Hill GOP exploring deeper spending cuts than Bush proposed

AP (via SF Gate) | 2-11-04 | ALAN FRAM

[jmstein7]

Congressional Republicans are exploring whether they have the votes to curtail spending more than President Bush has proposed, reflecting their desire to flash signs of fiscal responsibility in this election year.

While Bush used his 2005 budget last week to propose holding most domestic programs to growth of 0.5 percent -- well below the inflation rate -- many conservatives want to go further. They are writing plans to hold such spending to last year's levels or make actual cuts -- and to be more aggressive than Bush's goal of halving the mammoth federal deficit in five years.

"We don't think it goes far enough," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., a conservative leader, said of Bush's plan for spending restraint. "We're not going to harm things by doing a freeze. That's not asking much of people."

House Republicans planned to meet behind closed doors Wednesday to agree on the direction they would take this year in writing a budget.

The meeting comes with Republican lawmakers feeling pressure from the White House's projection that this year's deficit will soar to $521 billion -- easily the largest ever in dollar terms.

The session also reflects ongoing tensions between the White House and GOP conservatives over federal spending that has grown dramatically during the Bush administration. Those expenditures have been fed by war, domestic security and recession.

Even so, facing campaign-year pressures to support popular programs, Republicans narrowly controlling both chambers of Congress won't find it easy to approve fiscal blueprints that limit domestic spending increases to 0.5 percent or even more.

Moderate Republicans say while they agree mushrooming federal deficits mean lawmakers must find ways to tighten the budget, savings should be explored in other areas. These include defense, domestic security, benefit programs and perhaps blocking some already approved future tax cuts from taking effect.

"Everything should be on the table," said Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., a leader of House moderates.

The programs Bush wants to restrain -- everything but defense, domestic security and automatically paid benefits like Social Security -- would total $386 billion next year. That is just 16 percent of the overall $2.4 trillion budget.

"If anyone thinks you can balance the budget" by focusing on savings from those programs, "they just don't understand budgeting. It's just not possible," Castle said.

Under Bush's budget, those programs would get $2 billion more than they received this year, a 0.5 percent increase. Bush proposed a 7 percent increase for defense and a near 10 percent boost for domestic security programs, such as the Department of Homeland Security.

Hoping to appeal to the conservatives who are the base of the GOP's support, administration officials have not ruled out lower spending than Bush proposed.

Testifying to the House Budget Committee last week, White House budget director Joshua Bolten told lawmakers, "We look forward to working with you" on controlling expenditures.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., is talking to his GOP colleagues to discern how tightly he could constrain spending and still have the votes needed to pass a budget.

A conservative who will retire next January after 24 years in the Senate, Nickles said he would be happy to write a fiscal plan holding spending increases to Bush's 0.5 percent proposal or to no growth at all.

"Either one is going to be a challenge" to get sufficient votes, he said.

But he also said deficits of $400 billion or $500 billion "just are not acceptable. We've got to get them down" and halve the shortfall in less than five years, said Nickles.

[jmstein7]

Don't knock it -- it's a good start. This means that they have heard us.

Why would we do anything (like sitting out an election) that would put men in office (Dems) who will be 100% deaf to us?

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[KantianBurke]

Moderate Republicans say while they agree mushrooming federal deficits mean lawmakers must find ways to tighten the budget, savings should be explored in other areas. These include defense, domestic security, benefit programs and perhaps blocking some already approved future tax cuts from taking effect.

"Everything should be on the table," said Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., a leader of House moderates.

Everything huh? How about YOU leaving the GOP for starters you statist pig! If not for his party ID being mentioned I'd swear this schmuck was a Rat. RINOS OUT!!

[Bikers4Bush]

It's about time.

[billbears]

"We don't think it goes far enough," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., a conservative leader, said of Bush's plan for spending restraint. "We're not going to harm things by doing a freeze. That's not asking much of people."

Sue Myrick bump. A good Senate candidate if she would take it in 2008

[jmstein7]

Like the new tag line?

PS Tancredo said specifically NOT to write him in -- HE understands the importance of avoiding the '92 disaster this time.

[Bikers4Bush]

Like the tag line.

I know Tancredo said that but it isn't about what he wants.

[PattonReincarnated]

So the budget is close to $2.4 trillion. I could easily cut that the budget to $1 trillion. I'll make a lot of government employees unhappy since they will have to find jobs where they have to work. I suppose that would increase the unemployment rate. Hmmm, well, I'll have the cuts occur after the '04 election. Geez, I'm a nice guy, I'll phase the cuts in over a 8 years. Oh, their might be bread lines, people freezing on the street, old women being pushed down the stairs, and children starving. Ok, I'll leave the budget at its current level.

