Skip to comments.“Revolt” over: House GOP leadership agrees to caucus’s demands to cut spending by $100 billion
Posted on 02/09/2011 8:41:55 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The revolt ends in triumph according to Roll Call, as quoted by K-Lo at the Corner:
House Republican leaders have agreed to a key conservative demand that they make good on their campaign pledge to reduce fiscal 2011 spending to $100 billion less than President Barack Obamas budget request, GOP aides said Wednesday.
According to a GOP leadership aide, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and other leaders are working with Republican appropriators, the Republican Study Committee and other conservatives on a unified strategy to reduce spending beyond the $74 billion in cuts they had already planned. The cuts, which would only apply to non-defense discretionary spending, would come as part of a continuing resolution to fund the government between March and the end of the fiscal year
It remains unclear how Republicans will make the additional $26 billion in cuts.
Consider this a correction of my earlier post, where I said the GOP had initially proposed only $58 billion in cuts. If youre wondering what the extra $26 billion means in practical terms, lets bust out the calculator and do some math. Assuming CBOs projected deficit this year of $1.5 trillion, i.e. $1,500 billion, were slipping $4.1 billion deeper into the budgetary hole every single day. Note well: Thats not federal spending per day, thats whats being added to the deficit per day. Cutting an extra $26 billion will thus erase a little less than one week of new liabilities. Thats what the big revolt is over.
Via RCP, say it with me: The deficit is too damn high.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Fuzzy math, it was reported earlier today that they were going go whole hog and maybe cut spending 32billion. Who is lying to who here.
All your base are belong to us.
Signed, tea party.
I thought it was a $34 billion cut.
So it begins. This is what I’ve been waiting for to see if it would happen. I wondered if the conservatives wouldn’t balk.
posted at 5:48 pm on February 9, 2011 by Allahpundit
Actually, says Rich Lowry, theyre almost in open revolt, which means Im not sure.
Were hearing that the Republican Study Committee and GOP freshmen were almost in open revolt at the Republican conference this morning over the initial round of cuts set out by Paul Ryan. The Ryan ceiling falls shorts of the headline number of $100 billion set out in the Pledge, and is therefore considered vastly insufficient. Says a source familiar with the meeting, It sent a clear unequivocal message to leadership Houston, youve got a problem. The leadership assured conservatives at a RSC lunch later in the day that the message had been received. Says a GOP leadership aide, The bill that passes the House will cut substantially more.
A GOP aide close to House conservatives tells NRO: If the bill that comes to the floor next week does not get to the $100 billion mark ($378 billion in total non-security spending for the year), our plan has always been to offer an amendment to close the gap. So if they come in at $420 billion for non-security, wed go for another $42 billion in cuts to get down to the $378 billion total. Leadership has said that their plan is just the first bite at the apple. We understand that, but a lot of conservatives just think the first bite needs to be bigger.
Cantor claimed after todays lunch with Obama that were serious about cutting spending, but the rebellion against the GOPs proposal was already underway last night when Jeff Flake and Cynthia Lummis voted against it on the Appropriations Committee because it didnt go far enough. They want to cut $100 billion this year, the figure Republicans initially promised to trim in the Pledge to America before they started inching away from it and settled on the new figure of $58 billion. Which is super, but even that larger figure is less than 10 percent of the $1.5 trillion deficit thats projected for this year. Its a token cut, more significant as a signal to the base that we mean business than a meaningful dent in fiscal insanity.
I think its this simple: If a Balanced Budget Amendment doesnt gain serious traction in Congress soon the debt ceiling debate might be its only hope then realistically only a fiscal catastrophe will force the feds to balance their books. Even Rand Paul, whos pushing a whopping $500 billion in cuts, acknowledges that thats merely a first step given the magnitude of the problem. In fact, I wonder if the open revolt is a bit of kabuki being practiced by the House GOP to make them look like uncompromising hardliners on spending despite the fact that the deeper cuts theyre demanding are still comparatively insignificant. The medias practicing that kabuki too: Behold CNN describing the proposed cuts of $58 billion as massive even though that figure represents just three percent or so of this years deficit. And heres a new piece from National Journal lamenting the fact that Obamas budget proposal would cut $3 billion in federal energy assistance to the poor, which will achieve instant talking-point status on the left as a rationale for deficit spending into oblivion.
