Skip to comments.John Boehner: The Next fight will be trillions, not billions
Posted on 04/11/2011 7:27:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the opening months of 2011, Republican budget-cutters had to play on a small field. Instead of being able to tackle the structural issues of the massive deficit while planning the FY2012 budget, the House instead had to finish the work left undone by Democrats for the current fiscal year. Under pressure to keep defense and security spending in place, the entire spending pool available to cut amounted to less than $300 billion when the first continuing resolution expired in March, and the GOP forced Democrats to eventually cut almost $50 billion from that discretionary spending in the end.
Boehner writes in an op-ed for USA Today that the next fight will be an order of magnitude larger:
The budget by Chairman Ryan has set the bar. If the president is willing to follow our lead and offer serious proposals that address the drivers of our debt and the barriers that are holding back our economy, we’ll welcome it, and we’re open to hearing them. But in order to be credible, the White House plan must preserve and protect programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and set us on a path to pay down the national debt.
So far, the president has only outlined an irresponsible budget that would impose a job-crushing $1.5 trillion tax hike, add $9.1 trillion to the debt over the next decade, and do nothing to address our autopilot spending. Instead, it locks in place the spending binge that has increased every child’s share of the national debt to $45,000.
Rather than removing uncertainty for private-sector job creators and bolstering confidence in our economy, the president’s budget is likely to deepen anxiety among families, small business operators and investors the people who really create jobs in America.
President Obama also wants a debt limit increase, but says spending cuts and budget reforms shouldn’t be attached to it. Americans will not stand for that. We must follow their will.
Actually, Obama plans to offer a new plan on entitlements later today, which we’ll cover in a separate post.
Some Tea Party activists are unhappy that Boehner’s deal didn’t already deal in trillions, but there simply weren’t trillions to cut in FY2011′s budget — only the remainder of the discretionary spending left after five months of temporary spending authorizations. Entitlement programs spend on auto-pilot as they are statutory obligations passed into law; the published federal budget produced by Congress only estimates those costs, while authorizing discretionary spending. Statutory changes to law have to be proposed and adopted separately from budgets by rule and by practicality. Ryan and the GOP will now have the opportunity to start proposing and pushing the kind of statutory changes necessary to change the direction of the auto-pilot that will reduce the entitlement spending for the future, starting in FY2012 if Congress can pass something that Barack Obama will sign.
Republicans still need to keep pressure on discretionary spending. They managed to reduce non-security discretionary spending by over 10% for the FY2011 year from Obama’s budget request ($49 billion from $450 billion), but that comes after three years of expanding discretionary spending by almost 20%. Discretionary spending is merely the appetizer to the deficit problem, though; even with Defense and Homeland Security, it totaled $1.3 trillion in Obama’s budget proposal. WE could have cut all of it and we’d still be $300-400 billion in the red.
Boehner’s right that the next fight will be on entitlements. It’s really the only fight that matters now that FY2011 has been put to bed.
next fight will be to bend over again....
Ok big guy lets see it
Note to Bonehead. That doesn't include crying like a baby and folding like a cheap suit. Nor does it include "bipartisanship."
Time to start blood letting on the spending the hacks have come to love for so long,time to pay the bills.
All the unicorns have died.
Memo to John B:
Make damned sure the military’s paychecks are not held hostage next time.
A trillion here, a trillion there.
...and pretty soon you’re talking about real money!
(apologies to Everett Dirksen)
My tagline is my comment.
If we get most of Ryan's $6.2 T we will definitely be getting further ahead.
That's dang funny because MANY Freepers were screaming FOR the Gov't shutdown which would have held back military paychecks.
Seems John was getting it from all sides.
... and then he’ll settle for a buck ninety-eight.
Barry must be looking for the number of that truck ...
Peanuts when we are talking 'trillions of dollars'.
a million dollars = 43 inches tall
a billion dollars = 3583 feet tall
a trillion dollars = 678.66 miles tall
A billion stacked
A trillion stacked
The Executive Branch has a lot of discretion in what is declared essential and what is not during a shutdown. Holding back military checks is a political move the President controls in how a shutdown operates and who gets blamed for it.
In a similar vein, whenever there is a state or local budget problem, haven't you noticed that the first thing to get cut is something like garbage removal or police on the street, not administrators? Same idea... make the shutdown as painful as possible to show the voters how important ALL of government is.
