PDA

View Full Version : House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts



Eric Johnson
01-20-2011, 02:01 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

http://tinyurl.com/6btnrww

By Paul Bedard
Posted: January 20, 2011

Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama's healthcare reform program. [See a gallery of political caricatures.]

What's more, the "Spending Reduction Act of 2011" proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare. [See a slide show of the top Congressional travel destinations.]

-more-

paul young
01-20-2011, 02:30 PM
i didn't see anything about eliminating their lifetime health care or pensions in there. surely that was omitted in error.

we got ours. meet the new boss, same as the old boss.-Paul

Buzz
01-20-2011, 02:37 PM
These were a link from the article. Wonder why they don't go for another trillion, they didn't touch defense. Why should we have to defend the world?


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/152/23/23.jpg


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/152/20/20.jpg


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/152/16/16.jpg

Marvin S
01-20-2011, 05:09 PM
These were a link from the article. Wonder why they don't go for another trillion, they didn't touch defense. Why should we have to defend the world?


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/152/23/23.jpg


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/152/20/20.jpg


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/152/16/16.jpg

The Legion magazine has a very good argument for stopping the ethanol subsidy by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) countered by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) with a weak argument. But it shows how hard it is to make spending cuts in an atmosphere where many are RINO's. Too many of the people in DC care not one whit about what's good for the country, only what helps their re-election chances. We all know that ethanol is a boondoggle 1st class, but it buys votes & does something that is non value added.

I saw nothing on that list that I couldn't do without, but would definitely want to add to it. Maybe Eric could post that list here & we could argue about the merits of each program :cool:.

As for defending the world, I don't believe we need to, but we do need to defend our interests in that world, anyone care to define what they are?

depittydawg
01-20-2011, 08:39 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

http://tinyurl.com/6btnrww

By Paul Bedard
Posted: January 20, 2011

Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama's healthcare reform program. [See a gallery of political caricatures.]

What's more, the "Spending Reduction Act of 2011" proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare. [See a slide show of the top Congressional travel destinations.]

-more-

Until they get serious enough to put "Defense" on the table of cuts, they simply playing politics.

BonMallari
01-20-2011, 08:56 PM
Until they get serious enough to put "Defense" on the table of cuts, they simply playing politics.

True along with Education and some other hot button topics, its all grandstanding and posturing....all seems to come back to how bills are earmarked with special interest and other tags...with true cuts EVERYTHING must be subject to scrutiny...

pat addis
01-21-2011, 07:39 AM
it's time to cut the un

mjh345
01-21-2011, 10:00 AM
True along with Education and some other hot button topics, its all grandstanding and posturing....all seems to come back to how bills are earmarked with special interest and other tags...with true cuts EVERYTHING must be subject to scrutiny...

True that!!!
Defense needs to be cut and streamlined
Dept of State policy of "Diplomacy through Bribery" policy needs to be ended. Besides being morally and ethically wrong, it usually accomplishes nothing, or is in fact counterproductive.

Dept of Education -eliminated
Dept of Homeland Security-eliminated
FEMA- eliminated
Dept of Energy- eliminated
Dept of Agriculture slashed and eventually eliminated

All departmental budgets need to be put on a Zero- Base plan.

We also need a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally they need to eliminate earmarks etc enact rules where a bill dealing with Defense ONLY deals with Defense; and not a bridge to nowhere or whatever.
No more 3000 page bills written mostly by lobbyists;, that nobody can read or understand.

And lastly I would force about a trillion gallons of Massengill douche down K street and flush them all the way to China

road kill
01-21-2011, 10:06 AM
True that!!!
Defense needs to be cut and streamlined
Dept of State policy of "Diplomacy through Bribery" policy needs to be ended. Besides being morally and ethically wrong, it usually accomplishes nothing, or is in fact counterproductive.

Dept of Education -eliminated
Dept of Homeland Security-eliminated
FEMA- eliminated
Dept of Energy- eliminated
Dept of Agriculture slashed and eventually eliminated

All departmental budgets need to be put on a Zero- Base plan.

We also need a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally they need to eliminate earmarks etc enact rules where a bill dealing with Defense ONLY deals with Defense; and not a bridge to nowhere or whatever.
No more 3000 page bills written mostly by lobbyists;, that nobody can read or understand.

And lastly I would force about a trillion gallons of Massengill douche down K street and flush them all the way to China


HHS!!!!

Enormous budget.......and growing at an alarming rate.


RK

M&K's Retrievers
01-21-2011, 10:24 AM
Go to this link and take your pick. Plenty to cut.

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

Uncle Bill
01-22-2011, 02:48 PM
True that!!!
Defense needs to be cut and streamlined
Dept of State policy of "Diplomacy through Bribery" policy needs to be ended. Besides being morally and ethically wrong, it usually accomplishes nothing, or is in fact counterproductive.

Dept of Education -eliminated
Dept of Homeland Security-eliminated
FEMA- eliminated
Dept of Energy- eliminated
Dept of Agriculture slashed and eventually eliminated

All departmental budgets need to be put on a Zero- Base plan.

We also need a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Additionally they need to eliminate earmarks etc enact rules where a bill dealing with Defense ONLY deals with Defense; and not a bridge to nowhere or whatever.
No more 3000 page bills written mostly by lobbyists;, that nobody can read or understand.

And lastly I would force about a trillion gallons of Massengill douche down K street and flush them all the way to China


Holy Moly! Did you run this past Roger and the other libs on board, or have you LEFT...an obvious pun...the reservation???

Man-O-Man, as Elvis would say, with libs like you, we don't need any more conservatives.:rolleyes:

I would have to agree with almost all of your 'bullet' points. But as a small amount of clarification for the non-Ag folks, as ORIGINALLY structured, the Ag dept was to deal with getting the best possible prices for the farmers exports. Like so many bureaucracies, we can all see what it has morphed into.

Those, like me, that find the ethanol fiasco to be another subsidy joke, need to be aware it's not the farmer they need to lambast, but their tree-huggin-bastardly environmental goons. At least that product is getting more done than the electric windmill rip-offs, solar panels, electric cars...and the plethora of "green" projects, establishing further bureaucracies to mask the environmental whacko programs being shoved down the throats of the PC liberals in this nation.

The measuring stick I use concerning the various 'corn-gas' and other 'food-for-vehicle-usage' programs is: When the farmers start burning that diesel substitute in their tractors and combines, the product may be worth developing. For now, it's like the electric cars...mainly a toy to play with, so the environmentalists can point to all they are doing to clean up the air etc.

UB