Kent Conrad, who made himself a lame duck a few weeks ago when he said he wont run again, is going to take a shot today at convincing Senate Democrats that the debt really, truly is a looming disaster that needs to be dealt with ASAP. Thats also super, but the only way to seriously deal with the debt is through entitlement reform, and neither party will be touching that with a presidential election next year. (Thats why they keep tossing this political football around.) But even talking about it is progress at this point. I think. I hope?
Too bad they can't defund Obama's salary. He never does any work. Destroying America doesn't count!
In other words they are making promises, pass this and we promise *wink* to get more later.
They NEED to cut $1.5 TRILLION this year. That simple.
Departments of Energy & Education
How much are those 3 per year?
$100 Billion dollars is a joke, we have a $1.5 Trillion budget deficit and add $1.8 Trillion to the National Debt and these guys are kidding themselves.
We can’t just reduce the deficit by 7 or 8% Boehner and the leadership is only willing to do 2 or 3% of the deficit and 1% of spending.
“We cant just reduce the deficit by 7 or 8% Boehner and the leadership is only willing to do 2 or 3% of the deficit and 1% of spending.”
It’s actually more than it seems. Once you pull out debt interest, entitlements, and defense, there’s not that much left and some of the remaining (like courts and border control...lol) are legitimate expenditures.
The BIG PRIZE is Social Security - basically turning it into a welfare program, with means-testing. That’s where the real savings comes in.
I forgot one of the worst, EPA.
“The BIG PRIZE is Social Security - basically turning it into a welfare program, with means-testing. Thats where the real savings comes in.”
So you are advocating rewarding the lazy bums with retirement while the people who actually paid into the system get screwed. Thanks a lot.
Big savings are also in the Pentagon (mistakenly generalized as “defense spending). If we closed down those bases in 120 countries, we could make a tremendous savings. Unfortuately, Rand Paul has proposed the only plan which makes any cuts in the Pentagon.
It's already weasel time for the GOP House? This sounds like the old "the cuts are not really less money than last year, but rather are less of an increase than was planned" scam the scumbag politicians have been pulling forever. Really? Republicans are "cutting" Ubanga's insanely bloated budget request and expecting people to believe that they are fiscally responsible??
How freaking disappointing...
When this bill passes the House, passes the Senate, passes reconciliation, and is signed into law by PResident Obama, the elite politicians in this country will have publically admitted the country is doomed to oblivion and there is no rescue possible before a complete collapse and possible dark ages or rebirth, depending upon the will and fortitude of a broken and destitute North American populace.
It’s all over folks, every single one of your(our) special interest payments from the governments’ largesse is going to be defaulted on, every military installation overseas will be withered away, every government bondholder left with nothing more than kindling, and every elite in society fighting like cannibals for the scraps of the empire.
The world economy is going to simultaneously revolt against the Federal Reserve status quo framework and substantially collapse... eventually... the timing can go on as bubbling through debt transfer payments are built upon prior bubbles, but within the Gen X lifetime the entire scheme collapses.
No one remembers the names of the last Senators and Generals of Late Rome....
It we are to make substantial cuts, we’re going to need a budget cutting president in 2012 along with a larger number of aggressive legislators. And then we need to back them to the hilt! Camp out on the capital grounds if that need be.
$100 billion is a rounding error of the projected 2011 deficit.
The new congress is a fraud.
If they agree to this they have just owned Obama’s deficit.
I agree with post #21. If they agree to this they have just admitted that there is no possibility of saving ourselves. We prefer economic collapse to making even the slightest cut. We are willing to admit that every dollar of Obama’s deficit is necessary except for that last couple of percent.
That was not the reason we sent these people to Washington, to help Obama justify his deficit or the help him govern. We sent them to turn this ship around and stop this president before he does any more damage.
Is it that hard to roll it back even to the out-of-control Bush deficit? Not asking for miracles here, even the Bush deficits are starting to look like Calvin Coolidge. And they can’t even do that.
100 billion is 10% of what we need to do at the very least for now.
It is a start.
Or to channel Churchill...”Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
To channel me... the F’ckin fight is not won in a day.
$100 Billion is a small fraction of any given bailout.
We need TRILLIONS in cuts.
Of course. EPA.
Demons from Mordor.
“Big savings are also in the Pentagon (mistakenly generalized as defense spending). If we closed down those bases in 120 countries, we could make a tremendous savings. Unfortuately, Rand Paul has proposed the only plan which makes any cuts in the Pentagon.”
I always get a bit worried about pulling ourselves in and no longer being a world power. I realize the temptation, and it’s likely to happen anyway, but often the consequences are as nice as we may want (like World War 2 in the last century, or Japan developing nukes in this century).
I guess I just think differently than the Paul’s.
“So you are advocating rewarding the lazy bums with retirement while the people who actually paid into the system get screwed. Thanks a lot.”
First off, it already does. The rules of the system are very highly skewed towards giving a MUCH HIGHER return to people that earn a relatively small amount of money, than people that earn a relatively large amount of money (and yes, I’m accounting for the wage cap)...so you’re already getting taken there.
Second, for the same reason it is skewed, I also don’t want to see old people starving in our streets, which I lot of people here don’t seem to mind.
Third, the MONEY IS GONE. The generations that paid into it already spent it - they spent it as it came in (plus about $12 trillion on top of that). Everyone knows it. They collectively chose to use SS to augment the income tax to fund all of their important projects - like public housing, education, PBS, Vietnam, windmills, putting people on the Moon...etc, without paying the taxes needed for it. I know, not everyone supported everything above, and I’m sure it’s likely that you didn’t support most of them - but collectively, through their elected officials, these generations chose to spend, rather than save their money.
So what happens now. If I have $250,000 in my IRA and Bank of New York Mellon (I get a kick out of their name), for some stupid reason, lets me borrow all of that money to fly around the world for a year, first class - I am OUT OF LUCK for retirement (unless I figure out a way to pay it back), because they sure as heck are not going to ask my neighbor to repay it for me.
So what you’re essentially doing is DEMANDING that my kids and my future grandkids pay for YOUR retirement because your generation chose to spend that money instead of save it. That may be fine with you, but I do have a problem with that. I don’t want my kids paying the price for GORGING of prior generations.
Well....IMHO it is just a return the original vision of the founders who scorned world empires, power politics, entangling alliances, and rejected militarism.
Well....IMHO it is just a return the original vision of the founders who scorned world empires, power politics, entangling alliances, and rejected militarism.
TEA PARTY TAKING CHARGE AND CHARTING A NEW COURSE IN D.C.! WATCH OUT RINOS AND BLUE DOGS, YOU’LL SOON BE ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST!!!
If they were proposing cutting $1 trillion of spending, then I’d be impressed. Cutting $100 billion is but a drop in the bucket.
There's a lot of supposedly conservative people on this very site advocating just that - the total disconnection of SS payouts with the amount that an individual paid in. We need LESS welfare (a LOT less) in this country, not more.
What needs to happen is that when people declare retirement, the SS system adds up all that you paid in (I'd say with interest, though I see that it will be a problem prying that from the government thugs) and uses it to buy that individual an annuity based on actuarial calculations and your accumulated "investment". People that paid $100,000 in should get a much bigger retirement supplement from SS than someone that paid only $5000 in. Likewise, someone retiring at 70 should get a lot more per month than someone retiring at 60.
Aha! I knew it! You are no where near retirement.
Here’s the point. SS was/is a program set up to forcibly take money from citizens to replace/augment retirement savings for individuals (because they are too stupid to do it themselves). In between its beginning and now congress spent the money that was supposed to be set aside in the system so that now the SS system is insolvent. This is theft. Congress should be prosecuted for this crime. Then make them repay the money.
I have 3 siblings. My family and 1 sibling and their family has tried to prepare for retirement by savings other than SS. But receiving SS has been included in our retirement prospectus because OUR MONEY WAS TAKEN FOR THIS. In the meantime, the other 2 siblings have not saved a dime. They have bought new cars, etc. (I’ve never had a new car (: ) Why should they be rewarded for not saving while we are penalized FOR SAVING. That is a typical liberal response....means test! Socialism at it’s finest.
