[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Water Cooler Title: Republicans Plan $100 Billion Budget Cut as Early Act If They Take Power Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Republicans plan to try to slash $100 billion from the federal budget as early as January if they wrest power from Democrats in this year’s midterm elections, setting up possible early showdowns with President Barack Obama on taxes and spending. A Republican House takeover would thrust new committee heads, such as Representative Dave Camp on the Ways and Means panel, into the spotlight within weeks -- or days -- of seizing their gavels in early January. They would confront quick political tests that could alienate independent voters and Tea Party activists alike, analysts said. “The major issues are going to be fiscal, and fiscal issues are always contentious,” said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. Carrying out spending cuts that Republicans have pledged to seek -- which would amount to 21 percent of the government’s so-called discretionary money pot -- could prove politically difficult. Reducing funds for programs such as college loans for low-income students or medical research at the National Institutes of Health is harder than promising to do that on the campaign trail. ‘Political Repercussions’ Republicans “will quickly find out that across-the-board cuts have political repercussions,” Pitney said. A lame-duck session of Congress convening two weeks after the Nov. 2 elections will try to fund the government next year and deal with Bush-era tax cuts expiring Dec. 31. Prospective Republican House control could be an obstacle to Democrats in finishing that work before adjourning. Camp and other Republicans would then need to grapple with those tasks as they take over, even as they push their promised budget cuts. The backdrop is a federal deficit that the Congressional Budget Office said totaled $1.29 trillion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. At 8.9 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, it was the second-biggest shortfall since 1945. The following reviews the battle lines likely to be drawn in top House committees under Republican rule, and looks at the potential panel leaders who would preside over the fights: If Democrats fail to fund the government through September 2011, the end of the federal fiscal year, this committee would be the stage for that fight in the new Congress. And settling on the panel’s chairman would be one of the initial tasks facing Republicans. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, his party’s speaker-in-waiting, called for the $100 billion budget cut on Sept. 23 as part of a governing agenda aimed at wooing voters. The cuts, which weren’t specified, would come from the $477 billion Congress allocated in 2010 for non-defense domestic discretionary programs. Social Security and Medicare are among the programs excluded from the proposed 21 percent reductions in discretionary spending. Obama’s request for $73.4 billion for the Department of Education in the 2011 budget, including $23 billion for Pell Grants to help low-income students afford college, offers one example of the tough choices the Republicans would face. A 21 percent cut across-the-board would take about $15 billion from education. A 21 percent cut in Pell Grants would subtract almost $5 billion from the program. HHS Budget Obama asked Congress for $76.4 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services. Almost half that -- $32 billion - -is for NIH, which includes the National Cancer Institute and other research facilities. A 21 percent cut would slash NIH funding by more $6 billion. The question of which Republican would lead the Appropriations panel is complicated by the six-year limit the party placed on how long a lawmaker could serve as its leading member on a committee. Representative Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, reaches that limit at year’s end. He has said he will seek a waiver to allow him to take the committee’s helm. Lewis, 76, initially balked when Boehner pushed House Republicans to embrace a moratorium on lawmaker-sponsored projects, known as earmarks. Lewis reversed his position last year, gaining favor with Boehner. Representative Hal Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, would be the likely committee head if Lewis fails in his bid. Rogers, 72, is known for steering funding for road improvements and other projects to his state and district. The Lexington, Kentucky, Herald Leader once dubbed him the “Prince of Pork.” Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama has two years left as the leading Republican on this panel, putting him in line for the chairmanship. Boehner’s staff tried to oust him two years ago for his handling of negotiations over the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- they thought he agreed to a deal that they’d rejected. At this point, it looks like Bachus, 62, will avoid another challenge. Still, the panel’s Republican membership, currently dominated by small-government, free-market advocates, could be reshuffled. Some of the 29 Republican members are expected to move to Ways and Means, particularly if their party wins the majority. And as the majority, Republicans could fill at least 12 additional slots on the financial services panel. It would be a plum assignment for freshmen who might face a tough contest two years from now, since the committee has become a good place to raise campaign cash. The panel would be the scene for any move to revamp mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans want to limit the government’s exposure to their loan portfolios. While some Republicans talk of trying to repeal the president’s financial-markets overhaul, the party may resist that, given the virtual certainty of an Obama veto. Camp, of Michigan, typically favors policy debates over political sniping. He has the closest thing to a chairmanship lock on any of the so-called “A” committees -- which