Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Republicans Lower Goal for Cuts to Budget
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.

While House Republicans were never expected to succeed in enacting cuts of that scale, given opposition in the Senate from the Democratic majority and some Republicans, and from President Obama, a House vote would put potentially vulnerable Republican lawmakers on record supporting deep reductions of up to 30 percent in education, research, law enforcement, transportation and more.

Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

Yet “A Pledge to America,” the manifesto House Republicans published last September, included the promise, “We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone.”

Republican leaders have repeatedly invoked the number. On Tuesday the Web site for Representative John A. Boehner, the incoming House speaker, included a link to his national radio address on the Saturday before the midterm elections, in which he said, “We’re ready to cut spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving roughly $100 billion almost immediately.”

Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who will become chairman of the House Budget Committee, said in December that the goal was to cut “a good $100 billion.” At issue is so-called discretionary domestic spending, which is about one-sixth of the federal budget and does not include the more expensive and fast-growing entitlement programs like Medicare.

On Tuesday, aides to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Boehner blamed Democrats’ failure to pass the regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011 for forcing Republicans to reduce their goal to perhaps $50 billion to $60 billion.

“House Republicans will continue to work to reduce spending for the final six months of this fiscal year — bringing nonsecurity discretionary spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels — yielding taxpayers significant savings and starting a new era of cost cutting in Washington,” said Conor Sweeney, communications director for Mr. Ryan.

Because Democrats did not pass appropriations bills last year, the government has been operating since October with appropriations continuing at the previous fiscal year’s levels. It will do so until March 4, five months into this fiscal year.

The current spending levels are lower than Mr. Obama had requested for nonmilitary programs; he proposed a freeze at 2010 levels but with increases for some favored programs. The Republicans’ campaign promise was based on their calculation they could cut $100 billion from Mr. Obama’s higher levels.

Yet when Republicans issued their pledge last fall, it was clear that Congress would resort to a stopgap spending measure for at least part of 2011 and that, assuming Republicans won a majority, they would not be able to start work until the new Congress convened this month.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said, “I think they woke up to the reality that this will have a direct negative impact on people’s lives.

“You know, it’s easy to talk about these things in the abstract. It’s another thing when you start taking away people’s college loans and Pell Grants or cutting early education programs.”

89Hen wrote:Over promise and under deliver. A novel idea in Washington.

ASUG8 wrote:
Yep, but at least the $50-60 Billion is going in the right direction.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Yep, but at least the $50-60 Billion is going in the right direction.

Yep. At that pace we'll pay off the debt in 2360.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Obama's said plenty of times he'd like to cut the deficit by half before he leaves office. I don't recall you ever saying "at least the intent is there" when he's said similar things.

89Hen wrote: Cutting by a smaller amount vs spending more than ever... uh, yeah.

ASUG8 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Yep. At that pace we'll pay off the debt in 2360.

I'll take a snail's pace paying it off vs. adding to it. I'm not defending the already failed campaign promise, but at least the intent is there. Now whether they actually do it is another question entirely.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Obama's said plenty of times he'd like to cut the deficit by half before he leaves office. I don't recall you ever saying "at least the intent is there" with his goals for the deficit.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I'll take a snail's pace paying it off vs. adding to it. I'm not defending the already failed campaign promise, but at least the intent is there. Now whether they actually do it is another question entirely.

You mean like Clinton was doing?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

89Hen wrote: Cutting by a smaller amount vs spending more than ever... uh, yeah.

And Congresssional Republicans have a great record on spending?

I'd be surprised if every year for the last 20 years wasn't "more spending than ever."

89Hen wrote: And how many of the newly elected Congressmen were in Congress in the last 20 years?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Obama's said plenty of times he'd like to cut the deficit by half before he leaves office. I don't recall you ever saying "at least the intent is there" with his goals for the deficit.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Obama's said plenty of times he'd like to cut the deficit by half before he leaves office. I don't recall you ever saying "at least the intent is there" with his goals for the deficit.

AZGrizFan wrote:
so, he quadruples the deficit in two years, than says he wants to cut it in half and you want us to celebrate?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
so, he quadruples the deficit in two years, than says he wants to cut it in half and you want us to celebrate?

um. i think you're confused, old man. try to pay attention. he said he would make it his goal to cut the deficit in half back in 2009. will he? i dunno, it will be tough. if he follows through on it... the budget deficit in 2012 will be ~500 billion. but, i was just saying that i don't remember the GOPers saying "at least the intent is there" when he said it. seems they want to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt. why? i don't know.

i do find it pretty hilarious that the GOP took the House back by running on the urgency of cutting the deficit... how huge of a problem it is and how it would be priority #1 if elected... and now they only want to cut 50-60 billion in spending (and who knows if they'll even follow through on that).

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
um. i think you're confused, old man. try to pay attention. he said he would make it his goal to cut the deficit in half back in 2009. will he? i dunno, it will be tough. if he follows through on it... the budget deficit in 2012 will be ~500 billion. but, i was just saying that i don't remember the GOPers saying "at least the intent is there" when he said it. seems they want to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt. why? i don't know.

i do find it pretty hilarious that the GOP took the House back by running on the urgency of cutting the deficit... how huge of a problem it is and how it would be priority #1 if elected... and now they only want to cut 50-60 billion in spending (and who knows if they'll even follow through on that).

Point of order- the article specifically says that the first year figure was rolled back because the fiscal year will be half gone before any new changes to the budget can take effect.

I would expect more aggressive goals out of the 2012 budget.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
so, he quadruples the deficit in two years, than says he wants to cut it in half and you want us to celebrate?

um. i think you're confused, old man. try to pay attention. he said he would make it his goal to cut the deficit in half back in 2009. will he? i dunno, it will be tough. if he follows through on it... the budget deficit in 2012 will be ~500 billion. but, i was just saying that i don't remember the GOPers saying "at least the intent is there" when he said it. seems they want to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt. why? i don't know.

i do find it pretty hilarious that the GOP took the House back by running on the urgency of cutting the deficit... how huge of a problem it is and how it would be priority #1 if elected... and now they only want to cut 50-60 billion in spending (and who knows if they'll even follow through on that).

Ivytalk wrote:So there's weeping and wailing about the extent of the GOP budget cuts, huh? What would you rather have: a GOP Congress that actually achieves $60 billion in cuts, or a BHO and his Donk cohorts whose policy profligacy (and studious avoidance of any impoundment power) is already legendary after a mere two years?