“We got most of the $100 B.”
For the umpteenth time: 38B/ 100B is far from “most”. (Gee, it’s not even half, for all the Boehnheads out there...)
And why don’t you break it down for us all, where exactly these 38 B in “cuts” are coming from? Do you have any clue at all?
For the umpteenth time, the $38 B was NOT THE ONLY DEAL done this year. Combined with the others we DID get most of the $100 B.
Who's the bonehead??
I don’t think it was funny much.
I’m pretty sure the folks in uniform didn’t either.
What I DID think was funny was your comment blaming Boehner for "holding military pay hostage" when so many Freepers were pushing him to take action which would do just that.
“For the umpteenth time, the $38 B was NOT THE ONLY DEAL done this year. Combined with the others we DID get most of the $100 B.”
I’ve asked you now relatedly to back up your claim with factual support. You’ve evaded this request every single time.
I want to see the actual numbers from previous CR’s that were cut. To my knowledge, there was a grand total of 10 B cut so far in previous CR’s this year. If this is incorrect, then show me with a factual link.
And is the 10 B being included in the 38 B?
And playing games with baseline numbers of a budget proposal that wasn’t even passed is not “cutting” anything.
And what exactly is being cut now this week?
You have it backward.
The Donks held the militaty pay hostage.
The GOP seem to be playing a Division II game.
Am I your gopher? Go research it.
Ive asked you now relatedly to back up your claim
Really? Care to show me when/where? I discuss with many people here on FR. I don't recognize you. The cuts are on an annualized basis. That is...the $100 B is an ANNUALIZED figure since the GOP was not in charge of Congress at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Based on that, they got the majority of the $100 B.
I do believe the previous CR's were in excess of $10 B but even if your figure is correct they got most of what they set out for. Keep in mind that the House passed the full amount; those who think they should have gotten 100% of what they wanted with a Democrat Senate are living in la-la land.
I swear Boehner reminds me of a little kid. He brings home failing grades only to promise, to swear, that next semester he will be on the honor roll. Does he plan on getting testosterone shots before “next” time? Promises, promises... lies, lies and he thinks the American people buy into this junk!
I know that. But you were saying John B. should make it not happen.
Why blame him when he didn't do it?
If the Donks can make sure that the DC zoo keepers are priorty, JB needs to make sure the military is extended the same protection in time for the next Mexican Standoff.
Look, Boner is a decent guy but gets too easily rolled by the Dem hacks. We need to send in the full Cavalry in 2012 and re-take the Senate and the WH. Otherwise playing footsies with ‘Rats is only wiping a little grease off the skids for a slower slide.
“Am I your gopher? Go research it.”
—Actually, I already know the answer. I was looking for confirmation that you didn’t. Now I know- thanks.
Really? Care to show me when/where? I discuss with many people here on FR. I don’t recognize you.”
—I would, but what’s the point wasting my time?
“That is...the $100 B is an ANNUALIZED figure since the GOP was not in charge of Congress at the beginning of the fiscal year.”
—It doesn’t matter whether it’s an annualized figure. They said they were going to cut 100 B out of *this* budget... and now they have caved. It would be a different story if they did CR’s throughout 2011 and finally arrived at the 100 B... but it’s a done deal now.
“I do believe the previous CR’s were in excess of $10 B but even if your figure is correct they got most of what they set out for.”
—Well, then show me. Otherwise your claim is meaningless.
Break down the exact totals for me please... it shouldn’t be that difficult, should it?
You mean the kind of legislation in which the House gets only 1/3 of the say? Right...that'll work. Do I need a /s tag?
As you said (in ONE of your posts) the democrats were at fault. Shifting the blame doesn't help to keep it where it should be focused.
Right...you expect me to do research for you, yet you don't want to "waste your time" in lifting a finger to try to prove your point. Got it.
No, I will not go look for exact totals of what is being signed into law for you. LOL. You're an idiot.
Obviously, JB didn’t see the military pay issue coming. As long as he’s the leader of the House GOP, we’ll be playing ketchup.
I knew you didn't really blame the "donks".
Is the Exact quote from the Republican Pledge to America.
