Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quietly making 'impossible' cuts
NY Post ^ | March 31, 2011 | Rich Lowry

Posted on 04/01/2011 1:57:28 AM PDT by Scanian

If you propose stiff budget cuts and don't get called "heartless," does it re ally count?

Republicans passed an unheard-of $61 billion in budget cuts a few weeks ago, and not only have lived to tell the tale, but have emerged without a scratch. They piled all of them on one slice of the budget (nonsecurity discretionary spending) over a compressed period (half of the remaining fiscal year), magnifying their impact and opening themselves to avenues of attack so obvious that the average College Democrat could write the campaign plan.

The usual liberal outfits raised the usual alarms. "House Bill Means Fewer Children in Head Start, Less Help for Students to Attend College, Less Job Training, and Less Funding for Clean Water" warned the headline of a report of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The cut in nonsecurity domestic spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, it noted in astonishment, was nearly 25 percent.

For some specific categories of spending it reached higher: minus 38.5 percent for agriculture, rural development and the Food and Drug Administration, and minus 36.5 percent for transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

There's a word for such cuts: "impossible." There's a word for people who would undertake such cuts: "suicidal." And yet White House and Senate Democrats have been backpedaling for weeks

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alarms; budgetcuts; heartless; republicans

1 posted on 04/01/2011 1:57:33 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Huh... This is an interesting take.


2 posted on 04/01/2011 2:01:19 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

They need to cut out one trillion in spending. This is only 6% of that goal.


3 posted on 04/01/2011 2:22:12 AM PDT by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

61 Billion is not enough... and why it’s quiet. Anyone with half a brain knows this.


4 posted on 04/01/2011 3:07:08 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

It’s just a drop in the bucket.


5 posted on 04/01/2011 3:08:05 AM PDT by bikerman (Where Has My America Gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

To me, even Rand Paul’s plan isn’t severe enough.

We need to educate the public that present day entitlement payments MUST be cut NOW or we are on the road to Zimbabwe.


6 posted on 04/01/2011 3:08:51 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

And there’s still no budget signed.

Which means there’s still time to make more cuts!


7 posted on 04/01/2011 3:11:12 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers - Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The Internet and talk radio seems to be the only way right now. Most of the Republicans just sit there silently and the media and the press are lap dogs to the Obama administration.

I’m amazed at how Obama started a war (how the hell can we afford 3 wars) while on vacation with his family in Brazil! Obama did not even consult the congress, and most of the congress does not have much to say about it. Do we live in a dictatorship and the legislative branch bows to the Executive branch? It’s almost as if someone else stated the war and Obama got the notes and then decided to update everyone else on it. Notice by the way it’s the first time we started a war where the President was not even in the Oval office. If Bush did that, then the media would be screaming bloody murder.


8 posted on 04/01/2011 3:24:43 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

The cuts proposed don’t even begin to put a dimple in the deficit added in the past year alone, let alone the accumulated deficit.

The GOP with the weeping, pink-tie wearing Boehner at the helm, has completely let down those that put a majority in the House last November.

We should be proposing cuts of 300 billion and then compromising it down to 200 or 150. Then next year doing the same thing, on and on.


9 posted on 04/01/2011 3:55:11 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
The only reason conservatives should give to justify federal spending cuts: Federal Spending Causes Inflation
10 posted on 04/01/2011 3:55:21 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justa

Bbbbbbut there IS NO INFLATION per the G!

Gas and food don’t count!


11 posted on 04/01/2011 3:57:16 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Not funding ‘’entitlements’’ is what will nail Wash. Then there’s the highway ‘’fund’’, the Airport and airways fund the wildlife fund, all of these have specific taxes for them, but much of the money had been used for something else.


12 posted on 04/01/2011 3:58:26 AM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Are these real cuts or just reductions to the increases in spending?


13 posted on 04/01/2011 4:01:01 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

In February of 2009 the Democrats passed an $800 Billion permanent Budget Baseline increase they called a “Stimulus Program”.

They did so without a single Congressional Republican Vote.

Now, the reduction of 8% that spending increase is called extreme by Democrats, and unheard of by pundits like Lowry (btw, who I generally like)

Meanwhile, Federal Employment now exceeds the total number employed in Manufacturing, Farming, and Construction - COMBINED

If cutting a 1.8 trillion deficit by 60 billion is the best we can do - we cannot be saved.


14 posted on 04/01/2011 4:18:25 AM PDT by crescen7 (game on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

In February of 2009 the Democrats passed an $800 Billion permanent Budget Baseline increase they called a “Stimulus Program”.

They did so without a single Congressional Republican Vote.

Now, the reduction of 8% that spending increase is called extreme by Democrats, and unheard of by pundits like Lowry (btw, who I generally like)

Meanwhile, Federal Employment now exceeds the total number employed in Manufacturing, Farming, and Construction - COMBINED

If cutting a 1.8 trillion deficit by 60 billion is the best we can do - we cannot be saved.


15 posted on 04/01/2011 4:18:37 AM PDT by crescen7 (game on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Paul Ryan is about to test this theory with a truly transformational budget for 2012

Current budget work is just tinkering on what should have been the Dem budget.

The 2012 budget will really be the one to watch.

16 posted on 04/01/2011 4:36:26 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

We need a genuine, kickass government shutdown to jar this country into a grim reality check.


17 posted on 04/01/2011 4:41:35 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
The pubbies need to put the numbers in perspective. The demholes can tout $30 billion as “slashing”, pretending it’s a huge cut. $30 billion sound like a lot of money to most people. And their mediawhores carry their water on it. But the budget deficit is $1,700,000,000,000. One point seven trillion dollars. But it’s also One-Thousand-Seven-Hundred-Billion. What’s the overall budegt? Three trillion?

Start refering to $3-trillion as “three-thousand-billion-dollars”. Then the notion of “slashing” 30-billion from 3,000-billion becomes absurd.

Reframe it even more into “kitchen table terms”. Your household income is $3,000 a month. This month you have $4,700 in expenses. Does anyone with a brain think reducing this month’s expenses by $30 means anything? Only a fool would be proud of himself for reining in expenses in this manner.

18 posted on 04/01/2011 4:43:15 AM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I don’t think so.


19 posted on 04/01/2011 4:44:09 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

The takers need to do without their checks for a month or two to get a dose of what will happen PERMANENTLY if we don’t act.

The writing has been on the wall for a long time. Cut drastically or head for third world status.


20 posted on 04/01/2011 4:48:11 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wny

Even Rand Paul’s $500 billion in cuts would leave us far in the hole.


21 posted on 04/01/2011 4:52:20 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
Cut drastically

Drastic cuts just aren't going to happen with this current budget. This was the Dem budget that they didn't pass. The GOP can't hold hearings on this budget because that takes months and the public isn't going to allow them to shut the Gov't down for months to hold thorough hearings.

Full hearings can and will be held on the 2012 budget (which is the new Congress' responsibility) so that's where you have a much better chance of seeing real cuts.

22 posted on 04/01/2011 4:53:28 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

re: Fewer Children in Head Start, Less Help for Students to Attend College, Less Job Training, and Less Funding for Clean Water

Yup, you’re exactly correct. But the alternative is to also lose police, fire, etc. protection when the system finally sinks into bankruptcy. Doesn’t matter what you’ve promised, or contracted for if the organization is dead, and that’s where we’re headed with our current spend, borrow and print money approach.


23 posted on 04/01/2011 5:55:08 AM PDT by jwparkerjr (I would rather lose with Sarah than win with a RINO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bikerman

The GOP started out at $100 billion which was a joke and now they are going to end up at $33 billion which is beyond ridiculous. Mitchie the Kid McConnell is hiding under his desk letting Tammy Faye take the heat. Its a CF gone wrong and the public knows it.

I’m going to hold my fire until I see Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget but I’m not holding my breath.


24 posted on 04/01/2011 9:38:37 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe; Scanian

300 billion cuts? There is a poster here called gogodzilla or something (can’t get the right name) who proposed some serious cuts but 300 billion or even 200 billion is major surgery. What does one cut?


25 posted on 04/05/2011 5:00:37 AM PDT by Cronos (Wszystkiego najlepszego!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla; Scanian; Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Sorry, I forgot a "go" ;-P. This is what gogogodzilla posted
How about we do this?

Eliminate:

The Medicare Prescription Drug Care ‘Benefit’ and Obamacare

The following Departments:

Department of Homeland Security (redundant, as the Department of Defense has that job)

Department of Energy (redundant, as energy is bought and sold - therefore it is commerce and should fall under that Department)

Department of Education (redundant, as each state has one... and all public schools fall under state control, not federal)

Department of Health and Human Services (Again, redundant as every state has one!)

Department of the Interior (Redundant, as *ALL* of the US Interior is parceled out to already existing entities... they are called ‘States’. National parks could be run by a federal bureau, or converted to state parks.)

Department of Agriculture (food is bought and sold, so it should fall under Commerce)

Department of Labor (again, labor is bought and sold, so it should fall under Commerce, heck... it used to even be called the Department of Commerce and Labor, for pete’s sake!)

Department of Housing and Urban Development (WTF is this?!? Why do we have a federal department acting as a landlord?!?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you were to add up how much all these Departments *alone* cost each year... you’d save $1.391 TRILLION each and every year (based on 2009 dollars).

But then, add in the repeal of the Prescription Drug care benefit and the repeal of Obamacare and you’ll see savings at nearly 2 TRILLION dollars a year.

That 2 TRILLION in one year, not 10 years, like the current plan.

-- I was wrong, 300 billion is more than do-able.
26 posted on 04/05/2011 5:03:50 AM PDT by Cronos (Wszystkiego najlepszego!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson