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

Skip to comments.

In a 235-189 vote, House approves dramatic cuts in federal spending
Washington Post ^ | Washington Post

Posted on 02/19/2011 2:44:40 AM PST by sunmars

In a rare early morning weekend vote, the House approved an aggressive plan Saturday to eliminate dozens of federal programs and offices while slashing agency budgets by as much as 40 percent, drawing out more than $60 billion in deficit savings.

Setting up a showdown early next month with President Obama and Senate Democrats, House Republicans pushed the legislation through after a marathon debate capped off by an all-night session Friday that spilled into Saturday morning. During the bleary-eyed final roll call at 4:35 a.m., 235 Republicans were joined by no Democrats in support of dramatic spending reductions that they said were needed to address a soaring annual deficit of $1.6 trillion; 189 Democrats -- as well as three Republicans -- opposed it, accusing Republicans of writing the bill with a "double meat ax."

For Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), it marked an early political victory as his newly empowered GOP troops lived up to a 2010 campaign pledge to trim spending levels to those before the 2008 financial crisis caused an unprecedented level of government spending and intervention into the private economy.

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: obama; obama2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-137 next last
To: sunmars
The Rats stayed in line...3 Pubbies votes against...Why do they have unaminity and we never do?

Mike

51 posted on 02/19/2011 4:49:52 AM PST by MichaelP ("Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
$60 billion in deficit savings.

What a joke..

52 posted on 02/19/2011 4:51:21 AM PST by Doofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Don't miss the salient points: It's an actual cut for the first time that I can remember.

It's not a cut, it's just a decrease in the increase!!!

53 posted on 02/19/2011 4:55:27 AM PST by Doofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

It would be wise to remember that the vote was on a budget for the current year that is almost half over. Very soon there will be a vote for a budget for the entire fiscal year 2012.

It is that budget where the remaking of the government will take place. There will be time for extended debate and consideration

Patience


54 posted on 02/19/2011 4:58:10 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jenk

Thank you for posting this list- lots of disappointments there.


55 posted on 02/19/2011 4:58:54 AM PST by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

I would like to hear what the congressman has to say about his vote.

Maybe its possible his NO vote is because these cuts are a drop in the bucket and not big enough.

I would agree with that position.


56 posted on 02/19/2011 5:05:16 AM PST by Nextrush (President Sarah Palin sounds just right to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JerseyRepub

The GOP NO votes could have something to do with people who really want to cut spending as opposed to the more symbolic show cuts that Boehner and Cantor are putting on.


57 posted on 02/19/2011 5:07:37 AM PST by Nextrush (President Sarah Palin sounds just right to me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
Not to mention the ATF.

Oh, yes....I forgot those jack-booted thugs. They'd be defunded in a heartbeat as well if I were in charge.

Those liberals should be glad I'm not in charge. :)

58 posted on 02/19/2011 5:14:39 AM PST by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

Those aren’t cuts, they are tiny reductions in budget increases!

A real cut would be elimination of programs and firing of at least half of the federal employees.


59 posted on 02/19/2011 5:17:24 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

We lost a lotta them blue dogs when Republicans got the seats in those districts.


60 posted on 02/19/2011 5:24:32 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Kucinich wants a Department of Peace.


61 posted on 02/19/2011 5:26:37 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Drago

I understood the debate to be that 60 billion for 7 months comes to at least 100 billion at an annual rate.


62 posted on 02/19/2011 5:30:44 AM PST by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

Sorry, but “slashing” $60 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget at a time when we are accumulating debt at a rate of $6 million a minute is hardly “dramatic”.......


63 posted on 02/19/2011 5:33:50 AM PST by Thermalseeker (The theft being perpetrated by Congress and the Fed makes Bernie Maddoff look like a pickpocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nickname
Voinovich was replaced with Rob Portman (R) last November.
64 posted on 02/19/2011 5:38:08 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

Whatever.

They promise 100b which is small as it is. They couldn’t keep that promise because the establishment betrayed everyone so they can go to hell if they tink I give a damn about these cuts.


65 posted on 02/19/2011 5:39:36 AM PST by Soul Seeker ( I was there when we had the numbers, but didn’t have the principles.---Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drago
If the House would have zeroed out this insane rail fetish, that's 53 billion in savings right there. Not a soul loses a job either.
66 posted on 02/19/2011 5:39:45 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
5%????? 5%???????

That is a travesty. Kind of like telling a family to give up a hobby to reduce their budget. Our own GOP did not do what we ask them to do.

67 posted on 02/19/2011 5:44:13 AM PST by catfish1957 (Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Veterans Affairs should also be back under defense.


68 posted on 02/19/2011 5:44:53 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

This is a case where the POST is more accurate than Cantor. The GOP is using smoke and mirrors to appear to be cutting more than they are.


69 posted on 02/19/2011 5:52:31 AM PST by Gipper08 (www.travishankins.com...a real CONSERVATIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nickname

Thanks for those names. You did what the media failed to do!


70 posted on 02/19/2011 5:53:00 AM PST by Joann37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

$60 billion in deficit savings is like throwing a couple of deck chairs off the Titanic.

It’s still sinking.


71 posted on 02/19/2011 5:57:39 AM PST by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nickname; All

More details from:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-147&sort=party
The three Republicans who voted “nay” are:
Rep. Jeff Flake - Arizona’s 6th District
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400134
Rep. John Campbell - California’s 48th District
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412011
and Rep. Walter Jones - North Carolina’s 3rd District
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400209

There were also 2 Republicans (Ron Paul, TX; Ben Quale, AZ)
and 7 Democrats who did not vote.


72 posted on 02/19/2011 5:57:39 AM PST by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Sure wish more people understood baseline budgeting.


73 posted on 02/19/2011 5:58:47 AM PST by animal172 (Can a girl with a mole on her face be happy married to a gopher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
In a 235-189 vote, House approves dramatic cuts in federal spending.

A less than 2% reduction in spending qualifies as 'dramatic'? We really are in sad shape then. And let's not forget this is barely half of the cuts that the GOP had been talking about a few short months ago.

74 posted on 02/19/2011 6:01:38 AM PST by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nickname

I’m not sure about Jones, but Campbell and Flake would have been voting no because it wasn’t enough cuts even for the rest of this fiscal year.


75 posted on 02/19/2011 6:02:14 AM PST by ratsreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The joke of the week. Dramatic? What idiot wrote that headline. That is like a ‘zero cut’ in spending.


76 posted on 02/19/2011 6:05:23 AM PST by mulligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

“So who were the 3 republicans who voted against spending cuts? “


From the article: “The three Republicans voting against the measure were Reps. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Walter Jones (N.C.) and John Campbell (Calif.)”

This is where it gets fun. We still kicked butt in that vote, and the RINOs didn’t have a prayer in stopping it. It’s certainly nice to have a large majority in the House.


77 posted on 02/19/2011 6:08:05 AM PST by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The state-run media is in cahoots with the establishment Republicans. Both want to blow smoke up out butts and tell us these are "dramatic" cuts. They're spit in Lake Michigan. Rounding errors in a $3.7 trillion budget with $1.6 trillion of that being deficit.

The GOP House leadership is showing its true colors, amoeba gray. They voted against anogther $22 billion in cuts. They refused to allow Steve King's amendment to defund ObamaCare and overall seem asleep at the switch. In this period of time in 2009, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats had passed the Porkulus bill and were moving ahead on all fronts.

Where are the subpoenas? Where's the outrage over Obama ignoring Federal court orders on ObamaCare and on the drilling in the Gulf? Where's the action?

I'll agree with Michelle Obama, "Let's Move". Get rolling!! Take action!! Go! GO! GOOOO!!!!

Where's the urgency?

78 posted on 02/19/2011 6:11:45 AM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
$60 billion. Call me underwhelmed. At that rate we’ll have a handle on this deficit in about 1000 years.

It is worse than underwhelming - the first shot out of the cannon should have been the largest since both the Senate and the WH are in control of the Socialist RAT party and will pare it back. More like they will get a handle on it NEVER.

It was a good run America for 230+ years. If they ever can build a time machine I am going back to 1955.
79 posted on 02/19/2011 6:14:07 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
In a rare early morning weekend vote, the House approved an aggressive plan Saturday to eliminate dozens of federal programs and offices while slashing agency budgets by as much as 40 percent, drawing out more than $60 billion in deficit savings.

Anyone with half a brain knows this is a very small cut to the budget. But, I think that is what the Reps. wanted. *O* is already said the "V" word, and the left is getting all twisted in the panties over it. If the Reps play their cards right, this could work well for them at election time. Even the smallest of cuts is unacceptable for the Dems, meanwhile the country is demanding cuts.

80 posted on 02/19/2011 6:14:45 AM PST by tiredoflaundry (I will not be silenced. Winners do not compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
“The revised bill added more reductions, and cut $100 billion from Obama’s request for the current year.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/19/gop-controlled-house-passes-spending-cut/

I'm so confused! Did they cut $60 billion or $100 billion?

81 posted on 02/19/2011 6:15:30 AM PST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Call me underwhelmed

Me too.

60 billion out of 1,600 billions. 3.75% cut from the one year budget deficit leaves 96.25% of it still there, and it's characterized as "double meat axe".

82 posted on 02/19/2011 6:15:55 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

No way in he’ll would I accept Mr Tarp Cantors word on anything, he even lies about his support of TARP.


83 posted on 02/19/2011 6:22:35 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

What a joke. They “SLASHED” 60 Billion. That does it. WTF! We are wasting our time with Republicans. I am not going to be like the Black base of the Democrat Party. Ferget it!


84 posted on 02/19/2011 6:24:42 AM PST by screaminsunshine (34 States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

I am going back to Libertarian and being a Ron Paul Kook.


