Last night, House Republicans announced that we will cut at least $100 billion in spending in seven months, an unprecedented and historic effort to get our fiscal house in order and restore certainty to the economy. This is a just a start, we have much more work to do to really change our country’s fiscal path — and you will see that take shape in the budget that Chairman Paul Ryan is putting together.
Unfortunately, not everyone is serious about getting our fiscal house in order. Immediately after we announced our spending-package agreement, Senators Reid and Schumer began a fear campaign, pushing panicked messages that this Continuing Resolution will result in a government shutdown and accused Republicans of not being serious.
Their statements (below) are akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater and only serve as a distraction from the fact that Democrats aren’t willing to work with us to cut spending and create jobs.
● Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center, said: “They are blindly swinging a meat axe to the budget when they should be using a scalpel. Some of these House Republicans won’t be satisfied with anything less than a shutdown of the government.”
Senator Schumer also said: “The infighting amongst Republicans is causing gridlock that could risk a government shutdown.”
● Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “After all, you can lose a lot of weight by cutting off your arms and legs. But no doctor would recommend it.”
If we want to get our economy growing again so that Americans can get back to work, it’s time for both political parties to stop the scare tactics and get serious. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like the leadership in the Senate is there yet.
— Rep. Eric Cantor is the House majority leader.
Dear Representative Cantor,
The Democratic Party ALWAYS uses scare tactics on spending cuts. And from their perspective it makes perfect sense. Dependency is the air that they breathe. Cutting a program is like putting an alligator clip on their breathing tube.
Plus, it works, because the GOP always runs for the hills as soon as they say it. The right answers to Reid and Shumer are:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse- When the Government shut down for all these snowstorms, nobody seemed to notice.
- Republicans are infighting over draconian vs. merely shocking spending cuts. If he has any suggestions for more cuts, we're all ears.
- Doctors overwhelmingly do not recommend Obamacare, but you voted for that!
good. let them defend spending. the more they ignore reality, the more senate seats we flip in 2012.
no one is buying what they are selling any more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it their case that current spending levels are perfectly peachy? Could someone be so dellusional? Is the solvency of the nation a game to them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent rejoinders, hokkoda. I would add the observation that cutting a hundred billion out of a 1.4 Trillion dollar budget is not comparable to the amputation of limbs. On that scale, it's more like trimming your toenails. Still leaves plenty of room to make that appointment for a little liposuction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRep. Cantor, I'm grateful for your service to our country. Thank you!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many times have we heard that refrain - "we need to use a scalpel, not an axe." As we've learned after the jillionth time, that's code language for "We don't intend to cut anything!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo ReHeller: This isn't a $100 billion cut out of $1.4 trillion, its a $1.4 billion cut out of $477 billion in discretionary spending for remainder of the year. It is literally $1 out of every $5 the government spends, and the largest cut in the history of the country. It's important to get your facts straight before you criticize.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereheiler, the *deficit* is ~$1.5T. The (proposed) budget is $3.5T. Cutting $100B from $3.5T is less than 3%, so I entirely agree the "radical amputation" comparison by Reid is laughably inapt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere isn't any budget, anywhere, that can't survive a 5% (if not 10%) cut without "draconian" results.
To suggest government budgets cannot be trimmed just like private budgets is ludicrous. In fact, government budgets larded by the fact that they virtually never get cut, are likely to be fairly easy to reduce without significant "pain".
Every adult who's ever had to manage a budget, of any kind, knows this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow that you guys mentioned it, Chuck Shumer 'is' a bit like an ingrown toenail...a painful, swollen, puss-filled abscess that gets under your skin and causes irritation; usually resulting from poor hygiene.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've come to the conclusion that spending less money isn't a solution Democrats - and particularly liberal Democrats - are comfortable with. No matter how bad the financial crisis, spending less isn't something they have the courage to do and they don't want anyone else doing it either. For most Americans, spending less is the first thing we think of when money is in short supply and we look for the things in our budget that we can cut or spend less on. But the liberal mind just doesn't work that way. Everything in the liberal budget is an absolute necessity that we cannot do without.
On my way home from work last evening, I heard part of an interview with one of the Chicago Mayoral candidates and, of course, the issue of the financial crisis in Chicago was discussed. When the interviewer asked the candidate how he would return Chicago to economic health, the man talked for five minutes on the subject without ever saying the words "spending cuts." He provided one pie-in-the-sky proposal after another for creating new revenue sources. And that's when it hit me that the liberal solution to every problem is to throw more money at it. So while most of us are demanding that the government spend less, liberals are convinced that the answer is to spend more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGipper,
It is a cut on discretionary spending which is only a relatively small portion of government spending. It does not touch entitlements, defense spending or debt maintenance (to begin with). It does not even bring spending in line with discretionary spending of a few years ago. It is not even close to draconian cuts and it is years overdue.
Get your own facts straight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcatly, jag. And especially when we go back in time even a few years. Why can't the 2012 budget be no more, in real dollar terms, than the 2006 or 2002 or 1998 budget? The war costs are going away, or hopefully will, soon. If this budget is so thoughtless and cruel and inhumane, why wasn't an even lower budget in 2009 even worse? Or was it?
Granted, the demographics of our aging population are one huge hole in the above argument. But that just underlines the need for more cuts wherever they can be made (including defense).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteve Billingsley -
Yes, That is exactly what I said. IT is discretionary spending for the next 7 months. So they are cutting $100 billion of $477 billion pot.
Cantor wrote that the budget is next. The last GOP budget that Paul Ryan wrote cut $4.5 Trillion (FY2010 Budget). Expect the same in this one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe original goal was to return to FY 2008 spending levels for next year's FY 2012 budget -- which then got changed to this year's budget because Congress failed to pass one for FY 2011. Does anyone remember the federal govt (or any of its hordes of beneficiaries) starving to death in FY 2008? IIRC that was the time when we were all appalled that GWB was spending in a way that would give drunken sailors a bad name. Let's challenge Schumer & Co to point out who exactly was dying in the streets in FY 2008 because Bush was so parsimonious!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRep Cantor. I saw where Obama wants to cut the Home Heating program for Low Income by 50% - back to 2008 levels.
I've been listening very carefully but I don't hear the screams from the Democrats that Obama hates poor people and is willing to let them freeze to death in the winter.
Hopefully, you and your fellow Republicans will start pushing back on these ludicrous whiny claims, and will point out that we cannot sustain this level of spending without bankrupting the country. If you all say it enough, it will get through to people even though the idiot media will not report your comments. But you all have to say it. Take the battle to the spendthrifts and don't cede the ground to them.
And $100 billion here, a $100 billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Oh and when you're accused of not cutting enough, just remember there's more cuts to be made and you have to start somewhere.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGipper, part of the confusion came from your writing:
"This isn't a $100 billion cut out of $1.4 trillion, its a $1.4 billion cut out of $477 billion in discretionary spending ..."
When what I think you must have meant to write is:
"This isn't a $100 billion cut out of $1.4 trillion, its a $100 billion cut out of $477 billion in discretionary spending ..."
I'm not criticizing your momentary keyboard lapse, just noting that it probably sidetracked the discussion.
Now to tackle your main claim, you're completely wrong when you go on to say, "It is literally $1 out of every $5 the government spends,"
No it is literally just not that. I understand why you want to look only at discretionary spending, but you can't pretend that entitlements and other essentials don't exist. The cuts are 20% of discretionary spending, not of every dollar the government spends - a major difference.
And analogizing this to the individual world shows us how minor it is. If due to a salary decrease or your spouse being laid off, you were still able to keep your housing, automotive, medical, and food expenses at the same level - but were required to reduce all other (discretionary) spening by 20%, could you do it without hopelessly crippling your household? Of course you could - you'd have to, as millions of families have in fact had to do. And as the nation in fact has to do, for the same reason.
A 20% cut in everything but the essentials can't be spun as a 20% cut overall, not when the essentials by definition are by far the largest and most important share of your spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePatrick J -
You are right, should have been more clear. It is one out of every 5 discretionary dollars. Since the government is operating under the CR, that is the only realistic thing to touch. That said, agree with you on entitlements - and as I said, Cantor writes here that Ryan budget is next, and both have said entitlement reform will be in there. The last budget Ryan did had $4.5 TRILLION in cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice to see that everybody has a blind spot. Mine is that every where i turn to, a see graphs that show federal and state spending going through the roof when Republicans rule. Still, somehow, with good marketing skills, they succeed in selling the story that it's actually the Democrats that do the big spending. That is confirmed in most of the comments i've read so far. Republican House will cut spending. And then they will be rewarded when election day comes, and guess what they'll do then...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Schumer: "they" should be using a scalpel. What about "we"?
Of course "we", meaning Democrats, don't want to cut the budget at all, so it's understood that Democrats simply do not count when fiscal responsibility is under discussion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse