I saw Representative Mack describe his plan on TV the other night. It sounded way too easy, so I tried to do the math to see if it works.

Before I start I wondered, geez, if the arithmetic doesn't work, why would Mack actually go on TV and present the plan? But let's get on with the arithmetic.

To start, let's make the math easy. let's say that we'll spend $4 trillion in fiscal 2012 (fiscal 2011 is over). I know Mack says we'll spend only $3.382 trillion, but I have no idea where he got that number. It doesn't square with anything coming from the Government Accounting Office. Let's also say that our national debt at the end of 2012 will be $15 trillion. (That'll be pretty close, I think.) And given that Representative Mack is a leader in the Tea Party, I think it's safe to assume that there are no tax increases built into his plan.

So if we look at the description of the plan that Mack has on his website, government spending would be cut by 9.41% in six years. But even starting with a lower spending number as Mack did, the budget is far from balanced. Our total revenues in 2012 are expected to be about $2.3 trillion. Mack's plan would still create a deficit each year of a little less than $1 trillion!

Folks, Representative Mack's "solution" sounds awfully good in a soundbite, but the arithmetic doesn't work at all. Before we get all excited about this plan, maybe we'd better get a more thorough explanation.

Simply put, there is absolutely no way that a 1% cut in spending for five years will result in "the budget being balanced".

A simpler and I think more accurate way to look at the problem is this. Our total spending is about $4 trillion a year and our total revenues are about $2.3 trillion. Without any changes to those numbers--and that's not likely with a weakening economy and increasing inflation--the spending cuts needed each year for five years would have to be more like 8-1/2% each year, a total reduction of spending of almost 43% in five years in order to achieve a balanced budget with no additional tax revenue.

Mack's plan is designed to reduce federal spending to 18% of GDP. But even if the numbers he uses in his plan are achieved, there would still be a deficit each year that would approach $1 trillion. Mack's plan assumes a 2% growth in GDP for each of the six years until 2018. That should seem pretty optimistic to anyone who is paying attention to what has been happening to U.S. GDP in the last couple of years. His proposed bill caps spending at 18% of GDP. If as an example we only achieved an average of 1% growth in GDP for six years, federal spending would have to be cut by an additional $300 billion or so in 2019. That would require almost a 10% cut in spending in 2018 alone! His whole plan is based on what appears to be some optimistic GDP growth numbers. Plus remember, he starts his calculations with "government spending" that is about 18% less than it really is!

Why in the world would Congressman Mack try to make the solution to our budget problem sound so easy? Why would the content of his bill be so inaccurate and misleading? If Mack or any of the others in his caucus try to make the solution to this fiscal problem sound that easy, they are really dumber than I thought. Dangerously stupid!