include Appropriations and Energy and Commerce. Should the lame-duck Congress end up deadlocked over extending the income tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush, Camp’s panel would be at the center of resolving the impasse. Republicans want to extend the cuts across the board, contending that would aid a U.S. economy struggling to grow after the longest recession in seven decades. Democrats want to limit the extensions, continuing the lower rates for individual income up to $200,000 and up to $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Camp, 57, has advocated making all the cuts permanent. One of the few Republicans offering concrete proposals for cutting federal spending has been Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who would take the helm of the Budget Committee. His “Roadmap for America’s Future” would establish a voucher system for Medicare, scrap the current tax exemptions for employer-sponsored health benefits in favor of individual tax credits, and let workers under the age of 55 steer a portion of their Social Security taxes into private accounts. The plan elevated Ryan, 40, from an up-and-comer to a full-fledged political star. It also became a punching bag for Democrats, and some Republicans distanced themselves from its proposals, concerned they would be viewed as too extreme by independent voters. How vigorously Ryan promotes his ideas in committee should provide early clues of how much sway the Tea Party push for significantly limited government has gained. Representative Joe Barton of Texas is term-limited as the top Republican on this panel, leaving three others likely to vie for the chairmanship: John Shimkus, 52, of Illinois, Cliff Stearns, 69, of Florida, and Fred Upton, 57, of Michigan, whose seniority on the committee gives him an edge. The panel oversees the Department of Health and Human Services, which would give it a primary role in any bid to “repeal and replace” the health-care overhaul Obama got enacted this year. The committee could also keep a spotlight on the law -- and make changes to it -- through hearings on new rules the department will be writing to implement it. Additionally, the panel has authority over the health-care industry, the energy sector, the telecommunications industry, and commercial products, including tobacco. Upton, a journalism major at the University of Michigan, worked in the Office of Management and Budget under former President Ronald Reagan. He has taken some positions, such as supporting stem-cell research, that put him at odds with most of his Republican colleagues. Oversight and Government Reform Chairmanship of this panel would give Representative Darrell Issa of California subpoena power over the Obama administration in a Republican House, handing him a political tool he has said he would use. Issa, 56, said he wants to work with Obama aides to probe the Minerals and Management Service and its cozy relationship with the industries it oversees. Bipartisan comity might be tough to muster, though, if Issa also demands testimony from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner about government bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry, or pushes to subpoena White House officials about job offers made to Democrats who challenged incumbent senators in primaries. Any overhaul of immigration laws must go through this panel, which Representative Lamar Smith of Texas would preside over. Smith, whose first House race in 1986 was run by Republican political strategist Karl Rove, wants to shelve any discussion on such matters as a boost in visas for legal immigrant workers and a pathway to legal permanent residency for some of the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to focus solely on securing the border with Mexico. “I’m still of the mind that we have to secure the border first,” said Smith, 62. Transportation and Infrastructure Obama has made infrastructure spending a priority, proposing a public-private fund to invest in roads, railways and an updated air-traffic control system. Representative John Mica of Florida would likely head this committee for the Republicans. Mica, 67, supports focusing high-speed rail construction in the Northeast and opposes lines in Ohio and California that Obama has proposed. Mica also wants to speed the approval process for federal road-building projects. Congress continues to grapple with whether to overturn the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which allows gay and lesbian soldiers to serve on condition they don’t reveal their sexual orientation. Under a Republican majority, Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California would oversee this panel’s debate on the issue. McKeon, 72, has opposed previous efforts to kill the policy, most recently saying no change should be made until the Pentagon issues a report in December on attitudes within the ranks on such a move. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban-born Floridian who in 1982 became the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress, would head this committee. The issues facing it include whether to impose future sanctions on Iran. Ros-Lehtinen, 58, is a staunch supporter of Israel. In an Oct. 20 speech, she said “extremists target Israeli citizens and seek Israel’s destruction. The UN isolates and demonizes the Jewish state.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
Peanuts. The U.K. government just slashed TOTAL spending by 19%. Some programs were cut by as much as 25%. Other programs were cut less, like defense (8% cut). Everything was cut. Social Security is now running deficits. Over the next decade, Medicare is even in worse shape (in part because of the GOP's Medicare part D). The U.S. government has troops in over half of the countries on earth. We are borrowing money from China to defend other countries from China. WTF??? We are borrowing money from Europe to defend rich Europe against who??? Who is going to stop the madness? Obama? Boehner? McConnell? I don't see it.
