Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

$100 Billion Jackpot

On the homepage, a look at how Tea Party freshman successfully lobbied for a full $100 billion in spending cuts. In doing so, they are fulfilling — this time beyond all reasonable doubt — a critical component of the GOP “Pledge to America.”

And a bit of an update: Following an impromptu evening caucus meeting, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) reaffirmed the party’s commitment to include $100 billion worth of cuts in a forthcoming spending resolution, telling reporters: “What we heard here was a commitment to the $100 billion reduction number.”

Republicans will release the proposal on Friday, and likely bring it to the floor next week for debate, amendments and eventually a vote.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   10

EXPAND  

 Vox
   02/10/11 20:26

OK, $100B is a lot of cheddar, but we really, REALLY need to drop closer to $500B.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
GOP on Parole
   02/10/11 21:17

Nice. Finally living up to the "choice not an echo" mantra. Keep it up - this is only a start.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Fred Gilham
   02/10/11 21:31

I feel like I'm in some dystopic wonderland. $100 billion is not even the right order of magnitude. You are missing a zero in there somewhere, folks. It's like the Austin Powers movie where Dr. Evil wakes up in 1995 and demands the incredible sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

I no longer consider myself a conservative because I keep seeing stuff like this happen. A couple years ago a $1 trillion deficit would have seemed unthinkable. But now that it is here, conservatives accept it in principle and make merely symbolic cutbacks. Conservatives are still willing to steal from our children at the rate of $1.4 trillion a year.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/11 21:44

This is a modest start. Good news to be sure, but it is a START. Next year we need another 100 billion and so on till the budget is truly under control. And that only happens if we roll back Obamacare, the prescription drug entitlement expansion, and cut back eligibility on medicare and social security.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Demosthenes
   02/10/11 22:29

Wow, a 7% cut in the deficit that has ZERO chance of passing, since it is entirely unrealistic. (Did anyone look at what is being cut? It is designed to fail). This is nothing more than a disingenuous political stunt, as anyone who is not a fact-free ideologue would recognize. If the politicians were serious about cutting the deficit -- and we know, in our hearts of hearts that they are not -- they would be cutting defense and some of the entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare). But, these weasels have no intention of doing so.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/10/11 23:26

Why do people keep asking for bigger reductions immediately? I agree that it is only a start. But you have to start somewhere!

Remember, this is a drop for only 1/2 of a budget year. And it has had to happen at an accelerated pace from the normal budget process. There isn't really that much of the budget that is discretionary any more.

The HARD work is coming when and if they tackle entitlement reform. Until that happens, they are working with a rather small lever.

It is a promising FIRST step and we should simply say well done and look for more to come.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
CARep
   02/11/11 01:13

The pledge was to drop $100 billion from the current CR levels, not from Obama's requested increased levels. Looks like a bit of subterfuge by Rogers, who already complained that deeper cuts might force the layoff of federal employees (and we can't have that!!!). Rogers is no tea partier and is going to be a thorn in our sides.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Robert W.
   02/11/11 01:49

$100 Billion is but a tiny, tiny start: External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Indy
   02/11/11 09:16

If this were the private sector, there would be layoffs of employees. It's time the Feds reduce the workforce, agencies need to be consolidated, some cut, organizations flattened, difficult decisions must be made now. Some are easy, why fund the NEA? The National Endowment for the Arts is not a necessary government function...let them seek funding from corporations and citizens who wish to donate.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
oosamon
   02/11/11 11:18

Still disappointed. More leadership, please.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact