• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package

Less than a week before President Obama is set to deliver his State of the Union address next Tuesday, a group of House Republicans today introduced a proposal to cut spending from more than 100 federal programs and cut back spending levels by $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

The bill, known as the Spending Reduction Act, would hold non-security discretionary spending for Fiscal Year 2011 to FY 2008 levels, and freeze non-defense discretionary spending to FY 2006 levels for a 10-year budget window – saving almost $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

It doesn't appear (so far) they have the balls to look at Medicare and other entitlements.

Here's where they talk about appeasing their base:

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-New Jersey, said the legislation fulfills the GOP’s pledge to cut spending back to 2008 levels and would also return $45 billion from the stimulus bill that has not yet been spent.

Ah, yes, the pledge...So, regardless if it has any real or meaningful effect, they did what they said and now they're off the hook? Got it.:doh

And, um, speaking of job-killing...

The measure would also eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years and would cut the civilian workforce by 15 percent through attrition -- permitting the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave the federal workforce until the reduction target has been met.

Here's a better idea, why not cut the offices that are overstaffed and overpaid, and expand the offices that are understaffed and therefore inefficient--like banking and industry regulators.
 
i didnt see anything on cutting the USDA farm subsidies program, so IMO they arent finished...
 
i didnt see anything on cutting the USDA farm subsidies program, so IMO they arent finished...

Agreed. But who wants to pay more for every single product that uses high fructose corn syrup? All the Teatards who want to pay $29.00 for a box of cereal, raise your hands.
 
GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package

Less than a week before President Obama is set to deliver his State of the Union address next Tuesday, a group of House Republicans today introduced a proposal to cut spending from more than 100 federal programs and cut back spending levels by $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

The bill, known as the Spending Reduction Act, would hold non-security discretionary spending for Fiscal Year 2011 to FY 2008 levels, and freeze non-defense discretionary spending to FY 2006 levels for a 10-year budget window – saving almost $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

It doesn't appear (so far) they have the balls to look at Medicare and other entitlements.

Here's where they talk about appeasing their base:
Rep. Scott Garrett, R-New Jersey, said the legislation fulfills the GOP’s pledge to cut spending back to 2008 levels and would also return $45 billion from the stimulus bill that has not yet been spent.


Ah, yes, the pledge...So, regardless if it has any real or meaningful effect, they did what they said and now they're off the hook? Got it.:doh

And, um, speaking of job-killing...

The measure would also eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years and would cut the civilian workforce by 15 percent through attrition -- permitting the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave the federal workforce until the reduction target has been met.

Here's a better idea, why not cut the offices that are overstaffed and overpaid, and expand the offices that are understaffed and therefore inefficient--like banking and industry regulators.

And the Dems did something about spending on Medicare and other entitlements? Oh... right.. they did... they INCREASED SPENDING there, didn't they.

So.... keeping their promises is 'appeasing their base'... it's a bad thing to keep promises. Got it.

Job killing?
cut the civilian workforce by 15 percent through attrition
You're pathetic. Not hiring new workers to fill jobs as people retire is not job killing.
 
How about actually showing us what the cuts proposed are, instead of whining...

Here’s the list of proposed cuts to federal programs, which save a total of about $330 billion, according to the committee:

*
o International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
o Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
o Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
o Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
o National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
o National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
o Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
o Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
o Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
o U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
o Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
o Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
o John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
o Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
o Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
o Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
o Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
o Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
o Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
o Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
o Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
o Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
o New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
o Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
o Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
o Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
o Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
o Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
o Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
o Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
o FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
o Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
o Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
o U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
o General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
o Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
o Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
o No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
o End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
o Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
o IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
o Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
o Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
o Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
o Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
o Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
o Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
o Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
o USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
o Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
o Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
o Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
o Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
o HUD Ph.D. Program.
o Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
 
Job killing?
You're pathetic. Not hiring new workers to fill jobs as people retire is not job killing.


For better or worse at a ratio of 2 to 1 that is minus 1 job.
 
Agreed. But who wants to pay more for every single product that uses high fructose corn syrup? All the Teatards who want to pay $29.00 for a box of cereal, raise your hands.

Seems to me that this should be exactly what the Leftist food police would love to happen.
 
And the Dems did something about spending on Medicare and other entitlements? Oh... right.. they did... they INCREASED SPENDING there, didn't they.

So.... keeping their promises is 'appeasing their base'... it's a bad thing to keep promises. Got it.

Job killing?
You're pathetic. Not hiring new workers to fill jobs as people retire is not job killing.

I'm impressed with this myself. KUDOS!
Many things the (R) promised seems likely to happen if the (D) doesn't turn into the party of No.

