We’ve been promised such things should the folks in Washing Tundy Sea not agree to jack up the debt ceiling. However, as Cato’s Michael Tanner observes,
If the government is not able to borrow more money after Aug. 2, spending will have to be reduced to the amount of revenue that the government has. That would require roughly a 44 percent cut in federal spending.
Sounds dire, doesn’t it? But then Tanner gets to a punchline:
[W]hat about that 44 percent cut in spending? That would require the federal government to cut spending all the way back to what it spent in 2003 — a year not notable for mass starvation and economic collapse.
As it happens, I remember 2003, or as we call it at Spackle Manor, “the Before Times.” I distinctly recall making it all the way from Muncie to Mondoville without ever seeing a Thunderdome or having to knife fight for go-juice. The skies were not blackened by the acrid smoke of the mass pyres, although we found a nice barbecue place. Heck, we even bought a new car.
Conservatives are often accused of wanting to turn back the clock (the progressive/evolutionary fallacy filling the role of Toulmin’s warrant in the argument — but that’s a discussion for another occasion), but really, how many of us think back on 2003 (or as some of you may know it, “the Longlongago”) and think, “This was OK, but what we really needed was more government spending”?
Heck, I bet we might even survive.