returning to the pre-pandemic trend line. Why is this particular metric any different?
The Freedom caucus does not aknowledge the difference between a "real" and a "made up" number, just like they don't aknowledge the difference between the truth and their made up bull shit lies. They should change their name to the "Lying Ass-Hole" conference.
I question their ability to draw a trend line.
"If anyone happens to have a different story about where the Freedom Caucus number came from, let me know in comments."
Okay. And if we did, then what? If this is a sticking point, you think, then just say so. But, even then, what? The "Freedom Caucus?" Sheez.
Feel better now?
They pulled the numbers straight out of their rears.
That word, “freedom”, I don’t think it means what they think it means.
The Freedom Caucus doesn't care what the spending target is, as long as poor folks and people of color suffer. I don't know if there's a way to graph misery exactly, but I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a method that they use to entertain themselves during Friday cocktail hour.
Kevin worrying about this is hilarious. About as ridiculous as worrying when your relative with dementia tells you that they have to go to work tomorrow and you plan out exactly how they can get there from the nursing home they’ve been committed to for the last 5 years. Like sure, let’s double check the Freedom Caucus’s math in their master plan to turn back time and impoverish us all that will die as soon as it touches the Senate.
Came across a comment in Mastodon that has me wondering if it's true: Republicans want to trigger a recession to blame on Democrats. It's all the more reason why I strongly suggest that Republicans will force a lengthy shutdown of at least a month.
"Republicans want to trigger a recession to blame on Democrats."
Certainly true for large fraction of the House Republican members. But the way that the debt ceiling issue was resolved suggests that significant number of them would prefer to avoid it.
More accurately, their clients (which are often referred to as "donors" for some mysterious reasons) prefer to avoid recession.
I find it a weird contradiction. Typically, politicians desire publicity. The Freedom Caucus appears to have vast influence within the GOP. Thus, indirectly, the Freedom Caucus has vast impact over the whole country.
In contrast, the membership of the Freedom Caucus, seemingly, is a secret. Sort of like the KKK in the south during the 1920's...
While only those in "leadership" positions are identified by name, I was curious enough 2 check Wikipedia, & discovered that all we need to do is find out which local bar is their preferred meeting place & maybe picket the next time they're in session. 😉
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus
If Trump were wearing an orange jump suit that would be too much orange.
It would be like if someone opened a door at the Cheeto factory and suddenly everyone's blinded.
They should give him a specially designed orange jump suit carefully color balanced to minimize the harm to viewers. Something that can make his skin tones really pop, but harmlessly and in a naturalistic fashion.