Here's just a few on the list. Many reflect what the people were asking for.

GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package - The Note

The bill would save $30 billion by eliminating federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, YES!

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by

Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings
 
And the Dems did something about spending on Medicare and other entitlements? Oh... right.. they did... they INCREASED SPENDING there, didn't they.

So.... keeping their promises is 'appeasing their base'... it's a bad thing to keep promises. Got it.

Actually so did republicans. Or did we forget about Bush and the prescription (unfunded) bill? The republicans in this case get credit for at least making an attempt, but it's still not the right time to cut spending(when unemployment under 6 %, then it's time to do this), and it's still just cutting programs based on what they do not like, instead of making the broad, across the board cuts(including defense) that is needed.

Job killing?
You're pathetic. Not hiring new workers to fill jobs as people retire is not job killing.

By this logic the fact that there is job creation, but slower than needed to keep up with new workers means unemployment rates are dropping. if there are fewer jobs, then there are fewer jobs.
 
returning $45 billion in unspent "stimulus" money in and of itself is a good thing.
 
It's also shrinking government, which many think is a plus.


That might be true if it applied to our Congress critters. But I hardly think cutting some gigs at the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian, etc. while have any effect on shrinking government.
 
Actually so did republicans. Or did we forget about Bush and the prescription (unfunded) bill? The republicans in this case get credit for at least making an attempt, but it's still not the right time to cut spending(when unemployment under 6 %, then it's time to do this), and it's still just cutting programs based on what they do not like, instead of making the broad, across the board cuts(including defense) that is needed.



By this logic the fact that there is job creation, but slower than needed to keep up with new workers means unemployment rates are dropping. if there are fewer jobs, then there are fewer jobs.

Do YOU define not replacing workers who retire as 'killing jobs'?
 
Do YOU define not replacing workers who retire as 'killing jobs'?

Yes, in the same way that any bill can create or reduce jobs. It's a net sum game.
 
GOP Lawmakers Unveil $2.5 Trillion Spending Cuts Package



It doesn't appear (so far) they have the balls to look at Medicare and other entitlements.

Here's where they talk about appeasing their base:



Ah, yes, the pledge...So, regardless if it has any real or meaningful effect, they did what they said and now they're off the hook? Got it.:doh

And, um, speaking of job-killing...



Here's a better idea, why not cut the offices that are overstaffed and overpaid, and expand the offices that are understaffed and therefore inefficient--like banking and industry regulators.

This is good. We either need to cut spending or raise taxes or some combination of the two. We should welcome any input in getting the government's books back in check.
 
Yes, in the same way that any bill can create or reduce jobs. It's a net sum game.

I guess I just see not replacing a worker once they retire, and thus losing a job through attrition, as letting it die a natural death... indirect... while directly ending a job is killing it.. directly.

Poe-tay-toe vs. Poe-tah-toe.
 
I guess I just see not replacing a worker once they retire, and thus losing a job through attrition, as letting it die a natural death... indirect... while directly ending a job is killing it.. directly.

Poe-tay-toe vs. Poe-tah-toe.

If a place has 50 employees, and decides to let attrition reduce manning to 25 employees, 25 jobs have been lost in the economy.
 
A lot of those are making me wince, but I can see the necessity of cutting most of them as part of plan to impose fiscal responsibility. But in order for this to be really effective, we need to cut into at least as many Republican-sponsored subsidies, and ideally have some tax increases.
 
Where is the outrage over all the money that is being wasted in the development of the new F-22 raptor that looks like it is going to be scrapped and has cost tax payers billions with likely nothing to show?
 
A lot of those are making me wince, but I can see the necessity of cutting most of them as part of plan to impose fiscal responsibility. But in order for this to be really effective, we need to cut into at least as many Republican-sponsored subsidies, and ideally have some tax increases.

are you implying that every one of those was a Democrat-sponsored program? Do you have a link showing this?
 
A lot of those are making me wince, but I can see the necessity of cutting most of them as part of plan to impose fiscal responsibility. But in order for this to be really effective, we need to cut into at least as many Republican-sponsored subsidies, and ideally have some tax increases.

I disagree with ANY tax increases.
However, that is a very long list of spending cuts. Are you saying that most are (D) sponsored subsidies? I don't know, just asking. If so, than I agree with you on that.
 
I'm all for shrinking wasteful Gov. But just eliminating jobs for the sake of looking good...

is not even remotely what that list says. Of course, your partisan hackery would prevent something that obvious from registering in your brain.
 
Back
Top Bottom