Big Sequester? The Big Mac Extra Value Meal Story
Love this post by John Hinderaker on Powerline Blog uses a Big Mac analogy to show what draconian cuts the sequester will involve:
Out of a $3.55 trillion federal budget-well, no, the federal government doesn't have a budget, that is just an estimate of FY 2013 spending-$44 billion is a pittance....In March 2011, during an earlier round of budget hysteria when the federal government was contemplating cutting spending by a mere $6 billion, I analogized that minimal cut to going on a diet by not eating an entire Big Mac meal. A Big Mac Extra Value meal consists of a Big Mac, a large order of french fries, and a medium soda. I calculated that cutting $6 billion out of the federal budget at that time would be equivalent to ordering a Big Mac Extra Value Meal and eating the entire Big Mac, drinking the entire medium-sized Coke, and eating 86 out of 87 french fries. If you took the 87th french fry and bit off two-thirds of it, leaving behind one-third of the last fry, that would equal the ostensibly horrific cut of $6 billion out of the federal budget.
Would you like one-third of a fry with that?
via @TedFrank
To put the sequester into numbers most people can wrap their heads around, it is: $3550 budget, and a cut of $44.
That's what all this hand wringing is about.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 27, 2013 7:45 AM
the problem with these analogies is that, while correct, they don't worry over the problem...
for all the political reason this frankenstein exists, they made sure that nothing that needs cutting structurally, will get cut. That'd be entitlements, which as the name implies, people think are OWED to them, and so cutting those isn't on the table.
No they are taking on discretionary items... and then, to make this hurt the other side politically, they are going to make those paltry discretionary cuts hurt the maximum number of regular people.
It's much easier for a govt. to furlough people without pay, than to actually SELL a building... AND if you can tell that person that this is someone else's fault that they can't pay their own mortgage because their pay is falling... they are going to be mad, but still relieved they have a job.
one he11 of a shell game.
While not looking at real issue at all.
Like NOT HAVING A FRELLING BUDGET.
This is politically palatable to both sides, since the continuing budget has a bunch of spending increases and such built in from a time when they were trying Stimulus... but neither side has to take the political heat, since they never voted this turkey in.
Why else violate a law that you have to have a budget.
oh, yeah, because the law has no mechanism for prosecution, and the voters are to stupid to care.
and now I'm in a bad mood so look, bunny:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Afm6-TcZ7Ho/S67FnPJD0_I/AAAAAAAAC6I/giTT8ePty5E/s1600/bunny.jpg
SwissArmyD at February 27, 2013 9:46 AM
Yes, but it is where the cuts come from. To continue with Aggie's comparison:
$44 is not much of $3550...but if the $44 comes out of the money for the medicine that keeps you alive it is a big deal.
And yes, the politicians are making decisions like that...make sure it inflects the most harm or political damage.
The Former Banker at February 27, 2013 6:30 PM
Leave a comment