April 6, 2011 12:57PM # ‘Extreme’ Budget Cuts By [David Boaz](https://www.cato.org/people/david-boaz) --- SHARE As the days dwindle down to a precious few before a Shutdown, some Republicans are still insisting on $61 billion in budget cuts, while others are [offering to compromise](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/politics/06budget.html?_r=1&hpw) at $33 billion or $40 billion. Sen. Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, [tells his colleagues](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-30-teaparty30_ST_N.htm?csp=34news) to call the proposed Republican budget cuts “extreme.” And he’s certainly [taking](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/odds-of-government-shutdown-rise-as-parties-snipe-over-faltering-budget-talks/2011/03/26/AFdVK9cB_story.html) his [own](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/democrats-eager-to-talk-of-government-shutdown/) [advice](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/shutdown-watch-eight-days-out/?scp=5&sq=schumer%20extreme&st=cse). But just how extreme are the cuts, even at $61 billion? Tad DeHaven and Cato’s newspaper ad offer [one perspective](https://www.cato.org/2011-budget-battle-in-perspective/). Tad also noted the incredibly small [Pentagon “cuts”](https://www.cato.org/a-new-low-for-gops-youcut/) that the Republicans unveiled and the way discretionary spending will [keep growing](https://www.cato.org/spending-still-increases-with-gop-cuts/). And here’s what’s happening with “[mandatory programs](http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/spending-growth-mandatory-programs)” — none of which are actually mandatory if Congress wants to change them. Jacob Sullum of Reason [summarizes](http://reason.org/news/show/tiny-cuts-big-complaints): > The cuts represent less than 2 percent of the total budget, less than 4 percent of the deficit, and less than 5 percent of discretionary spending, which [rose](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010) in real terms by 75 percent from 2000 to 2010 and by about 9 percent in each of the last two fiscal years. Maybe the figure at the right will help. It shows the House-passed [$61 billion budget cut](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Feb/19/house_passes_sweeping_cuts_to_domestic_programs.html) in relation to the past decade’s [rapid rise](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) in federal spending. In fiscal year 2001, which ended in September 2001 but was mostly set in place before President Bush took office, the federal government spent $1,863 billion. After seven years of Bush and a Republican Congress, spending was more than a trillion dollars higher — $2,983 billion in FY2008. Then the financial crisis, TARP, the stimulus, and the omnibus spending bill came along, and FY2011 spending is estimated at $3,819 billion — $836 billion more than just three years earlier, and $1,956 billion more than when Bush took office a decade ago. So a $61 billion cut is a lot of money anywhere except Washington. In Washington, it’s less 2 percent of the budget. It’s less than 10 percent of the three-year spending increase. It’s one-sixth of *this* year’s spending increase, the increase from 2010 to 2011. The figure shows what that “extreme” cut looks like compared to the soaring federal budget. ##### Related Tags [Government and Politics](https://www.cato.org/government-politics), [Tax and Budget Policy](https://www.cato.org/tax-budget-policy) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).