That's the down side?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 01/25/2011 4:23:05 AM PST by tobyhill
Republicans controlling the House are putting members on record in favor of cutting the day-to-day budgets for domestic Cabinet agencies back to the levels in place before President Barack Obama won the White House.
Tuesday's vote comes on a nonbinding resolution that promises cuts approaching 20 percent of the budgets for agencies like the Education and Commerce departments when Congress wraps up the long-overdue budget for the current fiscal year. The White House warns that such cuts would mean furloughs of tens of thousands of federal workers.
"The time to exercise our power of the purse with discipline and restraint is long overdue," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "We must return to pre-bailout, pre-binge levels of funding for the federal government."
The actual GOP cuts would be made in a follow-up spending bill slated to advance next month and are sure to encounter strong resistance from the Democratic-controlled Senate and from Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Setting aside for a moment the actual arguments of the authority Congress has to spend taxpayer money on much of what the government does, a balanced budget (and then a surplus) could easily be achieved in a few years by this rollback and then holding the budget to a zero increase in actual dollars.
Departments would be able to deal with labor costs via attrition.
You’re right. It is s start.
Then we need to cut the budgets of non-constitutional portions of the fedgov to -0-. Probably 75% of fedgov spending can be safely cut without losing any Constitutional capacities.
They will kiss his ass tonight so hard that boehner’s lips will bleed.
LLS
I hope they start eliminating all funding for agencies like the EPA, HUD, DOE, HHS, etc.
...”I hope they start eliminating all funding for agencies like the EPA, HUD, DOE, HHS, etc”...
That would be a great start towards “healing our land.”
Wait a second, while I never had a problem with 'pre-Obama spending levels', back in '08 the story was that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor/apologies to drunken sailors.
Everyone changing their mind or something?
Everyone changing their mind or something?
Yes, there is some convenient amnesia going on here.
There is need for severe spending cuts RIGHT NOW. We shall see if they occur. I have my doubts.
It’s a start, although I have my doubts too...
Everyone changing their mind or something?
Bush was spending like a drunken sailor. But we have to start somewhere.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We've been incrementalized into this mess and we'll have to incrementalize ourselves back out.
There is absolutely nothing to “endorse” about Lyndon Baines Bush’s last budget or any of his other budgets for that matter. Endorse the spending levels in Clinton’s last budget and I’ll be happy. Seriously—going back a decade wouldn’t hurt us one bit.
How much would be saved by totally eliminating Education and Energy, to start with? Do we really need Homeland Security? Personally, I felt a lot safer without it, or is it just Big Sis that makes me nervous?
That's the down side?
I disagree with this incremental approach. The Republicans should do what the DemonRATS did: OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.
Propose to:
Eliminate the Dept of Education
Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture subsidies, especially ethanol worth BILLIONS
Eliminate Dept of Energy
Cut EPA
ABOLISH FREDDIE AND FANNIE
CUT HUD by 50 % and then phase it out over five years
Cut ALL FOREIGN AID
CUT USAID from the STATE DEPT. Cut the State Dept, itself by 50%.
CUT the Dept of Commerce by 50%
Eliminate ALL corporate subsidies.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!!
CUT, CUT, CUT!!!!!
If you try for $14 trillion in cuts, maybe you get $7 trillion. That’s the way to do it!! It’s time to have a discussion about every single stupid budget item.
debt went from $9.5 trillion to $14 trillion in 2 years.
$2.25 trillion per year
taxes collected avg about $2 trillion per year.
we’ve been spending $4.25 trillion each year. reducing that by $250 billion, or 5%, won’t get us anywhere. its the amount they will dangle to make the sheep go back to sleep... as they continue to spend money we don’t have. why? to destroy the country by following the USSRs mistakes
government spending MUST be under the taxes collected in order to stabilize the debt. to actually pay off the debt, government spending must be well UNDER the amount collected.
common sense... politicians on both sides seem to be lacking
why should ANYONE continue to fund these people?
Right now we've got an alternative with a rep-congress, and I'm hoping that posters remember how much they liked Pelosi before they stab the rep-congress in the back.
Then, for the years when not doing zero-baseline budgeting, any increase should be held to inflation minus some percentage, so that the government sector shrinks relative to the overall economy...instead of growing.
The private sector has had to do more with less. It's time that government tightens their belt, too.
How much private sector income is sacrificed in order to support these people in the first place? If the private sector could keep more of it's money, there would be enough growth to employ these people...assuming they have some marketable skills.
It’s a matter of perpective. Compared to Obama, Drunken-Sailor Bush is “the good old days”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.