The U.K. government just slashed TOTAL spending by 19%. Some programs were cut by as much as 25%. Other programs were cut less, like defense (8% cut). Everything was cut. Social Security is now running deficits. Over the next decade, Medicare is even in worse shape (in part because of the GOP's Medicare part D). The U.S. government has troops in over half of the countries on earth. We are borrowing money from China to defend other countries from China. WTF??? We are borrowing money from Europe to defend rich Europe against who??? The GOP isn't going to touch Medicare, Defense or Social Security, and they've committed to both undoing the medicare cuts passed by Obama and extending the Bush tax cuts. So in order to balance the budget, they have to cut $1.2 trillion from $421 billion in discretionary spending. I am looking forward to their math exercise.
I agree. Boehner and McConnell have certainly said that that the entitlements are off limits, which is unfortunate because there has to some changes just to keep the programs afloat until the baby boomers die off. The GOP "leadership" is completely out to lunch of defense. We could cut the military budget in half and still spend twice as much as Russia and China combined. All of this extra defense spending is not making us more secure. It's making the military more wasteful and bureaucratic, which makes us less secure. Again, my view is that we'll see what happens with the vote to raise the debt ceiling. That will tell us what to expect for the next two years.
Again, my view is that we'll see what happens with the vote to raise the debt ceiling. That will tell us what to expect for the next two years. yep. But even if they were to touch defense the basic problem is that you can't cut spending and increase job growth in a recession. If they try and institute massive spending cuts next year, it will only exacerbate the job losses we're going to see from the reverse stimulus that is forcing large cuts in state/local government budgets (did you see the article I posted yesterday about Texas being $25 billion in the hole?) If we start to see unemployment climb again next year while the GOP screams about more spending cuts, you might see a 45 state sweep for Obama in 2012.
I usually follow what you are saying even though we disagree a lot. On this point, I don't understand. At all. Perhaps, maybe when the economy was more static one could argue that defense spending actually helped. No longer. The economy is so diverse and so dependent on innovation that no one can control it and direct it, even the government. If Facebook were a country, it would be the 3rd largest country in the world behind China and India. What government agency could have invented this? ditto for Google. When I was in high school, we had to go to the "library" to research anything. Now a very large part of the all of the information in the world is at my fingertips and referencable on Google, Bing, and other internet services. Good bye Dewey Decimal system (and thank god for that). What government agency invented this? Yes, the world went through an centralized "industrial" phase. Now we're out of it. Of course, the rotten government that was created in the 20th century doesn't want to let go. We have to make them let go. That is the challenge in a nutshell.
Perhaps, maybe when the economy was more static one could argue that defense spending actually helped. No longer. My point is that massive cuts in federal spending will lead to more job losses. Again, note that in the most recent jobs report, government sector jobs were down by nearly 160,000. This will get a lot worse just because state governments don't have stimulus funds anymore. Add in hundreds of thousands of job losses that federal cuts will add and you are making a dire unemployment situation worse. We can debate defense cuts till the cows come home, but you and I both know that the GOP will NOT propose any cuts in defense.
Good. Less govt workers means more freedom. Means more people have their own money. Means they spend it on stuff that is useful and creates real jobs. Not paper shuffling and I'm going to tell you what to do jobs.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Except that in 1937 in the U.S. and more recently in the Baltics and Ireland, government austerity led to reduce economic activity, which reduced tax revenues, which off-set the spending cuts, which meant that the budgets were essentially back where they started in terms of deficit. Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Conservatives don't state that fact enough. Thanks for bringing it up.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|