Quick thought: Is the NBA salary cap like government budgets?

When I hear things like Ariza getting a ridiculous contract amount or that the Blazers appear to be overpaying for Turkoglu it makes me wonder if GMs approach their job a little like the  "use it or lose it" approach common to public sector budgeting - where there is a mad dash to spend at the end of the year, so that they'll have the same amount of money to spend next year, in case it is needed.  (my apologies to those in government - I sincerely hope that's improving but that is the conventional view & it happens in the private sector as well)

We all know that the Blazers will be going over the cap one way or the other after Roy and Aldridge are resigned.  Therefore, if funds are infinite (Uncle Paul Allen = Uncle Sam); wouldn't the team that has $85M in contracts have more market power than the team that has $65M in contracts, if both are over the cap?  In other words; Assuming there is a blend of inexpensive, young talent in the mix if the Blazers ID a superstar who is a better fit they might be able to package that $2M salaried player with Turkoglu's $10M and acquire that "perfect fit" $12M player.  Otherwise, they would have to scrap together multiple "young stars" $2M contracts to make a salary match.

Is Kevin Pritchard guilty of this? (SPAM, for SPAM sake)