House GOP group proposes deep spending cuts over next decade
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Congressional conservatives on Thursday demanded far more dramatic reductions in government spending than House GOP leaders have recently proposed, in the first sign of a fissure between old-guard Republicans and tea-party-backed newcomers.
Members of the conservative Republican Study Committee said the GOP must keep its campaign pledge to immediately slice at least $100 billion from non-defense programs, an effort that would require lawmakers to reduce funding for most federal agencies by a third over the next seven months. And the group called for even deeper cuts over the next decade to return non-defense spending to 2006 levels.
"One hundred billion dollars is the number the American people heard last fall. And, frankly, when you look at it in the context that there's a $14 trillion debt, it seems to me we should be able to find $100 billion," said Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), chairman of the study committee, a group of economic and social conservatives whose ranks have swelled since the GOP won back control of the House in the November midterm elections.
Reducing the size of the government is the top priority of many lawmakers who were swept into Congress last fall on a tide of public anger about the rising national debt and federal spending on the economy. The dispute over spending cuts is the first show of force by this new contingent and suggests that compromise with Democrats on fiscal issues could prove extraordinarily difficult.
(More here.)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Congressional conservatives on Thursday demanded far more dramatic reductions in government spending than House GOP leaders have recently proposed, in the first sign of a fissure between old-guard Republicans and tea-party-backed newcomers.
Members of the conservative Republican Study Committee said the GOP must keep its campaign pledge to immediately slice at least $100 billion from non-defense programs, an effort that would require lawmakers to reduce funding for most federal agencies by a third over the next seven months. And the group called for even deeper cuts over the next decade to return non-defense spending to 2006 levels.
"One hundred billion dollars is the number the American people heard last fall. And, frankly, when you look at it in the context that there's a $14 trillion debt, it seems to me we should be able to find $100 billion," said Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), chairman of the study committee, a group of economic and social conservatives whose ranks have swelled since the GOP won back control of the House in the November midterm elections.
Reducing the size of the government is the top priority of many lawmakers who were swept into Congress last fall on a tide of public anger about the rising national debt and federal spending on the economy. The dispute over spending cuts is the first show of force by this new contingent and suggests that compromise with Democrats on fiscal issues could prove extraordinarily difficult.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
5 Comments:
Finally, so sanity returns to government.
Remember this quote from Patrick Dempsey
"You cannot borrow your way out of debt, you cannot spend your way out of deficit, and you cannot tax your way in to prosperity"
This sums up all you need to know about fiscal responsibility and how government finances should be conducted.
Sorry, but I am not buying it ... I have heard this before ... and then once somebody's "special interest" is affected, it never happens.
Jim Jordan (R-OH) announced the list ... now, this is the same Jim Jordan that protested when Secretary Gates announced he was canceling the EFV program since it was plagued by “significant technology problems, development delays, and cost increases." The Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was placed by the Pentagon back when Ronald Reagan was President and the Soviet Union was feared as an enemy. The last time this type of vehicle was used during combat was Korea ... The EFV is designed to launch from a Navy ship up to 25 miles offshore, carrying 17 Marines. Gates, in a speech in San Francisco last August, questioned whether amphibious assaults with large numbers of Marines are still feasible, given the development of accurate missiles that are capable of hitting ships up to 60 miles offshore. "I do think it is proper to ask whether large-scale amphibious assault landings along the lines of Inchon are feasible."
The EFV program was restructured in 2007 including significant cost increases, cuts in quantities, and delayed the schedule by several years, to address significant performance problems—particularly regarding reliability—discovered during testing. (For example, the minimum accepted MTBOMF reliability was 17 hours, but by Marine Corps Test and Evaluation Agency’s (MCOTEA) measure achieved 4.5 hours ... in other words, the Mean Time Between Failure had a goal of 17 hours and it failed in a quarter of the time ... if you are in war, the last thing that you need is equipment breakdown ... stranding 17 marines inside.
Congress, through this fiscal year, has approved $3 billion.
Don't worry that the Marines don't have any equipment that they could use while the EFV is being developed ... they have the AAV. In fact, the Marine Corps plans to call for the AAV to continue to serve as its primary platform until at least 2015 and remain in service until 2025. Also they have more AAVs then they plan to buy EFVs.
Now, why would Representative Jordan protest so loudly while at the same demanding spending cuts ... my guess is that he influences by the fact that General Dynamics builds these in Lima Ohio.
That's what will happen with many of these programs. Heck, some are the same ones that President Obama proposed ... Jordan's plan includes eliminating the Market Access Program - $200 million annual savings. When Obama proposed it, Ag protests were loud and it has not happened.
Congress must address itself first ... although they will be tempted to blame President Obama. For example, Jordan's plan including cutting $1 million for mohair subsidies. So, when did these subsidies begin ... originally, federal price support for mohair was first enacted in 1947. The National Wool Act of 1954 established direct payments for wool and mohair producers. The purpose of the program was to encourage production of wool because it was considered an essential and strategic commodity. While this program was phased out in 1995, ad hoc payments were provided in 1999 and 2000 and the program was reinstituted in 2002. I forgot, WHO was in charge of the White House and Congress in 2002 ?
Other commonly cited items are things Congress can do by themselves ... cutting travel in half and cutting workforce by 15% ... the House has cut its budget 5% ... that's nothing ... they waste that much just on printed mailings to constituents.
Question : How many of these items were also mentioned by the Simpson-Bowles Commission ?
MacPherson - I couldn't agree more that in order to cut government we need elected officials to look at their own sacred cows to be cut first.
Here in the midwest, we need to end wind farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies and agriculture price supports and special break for our medical device industry among others. Walz, Kline, and Peterson all need to step up and agree to cut these subsidies. Klobuchar and Franken need to step and agree to end the special treatment given to medical device makers here in Minnesota. I could go on, but you get the point.
You may not buy the whole story on cutting government, but the fact that its even being talked about is a major deal - we haven't heard this kind of talk in decades.
Oh, I am sure there will be those who want to protect their favored subsidies and if Congress fails to act in cleaning up the fiscal mess they inherited from Pelosi, then we ought to fire the 112th Congress, too.
Fiscal hawks like me have reason to be somewhat pleased, but I require Congress to act and i hope they do and enact serious spending cuts on every single budget item.
The fiscal mess we inherited was from Bush, the result of unfunded tax cuts and runaway spending for two wars and a prescription drug bill that were unfunded.
Tom - Please explain what an 'unfunded tax cut' is. Bush left with a deficit around $450 billion and added $2.5 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama's first two deficits are aroudn $1.4 trillion each and Obama has added $4.9 trillion in debt in just two years with debt levels expected to rise to 200% of GDP by 2020.
Please, don't insult me by telling me that Obama's run up in the debt and deficits is somehow more noble because of the bogus argument of what was inherited. And the defense budget is barely 20% of the total budget, so the defense - the typical 'centrist' straw man - budget isn't nearly the drag on the budget you say it is when entitlement and transfer payments make up over 60% of the budget.
Also, can you please tell me why Obama - who had been in the Senate since 2004 - and Biden - who had been in the Senate since 1970 - 'didn't know how bad things were'? where in the hell was Biden for 38 years - sleeping? attending fundraisers? Where the hell was he? If anyone should have known how bad things were, Biden should have known, but he didn't know jack shit and he still doesn't know jack shit.
And let's not forget that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid presided over the largest debt orgy in the history of the world adding a whopping $5.5 trillion to the national debt in just four years.
Oh, but, I forgot - it's all Bush's fault. That claim is a total crock and the funny part is you know it is, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home