So Far we have 38.5b which yields 77b if you prorate if for all of 2010.
Now my question. Since the 2012 budget was supposed to be their first budget does the 38.5/77b Even count toward the promise. Since it came in a make up budget for 2011 that the dems refused to even consider.
By my calculation they still owe us 100b in the 2012 budget on their promise.
“I would, but whats the point wasting my time?
Right...you expect me to do research for you, yet you don’t want to “waste your time” in lifting a finger to try to prove your point. Got it.
No, I will not go look for exact totals of what is being signed into law for you. LOL. You’re an idiot. “
—Right... my comment about not wanting to waste my time concerned tracking down our previous conversation on FR a few days ago (in which you avoided responding to a simple question). It did not concern the rest of what I wrote about in my previous comment.- which of course, you are completely avoiding once again...
If you are going to make a claim, then you have to be able to back it up- and quite simply, you can’t.
All I am asking of you is an itemized breakdown of the “most of the 100 B in cuts” claim you keep making. I have no way of ascertaining the veracity of your claims without some hard evidence.
If you can’t do this simple task, then your argument fails.
You forgot the /sarc tag. Seriously, you believe how these budgets are reported in the House and the Senate and reported on by the MSM is simple?
We are in a *stronger* position to effect a *lot* more than a meager $100b in cuts *because* we didn't get the $100b (and the inevitable shut down of government that would have been required to get it).
Everyone is talking about the Ryan plan and trillions. The president is trying to play catch up, and he's failing. "Raise taxes" is the best he can do. That won't be a popular plan to release on or around April 15th in an economic slump. Financial systems are failing all over the world and some economists are saying that, with one small disaster, we will be *days* away from a complete collapse. This is even reported in the MSM.
Go ahead. Fight repubs because they didn't get you your ridiculously puny $100 billion, while they are fighting hard (and winning, btw) for trillions. Once you've unseated the folks we just got into office in the House (the Senate and Presidency are still controlled by dems, for crying out loud, and you may recall from your civics classes that they get a say in the budget as well), who do you think will be running the show? Santa?
If we don't get >$5 trillion in cuts, I'm right there with you. We need to let the Repubs know that they can't do this anymore. However, this last CR was *not* the "big test." $100 billion. Ridiculous and petty.
“You forgot the /sarc tag. Seriously, you believe how these budgets are reported in the House and the Senate and reported on by the MSM is simple?”
—I’m not looking for an MSM article- I just want the facts. It’s a Conservative hangup, I guess. Silly me.
“We are in a *stronger* position to effect a *lot* more than a meager $100b in cuts *because* we didn’t get the $100b (and the inevitable shut down of government that would have been required to get it).”
I don’t like Obamacare, Cap and Trade, NPR public funding, etc., etc. Perhaps you do. And I don’t like being lied to.
I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that the GOP is prepared for the “next” battle. And do you honestly think that Obama is going to be down with Paul Ryan’s plan? Hell, do you honestly think that once the election heat turns up on the RINOs, that they’ll even go for the plan?
But yeah, this is *the* year that Cubbies are going to win the World Series...
I can buy and sell.
It shouldn't be but all I can find of the 38.5b is
CR 5 - Cut $4 billion in spending by targeting programs that Obama has already marked for elimination and reductions
CR 6 - Supposedly cuts an additional 6 Billion from current fiscal year.
CR 7 - Supposedly cuts an additional 2 Billion from current fiscal year.
That leaves cuts of 36.5 Billion for when the 2011 budget gets signed.
A total of 48.5 Billion in Cuts. But can you name something that actually got cut? How much?
Almost like playing 3 card Monte and it should not be.
“Im not looking for an MSM article- I just want the facts. Its a Conservative hangup, I guess. Silly me.”
ROFLOL. I’m sorry. Please show me the simple breakdown of the US budget process and a clear cut, *accurate* analysis of the current numbers. Good luck, btw, as the way these budgets are calculated is ridiculously byzantine. This has nothing to do with MSM being accurate. The point was, it is not simple to be accurate.
“I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that the GOP is prepared for the next battle.”
1. Google “Obama 2012 budget.” Read the results. The articles, from MSM, lefties and every other source discuss *Ryan’s* budget and how Obama will react. That’s called controlling the debate, which is necessary to win.
