Memo to GOP Leadership: Why $100 Billion Matters
by Robert Bluey**UPDATED**
Last summer conservatives rolled their eyes when they read in Politico that Rep. Eric Cantor, then serving as GOP whip, suggested “Republicans may roll back their ban on earmarks.”
The self-imposed moratorium, enacted last March, was a triumph for conservatives in their long-running battle with House appropriators. Now it appeared to be under attack from the future House majority leader.
The disappointment among conservatives — not to mention Tea Party-backed candidates across America — must have resonated with Cantor. Just six week later he penned a piece for Politico declaring war on pork-barrel projects and endorsing a new moratorium in the 112th Congress.
Cantor’s outspoken opposition to earmarks put their advocates on the defensive. It set the stage for last fall’s confrontation among Senate Republicans and this week’s decision by Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to effectively end earmarks for two years.
Why is this relevant? The GOP is facing another spending showdown — this time over $100 billion worth of cuts promised in the Pledge to America.
Republican leaders have put forward a plan that cuts non-security spending by $58 billion, a noble effort, but still $42 billion short of their campaign promise. (They also cut $16 billion from security funding.)
Conservatives believe $100 billion should equal $100 billion. Nearly 90 of them with the Republican Study Committee recently asked Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to stick to the GOP’s promise. And when the debate reaches the House floor this month, RSC Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) plans to offer an amendment — or multiple amendments — to bring the level of cuts to $100 billion.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been noncommittal. Cantor, when asked about it last week following a Heritage Foundation speech, said Republicans would cut $100 billion on an “annualized basis.” (That’s Beltway jargon for cuts that don’t equal $100 billion.)
Here’s the transcript:
Q: I’m wondering if you will support Congressman Jim Jordan’s amendment for a true $100 billion worth of cuts during the CR debate …
A: We are, that’s in reference to the CR debate which will come to the floor Feb. 14. We announced yesterday well in advance. The purpose of my announcing earlier is to make sure that all of our members on our side of the aisle as well as others have the opportunity to proffer their vision as to how we cut the deficit and we have instructed the appropriations, the budget chairman to hold us all accountable for spending levels and we said that we wanted to be at at least 2008 levels as our party committed to during the election in the Pledge to America. We said 2008 levels or less and as you know we are in the situation we are in five months into the fiscal year because the former Democratic House failed to produce a budget and so we have now found ourselves in a Continuing Resolution environment that has held constant 2010 levels. So, we’re looking to the appropriators to come up with their version of how we cut this budget. Again, they have the limit of saying 2008 levels or less, so let’s see what they do and the reason why I am so insistent to say “or less” is because we all have to be very focused on making sure that we find new ways to do more with less. In response to your question, in that context, we are going to accomplish [a] $100 billion cut on an annualized basis.
As they return to Capitol Hill next week, House Republicans must weigh the backlash they will face for violating their $100 billion campaign promise. Anything less than a true $100 billion worth of spending cuts this year will be unacceptable to conservatives.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Cantor showed that great leadership on earmarks and he can do so again on this next big spending debate. That means cutting a true $100 billion and nothing less.
**
UPDATE: To his credit, Majority Leader Eric Cantor plans to support additional spending cuts during the House floor debate, when any member will be allowed to offer amendments. “Leader Cantor looks forward to supporting many of those amendments designed to cut spending and grow jobs,” spokesman Brad Dayspring told the Daily Caller.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
78 Comments
Remember you are on notice. If you wish to continue in office, do as promised or you will be replaced in 2012. We have plenty of real conservatives who will replace you and some more of the dims warming seats and protecting their rice bowls.
If you guys cut all subsidies, foreign aid, and decrease funding to the FCC, DOJ, EPA, DOE, DOI, USDA, etc by 50%, you will have saved over 1.5 trillion. How does that sound? Just about right, IMHO. Immediately after that you can start cleaning up the fraud, waste, and corruption within all the various agencies and programs. Theres is another 50 billion or so saved.
Everything is "symbolic" when you're trying to change that swamp culture.
I can see i will need to keep up the phone calls an Emails , i thought i would get A break BUT Oh No !
Well conservatives? Are you going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on this one?
I'm a libertarian, and in my opinion, if the GOP refuses to deliver, they're no better than the democrats, so out the door they go.
YouCut needs a proposal every minute, not one a week or so. YouCut also needs whole departments and agencies cut.
I expect the GOP to stick to their pledge to America! Nothing less.
The "probation" we put Republicans on will be very very short if they do not step up.
Cuts like this are only "shiny, pretty objects". Eliminate the FDA, EPA, DOE……………………et al. THEN we will restore some faith you are listening.
Republicans on the hill need two things from their constituents:
1) they need to be informed of the consequences of abandoning conservative principles (i.e. primary challenges and the like in the next round of elections), and
2) they need to be encouraged that when they stick to conservative principles, the same army of conservatives that would have opposed them will then stand with them against the inevitable MSM and liberal armies' backlash.
Framed in such a way, the question stands thus: will you be a part of a conservative phalanx, or stand in its way? I think the answer should be clear.
Tell you whut House GOP. Remove Obamacare in total, replace it with not a damned thing. Treat it like a malignant tumor and defund the entire program. This will go a long way towards showing America that you mean business as it relates to fiscal policy. Also, investigate the over reaching of certain Federal Agency power grabs and force them back in line or cut their funding. You have the powers so do your damn job. We'll even go along with reading the bills after you pass them, to see what's in them. Fight these communist with their own tactics and quit begging for a reach around and reaching across the aisle. Did they even once give you the same bipartisan courtesy?
A 100 billion cut in fed spending is only approximately 0.66% of the estimated overdraft for 2011 and has nothing to do with with reducing the national debt. You guys had better do more than that. We need at least a 1.5 trillion reduction in spending just to stay even.
Right now with very high unemployment and inflation every DOLLAR counts.
You betcha EdSki …just look at the posts. Mine is the "Mild-Mannered One" —- 6 down.
Just a tad bit upset right now …Geeeezzz.
Yep, we have more real conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists in the wings chomping at the bit to get a crack at cutting spending by a spendthrift government.
"we all have to be very focused on making sure that we find new ways to do more with less"
NO, Mr Cantor.
You need to be focused on ways to do LESS with less.
We want the federal government out of our face and out of our lives in every way possible. If you can't find a way to make sufficient cuts in this federal government, here's a clue; BEGIN ELIMINATING THE FUNDING FOR ENTIRE FEDERAL AGENCIES. Shut them down. Block grant the ones that work to the States.
Think of it this way, Mr Cantor. We're not looking for a trim. We're not looking for a hair cut. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SCALPS.
Glad to hear it!
I've noticed a more libertarian bent on the Big Sites, and I love it! Enough with the two party system, tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.
I believe We The People have already fought this battle before, and as I recall, we won.
They work for us. If they don't produce, they're fired.
I suggest that any department with a "czar" attached to it (in any way) be defunded immediately. That would be a good start.
Soro has taken over the Democratic party and he appears to have started on this one….
I'll bet McCain has him on speed dial….
Eliminate half of the programs that duplicate work and stop aid to countries hostile to the US and we will cut twice that.
We Constitutionalist knew it was going to be a long hard fight, no time to give up now. Whether they be progressive/socialist Dummycrats or RINOS, they are the ones that have to go. With the purported Constitutionalist (AKA Tea Party Candidates or Conservative Politicos) need to be supported when they do good, reminded of why they are there, and voted out if they waiver from their principles. NUFF SAID!!!!!
Heck …they ain't seen nothing yet …they keep up this BS, "Tar and Feathered" aren't going to be just words in a dictionary, EdSki.
Imagine all the govt employees who would have to compete for a real job in the private sector.
