United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: As G.O.P. Seeks Spending Cuts, Details Are Scarce
Source:
NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20spend.html?hp
Published: Oct 20, 2010
Author: NY Times
Post Date: 2010-10-20 14:53:17 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 760
Comments: 40
In Alaska, the Republican candidate for the Senate, Joe Miller, talks about “out of control spending.” And in Arizona, Jesse Kelly, a Republican hoping to oust Representative Gabrielle Giffords, says, “We’re spending our way into bankruptcy.” If there is a single message unifying Republican candidates this year, it is a call to grab hold of the federal checkbook, slam it closed and begin to slash spending. To bolster their case that action is needed, Republicans are citing major legislation over the four years that Democrats have controlled Congress, notably the financial system bailout, the economic stimulus and the new health care law. But while polls show that the Republicans’ message is succeeding politically, Republican candidates and party leaders are offering few specifics about how they would tackle the nation’s $13.7 trillion debt, and budget analysts said the party was glossing over the difficulty of carrying out its ideas, especially when sharp spending cuts could impede an already weak economic recovery. “On the actual campaign trail, you are hearing virtually none of the kind of blatant honesty that we need about what changes would fix this situation,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group in Washington that promotes fiscal restraint. The parties share blame for the current fiscal situation, but federal budget statistics show that Republican policies over the last decade, and the cost of the two wars, added far more to the deficit than initiatives approved by the Democratic Congress since 2006, giving voters reason to be skeptical of campaign promises. Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law. The House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, has called for immediate cuts in “non-security discretionary” spending to prerecession 2008 levels. Independent analysts say that would require eliminating about $105 billion — or more than 20 percent of spending by departments like Education, Transportation, Interior, Commerce and Energy — a level of reductions that history suggests would be extremely hard to execute. (Since 1982, nonmilitary discretionary spending has never dropped by more than 5.5 percentage points in any given year.) At the same time, most Republicans are calling for the permanent extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, which would add $700 billion more to the deficit over the next 10 years than President Obama and Democratic leaders have proposed by continuing only some of the lower rates. Republicans say extending the cuts will spur economic activity, but that is hardly guaranteed. And the cost of either plan is astronomical: Mr. Obama’s plan will add more than $3 trillion to the deficit; the Republicans’ plan will add more than $4 trillion. Mr. Boehner, who is the likely speaker in a Republican-controlled House, has also said he would move to overhaul the Congressional appropriations process, to give more power to rank-and-file lawmakers, and cast sunlight on proposed expenditures. But he is likely to encounter fierce resistance among veteran appropriators who zealously protect the Congressional power of the purse enshrined in the Constitution, and who will be eager to flex the legislative muscle of their committee and subcommittee chairmanships, a main perquisite of winning a majority. On the campaign trail, many Republicans are calling for a repeal of the health care law, a step that would actually increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by eliminating some cost-saving provisions — a fact that typically goes unmentioned. Republicans counter that the full cost of the health care law will only kick in later, so that repeal would save money in the long run. “It’s very easy in the course of a campaign to run against deficit spending as this abstract monster, but when you are actually in power, you have to propose actual policies and follow through on them and that’s something they are much less willing to do,” said John Irons, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal-leaning Washington research group. “Everyone is saying there’s hard choices, there are tough decisions to be made, but not one is actually telling the voters how they would make those tradeoffs,” Mr. Irons said. “No one is saying, ‘Here’s what I would cut.’ The Boehner plan is clearly in that vein.” Some Republican candidates are pressing the anti-spending message into largely uncharted terrain. Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, has said Congress must consider paring military programs, putting him at odds with the dominant Republican view since the Reagan era. A small number of Republicans, notably Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, have called for sharp reductions to Social Security and Medicare to change the nation’s fiscal trajectory. But party leaders and candidates on the stump have largely shunned those proposals, which risk alienating core segments of voters. As a result, the campaign rhetoric has been largely general if not simplistic. “For Michael Bennet, reckless spending has become a bad habit,” a Republican attack ad against the Democratic incumbent declares in the Colorado Senate race. “Obama’s failed stimulus. Trillion-dollar government-run health care. And to pay for it? More taxes, higher national debt. Michael Bennet: he spends, we pay.” A commercial against Representative Gerry Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, shows schoolchildren stooping under the weight of heavy backpacks. “There’s a lot on the backs of our kids today, thanks to Congressman Gerry Connolly,” the ad says, urging voters to demand lower spending. In New Hampshire, Frank Guinta, a Republican running against Representative Carol Shea-Porter, declares, “We’re fed up. Government is too big; it’s spending too much money.” Ms. MacGuineas, who advised Senator John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, said that she welcomed the public’s growing recognition of the severity of the nation’s fiscal problems but that the partisan campaign rhetoric could impede the bipartisan cooperation needed to impose tough policy changes. And both sides, she said, bear responsibility. The fight over the expiring Bush-era tax cuts illustrates the point, she said. Democrats say they want to continue tax cuts only for “the middle class.” Republicans say allowing any of the reduced rates to rise again amounts to an unconscionable tax increase. For fiscal experts, it is a false choice. “The debate is between two just mind-bogglingly irresponsible approaches to tax policy,” Ms. MacGuineas said. In Congress, an early test of Republican resolve will come shortly after the election when lawmakers return to Washington for a lame-duck session. Democrats will almost certainly try to pass the regular appropriations bills, or an omnibus spending measure for the 2011 fiscal year. At that point, given the likely difficulties of enacting their own proposed cuts, Republicans will have to choose between allowing Democrats to adopt the spending measures for 2011 and being able to criticize Democrats for their choices (while also potentially securing some spending increases favored by Republicans) or using the power of Senate Republicans to filibuster and delay action on the spending bills until the new Congress takes over next year. Of course, who actually serves in the next Congress could depend on the more simplistic discussion of fiscal issues now dominating the airwaves in campaign commercials. “The reckless spending must stop,” declares a commercial for Carly Fiorina, who is running against Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. Moments later, Ms. Fiorina appears on screen. “We can make Washington work,” she says reassuringly. “Cut spending, ban earmarks.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I expect to see massive cuts in January of 2011 as the GOP assumes responsibility for the power of the purse. Remember folks, no spending bill can become law without GOP support.
Remember folks, no spending bill can become law without Democrat support and Obama's signature. Look at the fookin financial mess the libs have made!
You have to elect the Republicans before you can see what the cuts are.... Badeye, October 2010 (laughing) Whats wrong, GO65? Don't like it when you're beloved Democrats tactics are used against you? rotfl!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Remember folks, The Democrats DIDN'T PRODUCE A BUDGET THIS YEAR.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
The House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, has called for immediate cuts in “non-security discretionary” spending to prerecession 2008 levels. It's a joke. They should have called for the repeal of the entire Obama and Bush administrations. Return to 2000 spending levels across the board, adjusted for inflation. After that, start picking off crazy programs one by one. Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law. Yep, and this is a great example of a Bush program that should be repealed.
I'm just sitting laughing at the concept the deficits were Bush's fault...and will be Boehners fault....without any involvement by the party thats controlled spending since January of 2007... That dog won't hunt ANYWHERE in this country.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
That's only true for another 2 months. Once the gavel touches Boehner's hand, the GOP assumes responsibility for budgets and deficits.
The deficits will be Boehner's responsibility starting the second his hand touches the gavel.
Yeah, just pretend that 9/11 never happened....real smart. /s
Yep, the 1990 deal actually started to bring the deficit down, but it cost Bush GOP support.
You mean Obama and the demonrats will be powerless?
I'm sure Obama wishes that his administration began with a blank slate.