2. Turn on your television. Turn it to Fox, CBS, heck, even MSNBC. Wait for the first story on the budget. What is the amount of cuts they are discussing? Your piddly $100 billion, or a more hefty sum?
3. Go to youtube. Search for Brooks, Marcus on Absurdity of Shutdown Debates, Paul Ryans Budget Plan. Go to 12:10 and listen to the liberal. Does she sound like she thinks the dems are winning? Who does she think is framing the debate?
Let’s set up a little scenario. Say it’s 2041 and you are president Qbert. We are in a war with the Mazzis whose capital is in the city of Merlin. You promised the people that we would take the Merman city of Monn. Your general comes to you and says, “Mr. President, I know you’ve promised to take Monn this year, but the situation on the ground has changed significantly. If we skip Monn, we can move right into Merlin this year and end the whole war. If we attack Monn, it will be a success, but the war will go on for much longer and will be much more costly, as it will require the resources we need to attack Merlin.” President Qbert doesn’t even think. He says, “Take Merlin now and end this thing.” All of a sudden, the Blogosphere goes crazy. “Why is he not taking Monn? He said he would take Monn. He’s a bad guy and a liar!”
If your situation changes, BPT change your plan and issue a FRAGO. All soldiers hate FRAGOs, but not issuing them means failure.
“Hell, do you honestly think that once the election heat turns up on the RINOs, that theyll even go for the plan?
But yeah, this is *the* year that Cubbies are going to win the World Series...”
We *just* elected a bunch of tea party candidates. Not enough, I’ll grant you, but let’s work on replacing dems with Tea Party candidates, not the guys we *just* elected and who sit in the minority.
It sounds like you don’t believe economic reform will *ever* be possible regardless of elections. If that’s a case, go find a bar and drink away your blues. The rest of us will continue to work for more improvements. Excuse me if you think my efforts are just too feeble. I’m not a give up and run away crying kind of guy.
The change that should be attached to any debt-limit increase should be the TOTAL ELIMINATION of all statutes that REQUIRE any spending, so that in the future, Congress will have to vote to spend each dollar every year. That way, ALL spending becomes discretionary, and subject to possibly being reduced.
Yo, bonehead (your term!): the $38B is the CUMULATIVE total of all deals done this year. The Repubs aren’t telling you this for obvious reasons; they’re happy you’re confused by the math.
I think that, perhaps, you intended this for Siena Dreaming.
However, the budget process means little to me. How the numbers are reported means a great deal.
Congress has passed a labyrinth of rules and regulations for the accounting of publicly traded corporations, and yet they continue to have the most bizarrely nontransparent reporting of any legal entity in the US.
What are these cuts? Cuts as cutting growth? Cuts as in cuts as a percent of GDP? Cuts as in cutting the actual expenditure amount? You can classify all these as “cuts,” but you have to identify which is which and keep them in their own buckets. Otherwise, the whole debate about the dollar amount is pointless.
No matter how you define “cut,” however, $36 billion or $100 billion is chump change to what we are spending. Let’s move on to the real battle: the 2012 budget.
BTW guys: NY had a similar problem this year, with huge deficits and no interest in reducing them. DEMOCRAT Gov. Cuomo walked in, told everyone the realities, told everyone to stop playing the games he knew they were playing, and got a balanced budget passed on time.
If a hyper liberal Democrat can balance a budget on time in a hyper liberal spending addicted state, the Republicans should be able to in Congress.
Reducing the deficit by 2%, when there isn’t even a budget in place, is consenting to a credit card spree - not opposition thereto.
Down at ... the floor House ...
Quar ... tet.
You got ... a Boehner?
Are you gonna’ get one?
Down at the whore “House”
Quar ... tet
[Kick the DC ruling class OUT of the House leadership! Start with the Boehner.]
I’m with you guys in spirit. God bless you hard working patriots! FRegards !
I took it as a challenge to show how convoluted where the actual cuts come from.
Which lead to the problem of accountability If we cannot determine what got cut and by how much. How do we the voter assign blame when the cuts don't materialize
The Boehner cried and cried: “We’re just one half of one third of the government. We’re just ‘wittew’ teeny weeny weenies who have ‘wittow power.”
Yeah, even a little old lady can take charge of a house if she controls the purse stringe.