85 posted on 02/19/2011 6:26:49 AM PST by screaminsunshine (34 States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: trebb; circlecity; All

Also things are not going to happen overnight folks. We got to get the Senate and the White House..


86 posted on 02/19/2011 6:28:59 AM PST by KevinDavis (If you buy a car from GM, you are supporting Obama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
$60 billion in deficit savings

The debt is now increasing at a rate of almost $5 billion per hour.

We went further in the hole while they were talking about it.

87 posted on 02/19/2011 6:33:34 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Obama is "inspired" by the vanguard of the Muslim Brotherhood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I would just go all 10th Amendment and delete the unconstitutional Dept of Ed. altogether.


88 posted on 02/19/2011 6:33:48 AM PST by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Energy (to Commerce)

The Department of Energy is the most misunderstood department in the country and the third most incompetent (DHS gets 1st place and Education 2nd place with bonus points for irrelevancy).

What folks don't understand is that 1/3 to 1/2 of Energy is for nuclear weapons [ and the cleanup of the (very real) nuclear mess some overagressive and irresponsible adolescent generals caused in the early years of the cold war.] A lot of folks might argue for turning the nuclear weapons part over to DoD, however, we, as most countries, have always believe that nuclear policy must be in civilian hands separate from the DoD. So that argues for recreating the AEC to deal with those issues.

Another part of Energy that is actually pretty good is the office of science and they fund a lot of good basic science work in chemistry, physics and material science and operate a lot of our key scientific user facilities. You could argue that these and their budget should go to the National Science Foundation.

I am not arguing for the continuation of the Department of Energy which was a mess ever since Jimmy Carter said shale oil is good and Amy Carter said anything nuclear was bad. But there are some important parts that must be appropriately dealt with as you sow under with salt that which never should have lived in the first place.

89 posted on 02/19/2011 6:35:18 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

This crap is not attached to a continuing resolution, so it is total one hundred percent, spin for the fools in fly over land.


90 posted on 02/19/2011 6:35:57 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
"Also things are not going to happen overnight folks."

I have no confidence things are going to happen ever. If the pittiance of cuts we are talking here engenders this much controvery WITHIN the party, what chance do we have of getting to the point where we are seriously debating the type of cuts we really need to have any vestige of hope of pulling this thing out. None methinks.

91 posted on 02/19/2011 6:36:16 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
$60 billion. Call me underwhelmed. At that rate we’ll have a handle on this deficit in about 1000 years.

This bill is for current year spending only, not the FY 2012 budget. This is a good start. The real cuts must come next year, though.

92 posted on 02/19/2011 6:45:20 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("It's hard to take the president seriously." - Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mulligan
The real headline should be:
Congress needs another major Tea Party flushing in 2012. They didn't quite get the message of 2010. They are dangling a few morsels while getting back to business as usual (aka, spending out the kazoo).
93 posted on 02/19/2011 6:48:44 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
things are not going to happen overnight folks. We got to get the Senate and the White House..

The Senate and the WH cannot pass a bill on their own. Spending bills originate in the House, under the constitution. If they want to cut, they can cut. If they go weak in the knees, well, they went weak in the knees, and it is on them and no one else.

Sounds like the tea party needs to start manufacturing laundry starch.

94 posted on 02/19/2011 6:51:24 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

Dramatic? Hardly. These cuts represent only 4% of the deficit. What about the remaining 96%? That needs to be cut as well.


95 posted on 02/19/2011 6:57:22 AM PST by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
Yeah, it's going to take a bigger axe to get the deficit under control.

Toy Axe

96 posted on 02/19/2011 6:58:32 AM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MichaelP; All
We never do?? Are you kidding me? You haven't been paying attention if you think the House Republicans never stick together.

To all......this is a step, and there will be more.

This behemouth wasn't built overnight, and it won't be dissembled overnight.

These guys are doing what they were hired to do. Voted to defund PP, voted to defund Obamacare, and now this step to cut the budget.

I say BRAVO! We House Republicans with guts, and with our help, they'll keep them.

97 posted on 02/19/2011 7:06:39 AM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
I'm actually fairly pleased. A major psychological barrier has been breached. When was the last time there was any reduction?

We've done the impossible, next time it will be a little easier.

98 posted on 02/19/2011 7:07:58 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 760 of our national holiday from reality. - It's almost 3 AM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sunmars

99 posted on 02/19/2011 7:10:41 AM PST by paulycy (Islamo-Marxism is Evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

To those who aren’t familiar with the budgeting process...

This is 60 Billion from the Fiscal 2011 Budget which there is only about 7 months left and is currently running on a CR Continuing Resolution.

The real action will be on the Fiscal 2012 Budget which Obama just submitted.

That is where the GOP has a full Budget process, hearings etc to make Big Cuts.


100 posted on 02/19/2011 7:21:34 AM PST by rbmillerjr (I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Mitt Romney....none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-137 next last

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