[jmstein7]

If you mean in the primaries, by all means, go ahead and send the GOP a message (it seems to be working -- gay marriage, spending, partial birth ban, tax cuts, missile defense, snubbing the UN, etc.)

But, if we write in a candidate, and don't vote Bush, putting Kerry in office, we will lose every one of those above things (and probably Congress as well).

The scariest thing is missile defense -- we need it developed NOW. A president Kerry would shelve that -- and by the time we got another GOPper in the White House, it would probably be too late.

[jmstein7]

If you mean in the primaries, by all means, go ahead and send the GOP a message (it seems to be working -- gay marriage, spending, partial birth ban, tax cuts, missile defense, snubbing the UN, etc.)

But, if we write in a candidate, and don't vote Bush, putting Kerry in office, we will lose every one of those above things (and probably Congress as well).

The scariest thing is missile defense -- we need it developed NOW. A president Kerry would shelve that -- and by the time we got another GOPper in the White House, it would probably be too late.

[TXBSAFH]

Good, we need to start living within our means.

[Bikers4Bush]

IF Kerry gets elected it's the fault of Bush and co. They have chosen to lean to the left and champion the liberals pet projects, we haven't lead them there and we never asked them to do those things.

It is telling to me that on the FR poll 18% of the people have said they won't vote for W and 4% are undecided.

The GOP and the administration need to move back to the right and quickly. It is estimated that only 8-10% of the voters are middle of the road and can be swayed.

What is to be gained by alienating 18% in order to get 8-10%?

[jmstein7]

Here's the difference:

The GOP listen to us when we scream loud enough, lean on them, write to them, etc.

The Dems will never listen to us.

The best scenario for those who are dissatisfied is this:

Vote Bush

In 2006, vote the RINOs OUT in the primaries

In the 2006 general election, vote the conservatives who won the primaries into office

In 2008, we need an open field -- it would be VERY hard to win with an incumbent Democrat in office.


In the 2008 primaries, vote for the conservative.

In the 2008 general election, vote the conservative nominee into office.

THAT is the path to conservative victory. Sitting this one out or writing someone in does more harm than good -- especially because it puts an incumbent (hard to beat) in the 2008 race, whereas we have an open field in 2008 (ripe for a conservative) if we help Bush this time around.

Long-term thinking like this is what we need to REALLY win. Why cut off our noses, and give the Dems wins, to spite our RINOs now when we can retain power and sweep them out COMPLETELY within less than half-a-decade?

[Cubs Fan]

This means that they have heard us. Why would we do anything (like sitting out an election) that would put men in office (Dems) who will be 100% deaf to us?

OTOH worries that some of us MIGHT in fact sit out an election is what could be propelling this.

[republicanwizard]

I'm very disappointed to see that you, of all people, have bought into the anti-Bush rhetoric. He has been the best commander-in-chief that the Republican Party has given America since Lincoln. He has been a bold tax cutter, on a level only matched by Reagan himself. Finally, on social issues he has been solidly conservative.

I approve of the space exploration. It is a legitimate end of government. I am unhappy with the immigration proposal. However, I've been thrilled by campaign finance reform.

In effect, Bush signed the death warrant for the Democratic Party.

[.cnI redruM]

It's sad that it takes a staunchly conservative HOR to put GWB on a leash, but it is good that Tom DeLay has decided to step up and become the adult in Washington, DC.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I've been thrilled by campaign finance reform. In effect, Bush signed the death warrant for the Democratic Party."

Tell that to Soros, etal...MUD

[republicanwizard]

Well, we have to ban that too. Just think-no more Democratic Party and the Constitution will be safe at last. Yeah, it is taking some liberties with the Constitutional structure, but to destroy the Democratic Party, I'm flexible. They are the biggest threat to our Constitution to date.

[republicanwizard]

You can apologize if you were inferring the President is childish.

[JohnnyZ]

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., is talking to his GOP colleagues to discern how tightly he could constrain spending and still have the votes needed to pass a budget.

A conservative who will retire next January after 24 years in the Senate, Nickles said he would be happy to write a fiscal plan holding spending increases to Bush's 0.5 percent proposal or to no growth at all.

"Either one is going to be a challenge" to get sufficient votes, he said.

This is a big part of the problem. We have only a modest edge in the House but a miniscule one in the senate, and half our senators are obsessed with higher spending, whether for farm pork, earmarks, or anything else.