The realities of a balanced budget highlight Congress' dishonesty on the issue

Republicans in Congress have a goal when it comes to the national debt.

"I think that we’ve finally, maybe, reached that point in time where enough is enough. Eighteen trillion when I got here four years ago. Now $31 trillion," said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind. 

The GOP mantra: balance the budget. Republicans are converting the upcoming joust over the debt ceiling into an opportunity to discuss ways to slash federal spending. How about trimming Medicare and Social Security? Those two programs alone account for a staggering 40% of all federal spending.

"Let’s take those off the table completely," House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told CBS.

MCCARTHY SAYS HE SEES AN ‘OPPORTUNITY’ TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON DEBT CEILING' AFTER ‘VERY GOOD’ BIDEN MEETING

"We’re not cutting Social Security," said Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala.

"We need to be serious about finding spending cuts," said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky. "And we can cut spending without cutting Social Security and Medicare."

So what do Republicans aim to chop?

"I want to eliminate waste wherever it is," McCarthy said on "Face the Nation."

"There’s a lot of discretionary spending that we can and must look at," said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va.

"Discretionary" spending is the amount of money Congress allocates each year to run the government. It comprises a scant 30% of all federal spending compared to 70% for entitlements and other mandatory programs.

Even if you cut every discretionary dollar from congressional appropriations bills — money allocated for national parks, overseas trade, enforcing the border — you still couldn’t "balance the budget."

"It’s totally unrealistic to assume that you can balance the budget and not touch Social Security, Medicare," said Bob Bixby of the fiscal watchdog Concord Coalition.

Pentagon spending soaks up 15% of all federal dollars. That’s slightly more than half of all discretionary spending. Some Republicans are game to trim military money, but it’s hard to see how Congress gets close to establishing a ten-year path to balance the budget.

Bixby says such lofty proposals give people "a false sense" of what’s achievable.

"It does make it difficult for people who are serious about trying to get some budget reform," said Bixby.

OPINION - HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT: NO DEBT LIMIT INCREASE UNTIL A BALANCED BUDGET PLAN IS IN PLACE

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the former Congressional Budget Office director and now president of the American Action Forum. He’s a budget hawk. But he explained the reality of "balancing the budget."

"One in every $5 needs to go away. And so the check you used to get for a buck is now 80 cents. We used to get $100. You got 80 bucks. You go to the doctor. They used to give them $100 for care. They're going to give them $80. How does the doctor react when they take 20% of their revenue away? They might drop an assistant. Appointments take longer to book," said Holtz-Eakin. "Money has been in the pipeline and people are counting on it. When it goes away, abrupt changes happen."

And what would it take to match the ambition of a balanced budget blueprint over the next decade?

"You’d have to cut about $7 trillion in spending," said Holtz-Eakin. "That means you have to make substantial cuts to things people care about. About $3 trillion to come out of Social Security, $2 trillion to come out of Medicare. Take $1 trillion out of Medicaid."

Of course, deep cuts require lawmakers to vote for such plans. And voters generally abhor gouging programs for things they care about. Lawmakers believe that reductions to Medicare and Social Security — as mentioned by McCarthy, Tuberville and Comer — are toxic. That’s why lawmakers are loath to commit to steep cuts that could actually "balance the budget."

"That’s the litmus test," said Holtz-Eakin.

So, what do they advocate? Balancing the budget. But only nibbling around the edges. Addressing waste. And since no one wants to vote for something that would gash Medicare and Social Security, lawmakers address their attention elsewhere — the debt ceiling.

Opposing an increase in the debt ceiling is easy. Opposing a debt limit hike appears as though a lawmaker is being fiscally responsible by not authorizing additional red ink. Plus, if you’re a Republican, a debt ceiling scramble gives you the opportunity to portray Democrats as "out of control" with spending.

"A lot of people think that the debt limit has something to do with fiscal responsibility," said Bixby. "If somebody owed you money, and they wrote you a note and said, ‘Hey. In the interest of fiscal responsibility, I’m not going to pay you.’ What would you think of that? Would you think, ‘Hurrah for you? You’re being fiscally responsible now?’ I don’t think so. You’d say, ‘You should pay your bills. That’s really what the debt limit is about. It’s not about fiscal responsibility. It’s about paying the bills."

Some combination of lawmakers may forge a pact and avoid a fiscal calamity — without touching Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. It’s politically easier to rail against "waste" and the debt ceiling — even if you never address the root cause of the problem. 

WHITE HOUSE ACCUSES HOUSE GOP OF ‘EMPOWERING CHINA’ FOR INSISTING ON SPENDING CUTS BEFORE RAISING DEBT CEILING

So, as a facade, lawmakers harp on the debt ceiling and say they want to bring down spending, using it as a fiscal fig leaf. Yet if they really wanted to slash spending, they would have to take a butcher’s knife to entitlements. That’s why many budget experts say lawmakers aren’t being honest.

"It’s like a false sense of possibility that you think you can achieve something with cutting waste, fraud and abuse, and you can’t," said Bixby.

Lawmakers aren’t greenlighting new spending by lifting the debt ceiling. They’re just blessing spending that is already owed via entitlements. That money is already obligated.

President Biden and McCarthy held what everyone characterized as a productive meeting at the White House this week. They have until June to work this out. That is, unless there’s a market shock. That would signal that investors don’t think that Washington is taking the debt ceiling seriously. In 2011, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit worthiness of the United States after the debt ceiling skirmish — even though Congress met the deadline. The reason? The drama surrounding the legislation undercut confidence S&P had in lawmakers and the government to take the issue seriously.

So, it’s possible the Treasury Department could move up the debt ceiling target date if Wall Street reacts negatively to a lack of action. The same if credit ratings agencies doubt that lawmakers are up to the task.

"It scares the hell out of me," Bixby said of the debt ceiling intrigue. "In prior years, people used to think, ‘This is just a political dance, and they’ll raise the debt ceiling.’ I’m not so sure of that anymore."

So there will be lots of talk about balanced budgets. Lots of talk about what it really takes to move the U.S. to a more firm financial footing. And there will undoubtedly be some drama.

"I would feel better, if I was the markets, based upon the meeting I had today," McCarthy said after the White House meeting.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

And that may be the goal. Separate the political reality of ginning up the right about spending versus maintaining calm in the financial sector. But it’s hard to keep those too apart. And that’s where aspiration could crash headlong into reality.