Means testing of SS is not a conservative position.
Exactly.... there is no way that the government should get a free pass on this. Conservatives who endorse throwing up their hands and walking away from this issue and letting it become another give-away to the “poor” should have their heads examined.
Believe it...when I see it written into law...and read the details.
“Well....IMHO it is just a return the original vision of the founders who scorned world empires, power politics, entangling alliances, and rejected militarism.”
If you’re into trying to “live off the land” and becoming another Albania or North Korea (economically speaking), more power to you. I prefer not to have our economy land on the ash heap of history, which is ALWAYS the case when a country thinks that they can go it alone.
I heard you the first time...LOL.
“Means testing of SS is not a conservative position.”
Neither is opposing selling off our highways to foreign interests. I guess any of us can define conservative positions any way we want.
I’m sorry that you worked under an income tax surcharge that was given the misleading name “Social Security”, but it was quite OBVIOUS to people who saw that Al Gore’s “Lockbox” was empty...and there was NO INTENTION of filling it. At that point, a person who reasonably planned their retirement would have accepted the fact that the money was gone and future generations would revolt at being told that THEY STOLE IT...essentially.
You may call yourself a conservative for sicking the government on my kids (and future grand kids) to pay for your retirement. I SURE AS HELL DO NOT.
Same thing with all the other congressional and senate RINOs. The Democrats have them all blackmailed. If they cave in to the conservatives, their sordid affairs will be exposed.
Better for them to retire while they can, because the country cannot survive with them capitulating to the commies.
What do the Jeffersonian values of free trade, no entangling alliances, and free international cultural exchange (the policy I support) have to do with militarized, protectionists, centralized planned, nationalized states like North Korea and Albania?
You don’t get it. US citizens ALREADY PAID for (SS) retirement. That money was STOLEN.
Usually in cases of criminal activity the perpetrators are found and put on trial, then sentenced.
Every former member of congress and former president needs to pay restitution to the SS fund... money they misappropriated.
Let’s first go after the estate of Ted Kennedy.
“Every former member of congress and former president needs to pay restitution to the SS fund... money they misappropriated.”
That’ll get you about $1B, what about the other $9.999T. You’ll feel good, but it won’t balance or pay off ANYTHING.
Restitution is only effective to the extent that the thieves have the money. THEY DON’T - and I guess the math is too tough for you to understand that.
It’s time you accept the fact that THE MONEY IS GONE and cannot be recovered.
The fact that you guys are going after the future earnings of MY KIDS and future grandkids, for the stupid policies of your generation (i.e., elect people that won’t pay for all their wonderful programs) MAKES ME SICK.
I don’t want to see them cutting anything....they NEED to start amputating...as the gangrene i sspreading rapidly.
“I dont want to see them cutting anything....they NEED to start amputating...as the gangrene i sspreading rapidly.”
Could not agree more on the gangrene - it is really getting bad now. Clothing about to soar in price, food already soaring, oil at high levels, Chinese imports (i.e., practically everything we buy now) going up 20 to 30% in price. And heck, the dollar still hasn’t crashed.
I still get blasted for wanting to turn Social Security into a means-tested welfare program - but that’s ok, I’m doing it for my kids - who are about to be driven into a Third World country unless something is done.
Dude, you have a problem.
It’s time you accept the fact that the money was TAKEN for the purpose of paying for retirement. It’s gone, but that DOES NOT RELINQUISH THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE OBLIGATION.
The fact that “you guys” could care less doesn’t make it ok to say screw you to everyone that paid into the retirement system.
“The fact that you guys are going after the future earnings of MY KIDS and future grandkids, for the stupid policies of your generation (i.e., elect people that wont pay for all their wonderful programs) MAKES ME SICK.”
Guess I can blame you for the stupid policies of the current administration since they are occurring during the time period of “your generation”. You don’t even know how ridiculous you sound.
If you can sleep at night STEALING for today’s and tomorrow’s kids, I’m pretty much done debating you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.