We spend more on the military than the next 15 countries combined. A goal of the U.S. military is to have the capability to fight 1.5 wars simultaneously. We could cut defense spending in half and still spend twice as much as Russia and China combined. Russia, China, Europe, the Philippines, etc. have all faced constant Islamic terrorist threats long before 9/11. They spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on the military, yet none of them have ever dealt with a single attack as large as 9/11. It is quite obvious that we are not getting our money's worth in terms of national defense.
That dog won't hunt ANYWHERE in this country. Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I know.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
I'm just trying to be fair. Since certain folks are arguing that the deficit is the fault of the Democrats who controlled the Congress starting in 2007, then it's only fair to assign responsibility for the deficit to Republicans who will control the House starting in 2011. Can't we all agree on that one?
yes, the Democrats will be powerless to pass any bills through Congress without GOP support.
Can't we all agree on that one? They aren't going to balance the budget next year. Yes, they should get blamed if the annual deficits get larger, stay the same, or don't drop substantially. Simply rolling back domestic discretionary spending to 2008 levels as Boehner proposes is not going to cause the deficits to drop substantially. They are going to have to roll back defense spending and make some serious reforms to entitlements.
So how you can be opposed to their cuts already?
-----------------------------------------------------------
That would seem fair.
Can't we all agree on that one? Only if the GOP House INCREASES the deficit, as the Democrats did with Pelosi, and as the previous GOP majority in the House did. Then, yes, we can agree. And I'll vote to FIRE THEM, just as I did in 2006. Which is the difference between us, GO65.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
More obvious is the fact we are not getting our money's worth in education and government.
Obama is a blank.
For that I would be forever grateful!
A good start you repetitive pissbag fucking shill/freak, would be turning off the electricity and gas in all the dimtard and rino brand new basement offices.
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. No more need for famous Dwarfisms due to his journey to the land of irrelevance:):)....until his banning I'll leave the Jerxism up... To: e_type_jag (#1) "I hate that you're off the plantation" 9-03-2010 Sheets Jerx .........(Why Fred???why the hate???....was it because my left Vibram sole made a lasting imprint on your face as I stepped over your constantly prone body and hopped the plantation wall .....:):)
Finally you admit that the 6 years of DNC Congressional control have brought us to where we are. Good for you!
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats didn't take control of the Congress until 2007. 2010-2007 = 3.
Yep, so let's downsize it all and privatize as much as possible.
Downsizing safety and security is foolish.
What does this mean? Will previous leaders actions have no further impact the day the gavel touches Boehner's hand?
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of January 3rd, not a single cent will be spent unless approved by Republicans.
Maybe because much of it is privatized.
Yep, so let's downsize it all and privatize as much as possible. Yeah, that's the ticket. Schools will operate with all the efficiency of KBR in Iraq.
Spending money on huge military bureaucracies does not make us more secure.
HUH??????
How is the teacher's union doing? How many kids' minds did you ruin today?
Here's what you wrote: Russia, China, Europe, the Philippines, etc. have all faced constant Islamic terrorist threats long before 9/11. They spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on the military, yet none of them have ever dealt with a single attack as large as 9/11. It is quite obvious that we are not getting our money's worth in terms of national defense. I answered Maybe because much of it is privatized. Here's what I'm talking about (go to the linked site for articles about privatization in Afghanistan) Private, for-profit companies are now providing the services that were once entrusted only to the public sector, which was accountable to the voters. There's now a profit to be made in running schools, incarcerating criminals, tabulating votes in national elections, providing running water, and even fighting in wars. www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=187 When services under the heading of "National Defense" are privatized the number one priority for the company providing the service is making a profit for owners. That is not always in the best interest of taxpayers.
No need to worry, I don't work in education or for government - private sector all the way.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#2. To: go65 (#1)
Remember folks, no spending bill can become law without GOP support.
#3. To: go65 (#0)
'You have to pass the bill before you can see whats in it...' Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.
