I have a question about these long term budget deals

That is, these long term budget accords that purport to establish a framework for taxes and spending over a 5, 7 or 10 year time frame.

My question is, isn't that just a ruse? The budget has to be approved every year. Every 2 years there is a new membership of the Congress and presidents also come and go. In addition, as the needs and the politics of the country change, budgetary priorities made three or four years ago can be changed or forgotten in a heartbeat.

This passage from an AP story struck out at me:

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/07/27/few_concrete_savings_in_debt_and_budget_plans/?camp=obnetwork

But Congress invariably makes inflated promises about the spending constraints it can live within in future years. For 2012, the Boehner and Reid plans would cut only $5 billion to $7 billion from the present $1.05 trillion appropriations cap and essentially freeze such spending at that level for 2013 as well. After that, agency budgets would rise by about 2 percent a year -- which is certain to spark battles between defense hawks and defenders of domestic programs over who shares the increases and by how much.

The most recent attempt to impose such caps in law as part of a budget deal involved President Bill Clinton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It was a spectacular failure.

The 1997 balanced budget pact ordered stringent spending caps for five years. The only year the cap held was the first one.

I'm not saying that that will be the case with this agreement, but if you think all of the spending and taxes will play out over the next 10 years exactly as the current blueprint says here in 2011, I would not bet on that.

At last I should hope.