Conservatives Push House GOP Leaders for Deeper Spending Cuts (Garrett vs. Boehner)

WSJ blogs - Washington Wire ^ | 1/25/11 | By Patrick O'Connor

[dead]

During the GOP’s last stand in the majority, conservatives relished their role as spoilers for the Republican leadership.

Apparently, old habits die hard.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.), who handles budget and spending issues for the conservative Republican Study Committee, sent Speaker John Boehner a letter on Monday urging party brass to cut $100 billion by the end of September — a far deeper target than the one GOP leaders set for themselves.

Republican leaders, including Mr. Boehner, promised to cut $100 billion this year as part of the “Pledge to America” in the weeks leading up to the 2010 midterm elections. That amount has caused them headaches, though, because the new Congress is now four months into the current fiscal year, meaning cuts must be far greater to meet the $100 billion target.

The letter, from a group whose clout within the party has expanded since Republicans were booted from power in 2006, heaps additional pressure on the speaker and other party leaders, who wanted to cut roughly $60 billion – or about 20% — from the discretionary spending budget not dedicated to national security. That, they argue, would return spending to 2008 levels, before President Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office.

“We believe the first step in restoring the trust of the American people and rebuilding the American economy is, simply, to do what we said we would do during the campaign,” Mr. Garrett wrote...

[Hoodat]

Heck yes! CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT!!!

[RC2]

Do people realize that we give foreign aid to China, Russia, etc? This has got to stop. Who are we paying off and who is getting the kickbacks?

[JPG]

FORWARD, MARCH is the will of the people but Boehner likes to do the half-step. Pick up the pace, John.

[Michael Barnes]

ALL foreign aid must end post haste at this point. We have to take care of our own backyard first (which includes puling out of the multitude of countries our Military are stationed in and no longer needed in).

[org.whodat]

So far the lame duck republicans increased spending by a trillion, so to get any real reduction you need to get past the first trillion reduction to start having any cuts. That means the 100 billions does not mean crap.

[org.whodat]

So far the lame duck republicans increased spending by a trillion, so to get any real reduction you need to get past the first trillion reduction to start having any cuts. That means the 100 billions does not mean crap.

[ScottinVA]

I’m more than a little worried that Boehner is going to go soft on spending. He’d better stand tall.