#4. To: go65 (#1)
Remember folks, no spending bill can become law without GOP support
#5. To: go65 (#0)
(Edited)
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#6. To: jwpegler (#5)
#7. To: Badeye (#6)
(Edited)
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#8. To: Ibluafartsky (#2)
Remember folks, no spending bill can become law without Democrat support and Obama's signature. Look at the fookin financial mess the libs have made!
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#9. To: Badeye (#6)
I'm just sitting laughing at the concept the deficits were Bush's fault...and will be Boehners fault....without any involvement by the party thats controlled spending since January of 2007...
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#10. To: jwpegler (#5)
Return to 2000 spending levels across the board,
#11. To: jwpegler (#7)
The GOP took office in Jan 93. Their first budget was FY94. The annual deficit was already coming down.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#12. To: go65 (#8)
Once the gavel touches Boehner's hand, the GOP assumes responsibility for budgets and deficits.
#13. To: Badeye (#6)
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#14. To: Ibluafartsky (#2)
Look at the fookin financial mess the libs have made!
#15. To: Ibluafartsky (#10)
Yeah, just pretend that 9/11 never happened....real smart.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#16. To: go65 (#9)
I'm just sitting laughing at the concept the deficits were Bush's fault...and will be Boehners fault....without any involvement by the party thats controlled spending since January of 2007...
#17. To: jwpegler (#13)
#18. To: lucysmom, ibluafartsky, badeye (#14)
I'm sure Obama wishes that his administration began with a blank slate.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#19. To: Ibluafartsky (#12)
You mean Obama and the demonrats will be powerless?
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#20. To: go65 (#18)
(Edited)
I'm just trying to be fair. Since certain folks are arguing that the deficit is the fault of the Democrats who controlled the Congress starting in 2007, then it's only fair to assign responsibility for the deficit to Republicans who will control the House starting in 2011.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#21. To: go65 (#0)
(Edited)
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#22. To: go65 (#18)
Can't we all agree on that one?
#23. To: go65 (#18)
I'm just trying to be fair. Since certain folks are arguing that the deficit is the fault of the Democrats who controlled the Congress starting in 2007, then it's only fair to assign responsibility for the deficit to Republicans who will control the House starting in 2011.
#24. To: jwpegler (#15)
It is quite obvious that we are not getting our money's worth in terms of national defense.
#25. To: lucysmom (#14)
I'm sure Obama wishes that his administration began with a blank slate.
#26. To: go65 (#19)
yes, the Democrats will be powerless to pass any bills through Congress
#27. To: gotobamaina 69 (#9)
FIXING.................. The tardbots deficits will be Boehner's responsibility starting the second his hand touches the gavel.
#28. To: go65 (#9)
The deficits will be Boehner's responsibility starting the second his hand touches the gavel.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#29. To: WhiteSands (#28)
Finally you admit that the 6 years of DNC Congressional control have brought us to where we are.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#30. To: Ibluafartsky (#24)
More obvious is the fact we are not getting our money's worth in education and government.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#31. To: jwpegler (#30)
let's downsize it all
#32. To: go65 (#8)
Once the gavel touches Boehner's hand, the GOP assumes responsibility for budgets and deficits.
Liberals:
-Pro nuclear proliferation.
-Support fundamentalist religion that execute gays.
-Have no issues with inmate abuse.
-In discussions to release J.Pollard.
#33. To: WhiteSands (#32)
Will previous leaders actions have no further impact the day the gavel touches Boehner's hand?
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#34. To: jwpegler (#15)
It is quite obvious that we are not getting our money's worth in terms of national defense.
#35. To: jwpegler (#30)
More obvious is the fact we are not getting our money's worth in education and government.
#36. To: Ibluafartsky (#31)
Downsizing safety and security is foolish.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#37. To: lucysmom (#34)
Maybe because much of it is privatized.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#38. To: lucysmom (#35)
Yeah, that's the ticket.
If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist. -- Joe Sobran
#39. To: jwpegler (#37)
HUH??????
#40. To: jwpegler (#38)
How is the teacher's union doing? How many kids' minds did you ruin today?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]