But really we should eliminate 100% of the spending for the war in Afghanistan, so it's a moot point.
I strongly disagree with this. Interest payments are absolutely a component of our long-term budgetary problems. Reducing the long-term deficit will reduce our interest payments, and therefore reduce spending in the long term. This is one of the reasons why I think it's so dangerous for us to have a debt ceiling in the first place...if the opposition (either next week or in a future debt ceiling debate) pushes it to the brink and is then unable to walk it back and make a deal to raise it, it will negatively impact our credit rating. A 1% increase in our interest rate would lead to an extra trillion dollars in interest payments (and therefore in government spending).neither is reductions in interest payments resulting from increased taxes.
Frankly I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. Why would reductions in interest payments from borrowing less not be a legitimate spending cut?
It depends what those efficiencies are, how important they are to the overall budget, and whether or not they're binding. So in my opinion the ACA would count as spending reductions from improving efficiency, whereas eliminating the occasional poster-child pork project or agriculture subsidy does not.Mutterings about "seeking efficiencies" does not count as a "spending cut", no matter what number you put on it.