ABC News Exclusive: Rand Paul Says Republicans 'Aren't Maybe Brave Enough' to Tackle Deficit
'True Believer' Paul Wants All Foreign Aid Eliminated — Including Aid to Israel
By JONATHAN KARL
Feb. 4, 2011
In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., took aim at the newly released House GOP budget, saying it falls far short of what needs to be done to deal with the federal deficit.
"It's really not going to touch the problem," Paul said. "There's a disconnect between Republicans who want a balanced budget but aren't maybe yet brave enough to talk about the cuts to come."
The plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., released on Thursday, would cut non-security discretionary spending by $58 billion by the end of fiscal year 2011, which ends on Sept. 30.
You did know that Soros funded both candidates in the 08 election, right? Or are you just now realizing this? Soros (et al, which means Rockefeller, Strong, etc.) and his minions have controlled the elections for several years. Ever wonder why there are no conservative candidates? Because those who get to choose the conservatives only choose the New World Order conservatives, or the true NeoCons, another word for Compassionate Conservatism, which means Democratic-style governing with Republican-style words.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!
Personally I don't. I expect them to stick with their donors. I don't think they've gotten the full message yet….
Can't, Lucky …Friggin' PC Administrator Police of this site are denying my 1st Amendment Rights.
Following World War II Harry Truman slashed the size and budget of the federal government by 48%. FDR's New Deal economist said he was insane. Government employees were enraged at losing their cushy jobs. The MSM at the time predicted he'd be toast in the next election.
And instead, Truman won election. The reduced tax burden lead the way to the economic expansion in the 1950's. America prospered. And the political left was beyond hatred, hence his low poll numbers upon leaving office.
Lol. Does looking for scalps qualify as "heated and vitrolic" rhetoric?
I've known that for some time…
That's why I'm against ALL of the Progressives…..
While I'm not in favor of leaving Israel to the wolves (Who would want to be surrounded by people saying they want to kill each and every one of your citizens?), I am definitely in favor of reducing foreign aid. Subsidies of all sorts need to be quashed until our debt level meets a much reduced and sustainable level. (Does "quash" qualify as "Vitriolic" rhetoric?)
I appreciate Rand Paul on his positions on the budget. But I can't support his publicly announced priorities.
By leading off in the media talking about "controversial" cuts, all you do is split your support and invite your opponent's criticism.
It would be better to lead with proposed ELIMINATION of entire, bloated government agencies. Especially programs and agencies that only effect a small percentage of Americans. That list would add up to thousands of programs currently run or subsidized by government, and their elimination would garner massive public support.
Once you've achieved success there, THEN start to talk about cuts in foreign aid and even entitlements, after you've built up your majority support.
Only if you're a Native American. : )
Well, having been born on the American continent, doesn't that qualify me as a Native American? In the "Literal" sense, of course.
Senator Coburn has been taking the lead on this one for a while now….
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/duplica...
All cuts will draw criticism from the left and from whoever is benefiting from the payoffs in the first place. What happens to Israel if the US goes broke??
I support everyone of his cuts, Israel is a rich country they don't need our, BORROWED, money, and IF we cut funding to them we would also be cutting, likely even more, to their enemies… as a whole the enemies list would get much much less funding. Cutting support of foreign dictators like Egypt is the morally correct position–97% female genital mutilation– Somehow we also need to stop buying oil from all these despots too.
He also mentioned cutting 80% of the funding to the DO ED, and that is a great place to start.
Indeed! And imagine all the money there would be to hire new workers in the private sector.
This country is bankrupt for a good reason, the crooks and con artists you elect to office is like telling a wolf to sleep in a chicken coupe
Texas Democratic Congressman Ruben Hinojosa – a member of the House Financial Services Committee – filed for personal bankruptcy late last year.
The Associated Press and Politico, citing court documents and a statement, reported that Hinojosa attributes his financial problems to a loan he guaranteed for his family's meat company.
"I have done everything humanly possible to avoid filing for bankruptcy protection to no avail," Hinojosa said in the statement. "The bank debt of H&H [Meat Products Co.] was more than I could handle financially." He said he was seeking to exit bankruptcy protection quickly.
The eight-term congressman was forced to file for bankruptcy after Wells Fargo Bank won an arbitration hearing that found Hinojosa owed the bank $2.6 million. That left him with $2.9 million in liabilities against less than $1.5 million in assets.
Hinojosa family's meat company, which makes Mexican food, declared bankruptcy in 2008. As Politico notes, the Texas Democrat says he does not have "managerial control or oversight" over the company, though he was paid as a consultant between 2002 and 2007. He said the company had been "forced into bankruptcy due to the recent economic downturn and financial market meltdown."
Members of the House earn $174,000 each year. Most members of Congress are substantially wealthier than the average American; As of November 2009, there were 237 millionaires in Congress.
The House Financial Services Committee deals with legislation affecting banks.
AMEN!
We need an incumbent massacre in the next Republican primary. One thing I want to hear from candidates who want my vote is what laws they intend to repeal and what government programs and agencies they intend to eliminate. My default position regarding incumbents is to vote against them, unless they can change my mind by what they did during the past two years, not just what they said.
HERE IS MY MESSAGE TO THE GOP!
http://theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com/2011/02/in...
READ AND HEED OR ELSE!
http://theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com
THE ANTI LIBERAL ZONE
"HOISTING LIBS BY THEIR OWN PETARDS FOR YEARS!"
There are many who said the GOP would blow it again once they got back in office. So far, sadly, it looks like they are intent on doing just that. No cuts, no glory.
I'm hardcore Republican…and they better PRODUCE, or 2010 is going to look like a polite church social…
*sharpening the long knives*
Yah, you betcha…!!!
By their unwillingness to tackle the debt, they are opening the door wide open for a third party.
Right on, right on, right on!
I love hearing this kind of talk!
I actually think we'll have to fire a third of the new folks elected last cycle to the House…
"…pour encourager les autres…"
Volunteers…??
Well, don't get me wrong, Fox. If I had my way we'd zero out the entire budget and only fund the constitutional and critical operations of government. But there is a place for building a critical mass of support to make the cuts that are necessary.
So sure, maybe we can make the case for cutting foreign aid to Israel and all of the Middle East, and present it as a positive. But when the biggest news of the day is the possibility of an islamic caliphate in half a dozen nations surrounding Israel, you're going to get destroyed for pushing that position. And then all of your other ideas for making legitimate cuts across the board get drowned out by the screaming of the left and the right.
Like I said, I'm a hawk's hawk when it comes to slashing this government. But I'm also aware that there are politics and strategies that must be used to get those things done.
Thermopylae…
I like the analogy better…
"buttmunchers"?? yuk…lol I agree What's_Up…
Who would want to be surrounded by people saying they want to kill each and every one of your citizens?
Ask a home invader because that is all they are. Can you imagine fleeing your house and summoning the police only to hear those who charged in to your house whine about being surrounded by enemies? This is laughable. There isn't one problem Israel has that they didn't bring on themselves.
The political class will not support stopping foreign aid, but I bet a large majority of American voters will approve of it, foreign aid has never been a good investment for America and I think most would agree. Foreign aid is an excellent place to start, after all if the US goes broke we will be no help to anyone. The debt is almost as big of a threat as all the central power in DC.
Why does it cost Israel? Americans are footing the bill. How many Israelis own the "American" companies getting rich off the deals?
So we should prioritize cutting Americans instead of foreigners who have attacked us? We see where your loyalties are – NOT with America.
What is wrong with these guys? The media and the dims will pull the usual sob BS story, "you're hurting the children." if they make the cuts, but the media and the dims will roast them anyway if they break their promise, and SO WILL WE.
What happens to Israel if the US goes broke?
Israel is causing us to go broke.
We need to fund the OTHER countries for a few decades when we cut Israel. We need to have stability through balance. We have created the imbalance by giving outlandish amounts of money to Israel. And for what? We could have had cheap oil AND prevented China and Russia getting it IF we hadn't sacrificed the entire region to support the Zionist terrorists in Israel.
You know I’ve thinking of writing in Pig Latin.
Uck fay hem tay!
But when the biggest news of the day is the possibility of an islamic caliphate in half a dozen nations surrounding Israel, you're going to get destroyed for pushing that position.
Why would that be, hmmmmm? Since when did that UN creation of Israel because the responsibility of the US tax payers? It would benefit us greatly if Israel vanished tomorrow – they are just a parasite sucking our wealth away and stealing our secrets to sell abroad. What is your tie to them, hmmmmm? They paying you to post here?
"I put you guys in…and I can take you guy's out…"
Good one, Lucky. LOL. I actually had forgotten that I speak 2 other languages …thanks.
Ig pay Atin lay and Gibberish. I kid you not. Too many of our teachers had picked up on Pig Latin …
so, like a clothing fad, we found Gibberish …while I could understand & speak it well, I had friends who actually wrote notes and letters in Gibberish …way too much time on their hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibberish_%28languag...
Hey! I'm just glad to see any politician following through on a promise, even if it's half way. Cutting billions is a big step!
Now if we could get them to promise welfare reform, prosecuting law breaking politicians, etc…..!
Phuck you, cretin.
Why don't you leave this conversation to people who aren't phucking deranged?
My position has always been that before even ONE DOLLAR was cut from the big entitlements (our biggest economic challenge), we would have to see cuts to every other governmental boondoggle first. INCLUDING foreign aid.
So perhaps you're right. I would just rather see 90% of the domestic federal control structures dismantled, in order to restore a sense of freedom to the States and the People, before we delved into the global ramifications of withdrawing from the world.
Tithegank Yithegou
better do it.
I see the trolls have been very busy here on our thread, Lucky.
Knowing these 2 languages are a big PLUS for one's resume …being that HR Personnel are mostly Educated illiterates …they'd have no clue other than a "wow …2 languages".
Ya pick up fast …Yithegou othegare Wuthegel cuthegum.
You're probably right. It's still a little early to yell at them. Give it some time, and if they seem like they've dropped back to doing business as usual, then they can expect a fast butt chewing…then the door, the next election! No more patience with RINOS.
I see, so the politicians are already starting to get cold feet even before beginning their truly arduous and nearly impossible task of cutting this bloated Federal government down to size. Well then, perhaps WE, THE PEOPLE should help them overcome their chronic lack of willingness and resolve by providing this little incentive: TAX REVOLT.
(Remember, the ballot box is only the first phase of our Second American Revolution. It cannot and should not be relied on exclusively. Sooner or later, we must move it to the next phase, which is civil disobedience.)
I think there is a sense in which you may actually be right.
Ultimately, there is probably no way that the Republican party can escape unscathed if it does what needs to be done. As badly as the country needs a solution to the problems posed by social security et al, the political repercussions of genuine reform are likely to be career ending for Republicans willing to lay it all on the line. But, perhaps we need candidates who recognize this and are willing to step through the gates of hell anyway. In this sense, some Spartans willing to take a final stand might be just what the Conservative cause requires.
On the other hand, while a true "citizen" political class willing to count the cost of tough decisions is exactly what the country needs right now, it's not guaranteed that freshman republicans who stick to their principles will turn into political lepers. We might actually start to rally some serious independents by demonstrating courage, authenticity, and true conviction BEFORE the vanguard is wiped out.
Harry Truman may have been a Democrat but he was a true Conservative, the Truman Commission is a fine example.
Let's get back on topic. We're talking about Foreign aid to all nations, not just Israel. Your personal opinions and mine do not supercede actual historical facts concerning the establishment of Israel as a nation. Foreign Aid is a poor method of distributing wealth. If Americans want to send money overseas, there is plenty of evidence that they will do so when the need is appropriate (Haiti comes to mind immediately, though even there government interference in relief work is causing untold suffering to those inhabitants). Government in general is a poor method of efficiently relieving suffering. Foreign Aid would be better spent if it were pooled and distributed to TRANSPARENT relief organizations.
Dear GOP…. please find a candidate who understands WHY we are not moving forward economically or any other way. Find a candidate who "gets" what American Exceptionalism is about, and more important WHAT it is about.
Victor Davis Hanson even gave you a hint. Freakin take it and find a candidate who "gets" it!
===============================
"America is NOT CREATING enough wealth to justify the notion that everyone should go to college, get a higher-paying job than their parents, buy a nice, affordable house, and retire earlier and with more money than did prior generations.
We have forgotten what wealth is — and how tenuous the good life is. Riches are created by educated and skilled workers who directly translate natural resources into commodities that make life easier. The nonproductive sector in government, law and banking must facilitate that process with efficient and transparent financial and political systems.
Instead, we are failing to provide our college graduates with unique skills that make them rare assets in the global competitive arena. Meanwhile, our more talented and better-trained workers are suing, subsidizing and regulating more than ever — instead of searching for more oil and gas, supplying more water to productive farmland, fast-tracking nuclear power plants, manufacturing machines and consumer goods, or devising new and more efficient ways to help others to produce such food, fuel and products. In other words, we are living the good life in the abstract that we have not quite earned in the concrete.
America is a naturally rich country. Unlike Russia, China, Egypt or Greece, it is stable, transparent, tolerant and free of civil strife. The result is that we are not doomed to see these bubbles expand and burst with the attendant social unrest. We need only return to our old American creed that wealth is created only with hard work and delayed gratification. In other words, America must get back to producing real, rather than imaginary, riches and ignore pleasing rhetoric that masks unpleasant reality — the faster the better."
*
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/04/bub…” target=”_blank”>www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/04/bub…
*
And you are exactly right…
I am fully prepared to fire any of the House freshman class over certain principles, IF they are not kept, such as fiscal discipline…along with the usual suspects needing culling…
And we should be ready to fire a "so-so" or "kinda good" member if we believe we find a better one…
i would like to thank this government of the united states of america for the 240,000.00 bill that my family of 5 has to pay, to pay on this national debt.not only do i get taxed but have a debt payment.thank you very much.hope you all sleep well at night
Indeed, Cantor and Ryan and any other "Young Gun" better get their heads out of their buttholes and realize that when they promise $100B in cuts, they better deliver or they'll be shown the exit door as well. I'm tired of this BS. If someone makes a promise, they better be able to deliver on it, and I think Cantor ought to ready for a potentially voter imposed term limit if he doesn't get it. Virginia, wake up. Put a Tea Partier in the next primary. If nothing else, it'll wake up Cantor to who the real boss is: The US public.
Let's cut the YouCut department and just axe the budget 20% of 2001 levels. That'll force some real change.
True Leadership will always inspire followers into situations which seem dire, and yet, with true leadership dire situations turn into victories. We need some true leadership right now, because the U.S.S. America is heading straight into an Iceberg if we don't alter course RIGHT NOW.
I'm sure Mr. Obama is quite relieved that you are doing your part to distribute wealth to other nations such as China. Why, without your support, America might actually be labelled "Exceptional" and be viewed by the rest of the world with envy, rather than the ridicule it now enjoys due to the current Administrations best efforts.
Foreign aid is objectionable not on the grounds of its "effectiveness" but by the fact it is redistribution of wealth.
I happen to disagree with all subsidy, Foreign or domestic, and that includes the bailing out of unions, as well as corporations. "Investment" by the government should be restricted to our national defense, and the promotion of public safety.
You must be logged in to post a comment.