Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:00 PM ET, 02/10/2011

House Appropriations chairman proposes $100 billion in cuts

By Felicia Sonmez

Updated: 4:00 p.m.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) announced Thursday that he intends to reduce government spending by $100 billion from President Obama's 2011 budget request, bowing to pressure from conservative Republicans who had called for the sweeping cuts.

The move scraps the original plan by House Republicans to cut $74 billion from Obama's original budget request for the current fiscal year. Rogers had released some of the details of that proposal on Wednesday.

"Our intent is to make deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of government, leaving no stone unturned and allowing no agency or program to be held sacred," Rogers said Thursday in announcing the $100 billion in cuts. "I have instructed my committee to include these deeper cuts, and we are continuing to work to complete this critical legislation."

The conservative Republican Study Committee had been promoting the $100 billion figure, which was originally introduced by House Republican leaders last year in their Pledge to America. GOP leaders had later acknowledged that cutting $100 billion was unrealistic.

Further details on the specific cuts were not immediately available.

In a conference call with reporters following their party's issues conference Thursday, Senate Democratic leaders fired back at House Republicans over the proposed cuts, with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) accusing Republicans of "blindly swinging a meat ax to the budget when they should be using a smart, sharp scalpel."

"The question is not whether to make cuts -- our caucus at our issues conference was united that we have to make serious and significant cuts -- but the question is, what should be cut?" Schumer said. "And we need to invest in the programs that help us grow and cut what doesn't."

The New York Democrat added that "the infighting by House Republicans is causing gridlock that could risk a government shutdown."

Asked whether the GOP plan would be "dead-on-arrival" in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that Senate leaders "are not going to be making statements like that" and noted that he's reached out to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in an effort to work toward a compromise.

"I hope that we can have some cooperation over here to send back over to the House something that's reasonable," Reid said.

Meanwhile, pressure from the right continued Thursday afternoon even after Rogers made his announcement. Heritage Action, the grassroots-advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, claimed that the newly-proposed cuts would not live up to the promise made in the Pledge to America because they actually only equaled $84 billion in non-security cuts, not $100 billion.

House Appropriations Committee Communications Director Jennifer Hing said that was not the case.

"We will make $100 billion in discretionary cuts while making common sense exceptions for our troops and veterans -- just as the Pledge promises," Hing said.

The Pledge to America states that "With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children's future."

The measure currently funding the federal government is set to expire on March 4; lawmakers face the possibility of a a government shutdown if Congress doesn't act to approve a new funding resolution before then.

By Felicia Sonmez  | February 10, 2011; 4:00 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Business leaders at Issa hearing: Regulations hurt job growth
Next: House votes to proceed on Patriot Act extension

Comments

"With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels,

I guess that means that the largest domestic part of the budget is exempt from cuts. Let that be a lesson to younger voters, you are about to loose out to AARP. Next time you need to vote in congressional as well as presidential elections!
Justsan

Posted by: charlesm49 | February 11, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

It is time to cut and eliminate useless federal government departments and consolidate others. IBM offered to help cut fraud from Medicare. Why have they not be taken up on this offer? Both Medicare and Social Security need to be examined for fraud and overspending before any futher cuts such as the $500 Billion this adminstration is cutting from Medicare to create over 129 new govt bureaucracies for Obamacare.

Posted by: mlbduffy | February 11, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

It is time to cut and eliminate useless federal government departments and consolidate others. IBM offered to help cut fraud from Medicare. Why have they not be taken up on this offer? Both Medicare and Social Security need to be examined for fraud and overspending before any futher cuts such as the $500 Billion this adminstration is cutting from Medicare to create over 129 new govt bureaucracies for Obamacare.

Posted by: mlbduffy | February 11, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

$100,000,000,000 cut is not enough, represents less then 1/10th of 1% of the $1.5 Trillion deficit.
Start getting rid of entire useless federal agencies/departments beginning with EPA and DOE.

Posted by: rteske | February 11, 2011 8:04 AM | Report abuse

PEOPLE WITH MONEY WANT SPENDING CUTS

WORKING PEOPLE WANT JOBS

JOBS PAYS TAXES

PEOPLE WITH MONEY WILL MAKE ,BUT THAT'S OK

JUST GIVE US JOBS

Posted by: theoldmansays | February 11, 2011 12:10 AM | Report abuse

nstead of cutting $100 Billion, how's about creating 20,000,000 new well paying jobs that will pay $100 Billion in new taxes. Think about that Neo-Cons! Think!

Neo-Cons are too negative. They belong with Mubarak. America has no room for Neo-Con negativity.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

=============

Look a typical Dem...if it is so so easy - why did not yoru beloved Dems do that then - they had majorities all around for multiple years..and what did we get - higher unemployment....but forever increased government spending.

Neocons negative..LOL..LO..yeah - you Dems are such a sunshine.

Posted by: short1
=======================================
The Dems are also a gov't of the connected, the answer is you, you keep voting them into office. A 5% direct redistribution of income/VAT giving a full share to all Americans working 1000 hrs or more, a 1/3 share for seniors, jobless and dependents, put on a bank credit card that can only buy American made, pay medical/education costs would create the sales market to get the trillion on corporate balance sheets into our economy creating the 20 million jobs called for by the majority of Americans. They don't have the spine to do the right thing and are interested in their own self interest, not the American people.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 10, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

"I will inform you that corps. are sitting on over 1 trillion dollars waiting to expand but not doing it until consumers have cash to spend."

Yeah, well, its their money. They can do with it whatever they want.

You simultaneously hate companies and then hope they create jobs. Its such a disconnect that I'm surprised your brain doesn't implode from trying to hold such passionate, yet completely opposite views on economics.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"Wow! Some right-winger actually touts the GOP agenda of 1995."

You mean the one that balanced the budget?

It would be wise for you to check out what actually happened economically during that time. You should pray for a return to that time.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I know where you can find 1.3 bilion. STOP sending our taxpayer money to fund the Mubarak dictatorship's military in Egypt! We don't need to buy their tanks, planes and guns so they can oppress their people.

Posted by: blosmurph | February 10, 2011 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Make the cuts, then reform the income tax system. Make a flat tax with no deductions for anything. No subsidies for anyone. Then stand back and watch the jobs get created.

Posted by: bcullum1952 | February 10, 2011 9:00 PM | Report abuse

It's nice to see that all these cuts are being made, but that will not decrease the deficit. In order to do that, money needs to be brought in by some fashion. Unless you start adding taxes or "required donations", that nation in debt will not change.

Posted by: Falling4Ever | February 10, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

The do-nothings aren't going to cut anything. They are engaging in bluster and bragadocio to give a voice to the mean-spirited southern bigots in their base. These bigots hate working people, they hate federal government employees, they hate Hispanics, they hate African Americans, they hate gay people, they hate workers who are retired and they hate anyone who is not a white guy.

The do-nothings have not lifted a finger to create a single job, and they don't have a solution or an idea that they are willing to advance on any issue. They are just crotch-grabbing big-mouthed bigots who in the end will do what they always do when they come to Washington, feed at the public trough, stuff their drawers with millions in lobbyist' money and make a whole lot of noise that never adds up to a hill of beans.

Posted by: DCSage
-------------------------------------------

Wow , boy that was a constructive rant.

Posted by: jgault2 | February 10, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

All congressmen most certainly know how to spend but most do not know what it means to stay within a budget, and that is why we now have a national debt of nearly 14 trillion dollars; a truly scary number indeed;a number that goes beyond all human comprehension; a number that imperils our countries very economic stability and our future. A number that shouts out in the strongest possible terms that we need to replace all of the elected representatives that have served/failed this nation for more than one decade. This financial nightmare all began to develop during this period of time;on their watch. Their fiscal irresponsibility is truly reprehensible and is totally unacceptable as representatives of the public.

Posted by: joe100821 | February 10, 2011 8:42 PM | Report abuse

$100B is a good start - keep cutting. Certainly it's better than the spending increases the Democrats put into place over the past two years. Reduce the federal deficit, and get capital back into the private sector where real jobs are created. If we keep spending like we have been, soon we'll all be working for the federal government.

Posted by: JM80
====================================
Perhaps you missed this Lex Luthor, so I will inform you that corps. are sitting on over 1 trillion dollars waiting to expand but not doing it until consumers have cash to spend. They will not give consumers the money so Keynesian gov't spending appears to be the only recourse. 700 billion in stimulus changed 700,000 a month job loss to 100,000 gain, 800 billion may get us over the top which is 150,000 jobs created per month. These GOP cuts will brake that recovery, possibly making the car skid and crash.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 10, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Wishing a not full of tourist paradise place for vacations? go to http://greencolombia.amawebs.com/

Posted by: albeiroespinoza | February 10, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

These John Birch Society lunatics are so venal, hypocrital, and inept, the only thing they time and again seem to be able to accomplish as government employees is a government shutdown.

Their "Pledge to America" is this:

"Hey, invest in us. We will provide you returns on your investments in the form of jobs and a home with a white picket fence!

"And remember you will all be better off if you cut Social Security and aid to the unemployed! You must be prepared to sacrifice, for the benefit of billionaires because they will make you rich, and you'll be able to send your kids to elite private schools, and burn money just like them because we live in a meritocracy and the reason you are struggling is that you are just now taking enough of our advice! Invest more! Just wait - you'll see. We will provide the returns that you make you affluent!

"And never you mind that last quarter in 2008; that wasn't our fault, those banks collapsed because of poor people with smelly armpits who are liberals."

PONSI SCHEMES AND REPUBLICANS GO HAND IN HAND.

WITHOUT THE REPUBLICANS (Gramm, Leach, Bliley, to name a few in particular; as well as John Boehner), THERE WOULDN'T BE A BERNIE MADOFF.

AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS ARE THEIR DUPES.

STBY, DUPES.

Posted by: jakrdy | February 10, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"These John Birch Society lunatics are so venal, hypocrital, and inept, the only thing they time and again seem to be able to accomplish as government employees is a government shutdown.

"Their "Pledge to America" is this:

"Hey, invest in us. We will provide you returns on your investments in the form of jobs and a home with a white picket fence!

"And remember you will all be better off if you cut Social Security and aid to the unemployed! You must be prepared to sacrifice, for the benefit of billionaires because they will make you rich, and you'll be able to send your kids to elite private schools, and burn money just like them because we live in a meritocracy and the reason you are struggling is that you are just now taking enough of our advice! Invest more! Just wait - you'll see. We will provide the returns that you make you affluent!

"And never you mind that last quarter in 2008; that wasn't our fault, those banks collapsed because of poor people with smelly armpits who are liberals."

Posted by: jakrdy | February 10, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

"Meet the new Boss,same as the old Boss!"

The Who

Posted by: jdann740 | February 10, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Ah! The Republicans are trying to govern using a philosophy of hate! Ain't gonna work. They need to have real solutions not games.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Why the timidity? Go for it! Cut at least a trillion, and stop everything cold that our government does. Wheeeeeeeee!!

Posted by: chuck8 | February 10, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Right on cue, and in predictable fashion, we learn how the republicans would like to pay for tax cuts for billionaires- they should be sent to the streets of Cairo!

Posted by: staussfamily | February 10, 2011 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Repubublicans accommodate economic predators on Wall Street - especially Boehner. I am so tired of their calculated scams, catastrophic bets, and hypocracy. They and Fox "News" are scambags.

Corporate welfare is fine with them; they have no problem with programs that are corrupt to the core. Subsidize oil companies who are already making money hand-over-fist? Sure! Give billions to agribusiness giants who are pushing out family farmers? Of course! Accommodate Wall Street's catastrophic bets and deregulate so that they don't have to have equity to cover those bets? Absolutely! Lose another 40 billion in tax income so that the wealthy can get yet more tax breaks and loopholes? It's taxes, we can't have taxes cuz taxes are evil - not even during the wars they get on.

And if any of your teabuggers think Bernie Madoff didn't vote Republican, then I'd like to sell you some magic beans.

No wonder Roger Ailes regards you as being so inbred you have a hand growing out of your head underneath your baseball cap (hey it's not me, it's a Republican who considers you an gullible moron, and believe me he's not the only one).

Teanuts, please tell me when each of your representatives are planning to stop enjoying the "government healthcare" they detest and go out and buy private insurance policies from the free market.

I'm still waiting to hear from you on that.

BTW, I hope you get the option of signing a 5-year waiver to the protections and price caps provided in health care reform so you can go back to pre-health care reform days and get your insurance by paying through the nose and getting your claims denied. Only this time, no emergency room treatments for free anymore. And if you get turned down during Year 2 for a pre-existing condition, then sucks to be you go mortgage your house. Or better yet, go to Mexico to get the treatment you can't afford for five years.

The Federal Elections bring more voters to the ballot box. I am looking forward to this John Birch Society ponsi scheme coming to a close; we need to run these inept venal scambags out on a rail.

Posted by: jakrdy | February 10, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Some right-winger actually touts the GOP agenda of 1995.

WHAT THE HECK DO YOU THINK GOT US HERE!

Gingrich and his Contract On America was even more disastrous than Reaganomics 1.0.

The 2.0 version under 43 with no oversight has about broken the camel's back.

Then along comes Boehner and McConnell obstructing every attempt to fix things and the bottom fell out.

Now we have Boehner thinking he is in the driver's seat and a mob of teabagging idiots here to bleed the rest of our society dry.

Right-wingers, take a real good look at Egypt. That is the future of any and all "conservative" societies. Or haven't you ever read a history book?

Posted by: TaxTheRichNow | February 10, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Why the timidity? Go for it! Cut at least a trillion, and stop everything cold that our government does. Wheeeeeeeee!!

Posted by: chuck8 | February 10, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"clearly calls for the federal government to take a lead role in job creation. "

The government cannot create jobs. It has never created a single net job. Government can create favorable conditions so that private business can create jobs.

Its simply income redistribution, with a bureaucracy in the middle taking their cut. What's needed now is to remove mandates, taxes and regulations on business.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 7:51 PM | Report abuse

We Need a (Green) Jobs Program

Clean-energy investment would promote job growth for a wide swath of the U.S. workforce.

By Jeannette Wicks-Lim


Fourteen months of an unemployment rate at or near 10% clearly calls for the federal government to take a lead role in job creation. The White House should push its clean-energy agenda as a jobs program but steer clear of all the hype about “green-collar” jobs. Green-collar jobs are widely perceived as job opportunities accessible only to an elite segment of the U.S. workforce—those with advanced degrees, such as environmental engineers, lab technicians, and research scientists. Such jobs are inaccessible to the 52% of unemployed workers with no college experience. The truth is, however, that clean-energy investments could serve as a powerful engine for job growth for a wide swath of the U.S. workforce.


My colleagues at the Political Economy Research Institute and I examined a clean-energy program that includes making buildings more energy efficient, expanding and improving mass transit, updating the national electric grid, and developing each of three types of renewable energy sources: wind, solar, and biomass fuels. Here’s what we found.


First, clean-energy activities produce more jobs, dollar for dollar, than fossil fuel-related activities. This is because clean-energy activities tend to be more labor intensive (i.e., more investment dollars go to hiring workers than buying machines), have a higher domestic content (i.e., more dollars are spent on goods and services produced within the United States) and have lower average wages than fossil fuel-related activities. The figures in the table below show how a $1 million investment in clean-energy activities would create more than three times the number of jobs that would be created by investing the same amount in fossil fuels. (See Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Saving Energy Creates Jobs, Dollars & Sense, May/June 2009.)


More:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0910wicks-lim.html

Posted by: rheckler2002 | February 10, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

We Need a (Green) Jobs Program

Clean-energy investment would promote job growth for a wide swath of the U.S. workforce.

By Jeannette Wicks-Lim


Fourteen months of an unemployment rate at or near 10% clearly calls for the federal government to take a lead role in job creation. The White House should push its clean-energy agenda as a jobs program but steer clear of all the hype about “green-collar” jobs. Green-collar jobs are widely perceived as job opportunities accessible only to an elite segment of the U.S. workforce—those with advanced degrees, such as environmental engineers, lab technicians, and research scientists. Such jobs are inaccessible to the 52% of unemployed workers with no college experience. The truth is, however, that clean-energy investments could serve as a powerful engine for job growth for a wide swath of the U.S. workforce.


My colleagues at the Political Economy Research Institute and I examined a clean-energy program that includes making buildings more energy efficient, expanding and improving mass transit, updating the national electric grid, and developing each of three types of renewable energy sources: wind, solar, and biomass fuels. Here’s what we found.


First, clean-energy activities produce more jobs, dollar for dollar, than fossil fuel-related activities. This is because clean-energy activities tend to be more labor intensive (i.e., more investment dollars go to hiring workers than buying machines), have a higher domestic content (i.e., more dollars are spent on goods and services produced within the United States) and have lower average wages than fossil fuel-related activities. The figures in the table below show how a $1 million investment in clean-energy activities would create more than three times the number of jobs that would be created by investing the same amount in fossil fuels. (See Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Saving Energy Creates Jobs, Dollars & Sense, May/June 2009.)


More:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0910wicks-lim.html

Posted by: rheckler2002 | February 10, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"The programs represent a "social contract"."

I'm afraid not. You're using "social contract" as a nicer way of saying "Entitlement". Nobody is entitled to another's money. Society may choose, as an act of charity, to help those who cannot care for themselves, but giving money one time or 1000 times does not make it an obligation, but rather a gift.

The priorities of the U.S. Government are laid out in the preamble to the constitution. That is the government's core mission.

Now that said, they'll have to cut defense spending, and they'll have to raise taxes. On everybody, not just this vague group that are called "The Wealthy".

The pain has to be shared all over, and the fact that an able-bodied person accepts handouts instead of working is a shame, not an obligation.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

News flash to everyone. Our problem with the deficit is that both sides spend too darn much. Spend no more than 90% of what you take in and use the rest to pay down the debt. Let business create jobs, and those that do not follow the current rules (such as EPA) fine the crap out of them. Have EPA be a source of revenue. Go after the biggest poluters first. Cut every government division by 10% or more so that the budget has a surplus. No Social Security accounting gimmicks. Set up taxes so everyone who gets some benefit pays in. If that means flat tax rates, higher tariffs, whatever. The states typically have to balance their budgets annually, why should the federal government be any different? Finally, quit calling this Afghanistan police action a war. It uses up a lot of military, but it is not like any of us unless we are soldiers really suffer like in a real war. If we are going to keep fighting to eliminate terrorists, then budget for it. All costs on the table, no black budgets, no deficits. Get to the point where we stop sending $1 billion overseas to buy oil. Support fuels that keep that money in the US and the jobs will stay here as well. In the interim, either we need to charge more for food or buy less oil. Either helps this country out now. Finally, if we are not buying all this foreign oil, we do not need to protect everyone from everyone else. If we are going to be the world's police officer, start charging the world for this cost. Everyone else does, and if they want us to police them, make them pay appropriately. Make our foreign aid dependant upon being an ally of the US. Most of our so-called allies take our money and vote against us in the UN. Form a replacement body for the UN where membership is based upon being a mostly democratic society. The majority of countries in the UN are dictatorships, monarchies, or similar style governments than are not considered democratic. Why should we support these countries?

Posted by: scott16 | February 10, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

News flash to everyone. Our problem with the deficit is that both sides spend too darn much. Spend no more than 90% of what you take in and use the rest to pay down the debt. Let business create jobs, and those that do not follow the current rules (such as EPA) fine the crap out of them. Have EPA be a source of revenue. Go after the biggest poluters first. Cut every government division by 10% or more so that the budget has a surplus. No Social Security accounting gimmicks. Set up taxes so everyone who gets some benefit pays in. If that means flat tax rates, higher tariffs, whatever. The states typically have to balance their budgets annually, why should the federal government be any different? Finally, quit calling this Afghanistan police action a war. It uses up a lot of military, but it is not like any of us unless we are soldiers really suffer like in a real war. If we are going to keep fighting to eliminate terrorists, then budget for it. All costs on the table, no black budgets, no deficits. Get to the point where we stop sending $1 billion overseas to buy oil. Support fuels that keep that money in the US and the jobs will stay here as well. In the interim, either we need to charge more for food or buy less oil. Either helps this country out now. Finally, if we are not buying all this foreign oil, we do not need to protect everyone from everyone else. If we are going to be the world's police officer, start charging the world for this cost. Everyone else does, and if they want us to police them, make them pay appropriately. Make our foreign aid dependant upon being an ally of the US. Most of our so-called allies take our money and vote against us in the UN. Form a replacement body for the UN where membership is based upon being a mostly democratic society. The majority of countries in the UN are dictatorships, monarchies, or similar style governments than are not considered democratic. Why should we support these countries?

Posted by: scott16 | February 10, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

We can't bring ourselves to cut tax loopholes, raise taxes on traitorous outsourcing billionaire Waltons, go after the wasteful half unneeded military industrial complex, instead lets have mothers starve babies by cutting WIC. Forget that police officer protecting you when a midnite break in occurs and close the FDA labs that tests for safety so we all can end up in hospitals or dead. Lets create a small gov't, no regulation, low tax shangri-la like they have in Mexico. This is the GOP plan for Americas future, lower our living standards so we are all Mexicans.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 10, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Very good.....carry on!

Defund Liberalism's golden governmental trough.

Posted by: georgedixon1 | February 10, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

In my little home town, the city council uses a method of "budget by priorities." This is kind of a bottom up approach, to creating the city budget. Priority one is Safety (police and fire protection).

The GOP approach feels much more TOP DOWN, with the current leadership setting some arbitrary goals, like the Pledge to America. The goal to trim $100B from discretionary spending is very arbitrary.

What is meant by discretionary spending? This is a deceptive tactic, to state that military spending is, well, non-discretionary. Says who? There is no law, that I know of, that defines military spending as "essential" or non-discretionary. Likewise, some GOP partisans claim that the Education Department or the Environmental Protection Agency (or some other entity) could be shut down because, geez, the spending for these programs amounts to frivolous "entitlements". These are unethical political speeches that completely ignore the federal laws that created the agencies in the first place.

It is easy to draw a conclusion that GOP political speeches are unethical and clearly irresponsible.

Why unethical? These so-called "social programs" were enacted, funded, and implemented to help people. The programs represent a "social contract". That is, an agreement between the citizens of the U.S. to advance our society. The GOP wants to break the "social contract". Why?

The GOP represents the "lone ranger" approach to rugged individualism. Survival of the fitest; every man for himself; may the best man win, etc.

MEMO TO GOP: our great nation was not built by cowboys, living on the open range. Our nation was built by strong communities, folks working together for something greater than the individual. Very few of us could actually survive a solitary "lone ranger" lifestyle. GOP must recognize that TOGETHER WE BUILD COMMUNITY.

Posted by: rmorris391 | February 10, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Looks like we have a lot of people on here dependent on a government check. I sympathize with your plight, although now that you know what's proposed, you'll have to change your lifestyle.

You'll learn to like work.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 7:30 PM | Report abuse

When the interest on the national debt alone is $4 Billion per DAY, this is just a drop in the bucket.

Posted by: npsmith | February 10, 2011 7:26 PM | Report abuse

as usual, the GOP is full of it.

first it was "here is the amount we are going to cut, without any details."

now it is "oh, on second thought, we are going to cut three times that original number and we will get back to with the specifics."

where is the plan? where are the jobs? what nonsense.

Posted by: johndoe11111 | February 10, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Actually, good point about the Ethanol subsidies.

Business news channels have been projecting a literal DOUBLING of American food prices due to that.

What happened in Egypt and Tunisia can happen here too.

Stop subsidizing Ethanol.

Let can sugar imports in too.

FREE TRADE MEANS NO SUBSIDIES, COMRADE SOCIALIST REPUBLICANTS!

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 10, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Cut the Selective Service System....what have they accomplished during the past few decades?

Posted by: flatpick | February 10, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

The reports I have seen recently about planned cuts have indicated that the cuts will be made at the expense of the poor and the elderly. Meantime the house voted to cut the budgets of house members at less than 1%. Need I mention the Bush tax cut extensions for the very wealthy? In making budget cuts the Republicans do not seem inclined to cut the budget of the military which consumes 25% of this country's budget. It is time to look at all of the expenses of government. How about a 10% across the board cut will be made. This includes a 10% cut to the House budget and a 10% cut of health insurance costs for Congress? Perhaps everyone would complain but the cuts would spread the pain evenly.

Posted by: OhMy | February 10, 2011 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's NOT forget the expenditures for subsidies for ETHANOL!
1. Corn prices have doubled to $7/bushel. This is a food product used throughout the food chain. Price increases are going to be significant.
2. We're subsidizing that c--p at about 56 cents per gallon to blend with gasoline, ethanol requires a higher octane gas to offset the low octane of ethanol. And now, thank you very much, EPA has approved increasing the mix 50% to a 15/85 percent blend. Oh, but if your vehicle is built after 2000, not to worry. Hello! Our vehicles are 1991, 1992 and 1997. Thank you very much! And if you've got a marine vehicle powered with a gasoline engine, too bad! 85/15 will likely destroy that engine unless you run it regularly 24/7.

So let's think seriously about cutting all active federal paycheck drawers with a 10% cut in compensation. (I use that term loosely when referring to the legislative branch). That would at least send the message of shared sacrifice. And don't get me started on the zooming costs ob Obamacare.

Posted by: dana843 | February 10, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the GOP's job-destroying anti-stimulus plan!

If it isn't more tax cuts for the obscenely rich (financed by unborn tax-payers), or corporate welfare for the obscenely wealthy (financed by unborn tax-payers), it isn't a GOP economic policy.

Republican policies are directly responsible for 85 percent of the national debt, yet they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They claim to be the party of private industry, yet private sector performance across income levels tends to lag under GOP administrations (except at the very high end of the income bracket).

The GOP has as much of a claim to personal responsibility, prosperity, and "fiscal conservatism" as Hugh Hefner has to being a champion of abstinence education.

It's no coincidence that the three biggest financial crises in the past 100 years of American history have taken place at the end of a two-term GOP presidents.

Posted by: JPRS | February 10, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

We tried their method the last time the Republicans put us in a Depression. Called Hooverism. Instead of 10% unemployment we got 30%.

Posted by: 5inchtaint | February 10, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I suggest that you look at the real unemployment figures which are closer to 20% when you add in all of the people who have stopped looking. Until you get spending under control, the economy will continue to suffer and continued high unemployment except in the government which could use a major cut in personnel.

Posted by: sales7 | February 10, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

End the ethanol subsidies!!!

Posted by: CarolGBOS | February 10, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

they'd love to scrap the EPA because then there would be no watchdog agency to police the environmental crimes committed by the corporations that donate all the millions of dollars to finance their campaigns.

Posted by: trambusto | February 10, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Why the timidity? Go for it! Cut at least a trillion, and stop everything cold that our government does. Wheeeeeeeee!!

Posted by: chuck8 | February 10, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have been calling for massive cuts in the spending for over two years now (ever since they were kicked out of power for doubling the national debt and starting two un-winnable wars). For months before the 2008 elections they said they would cut $100 billion from the budget, but they wouldn’t say where they would cut. On election night in November, they said they would cut $100 billion from the budget, but still refused to say where they would cut the money from. It’s been four months since the November elections and we are well into 2011. Still the Republicans are claiming that they will cut $100 billion from the budget, but still they will not say where the cuts will come from. This Republican Congress is a joke! John Boehner is a failure. Please just go home and turn the government back over to the grown ups.

Posted by: codexjust1 | February 10, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

We tried their method the last time the Republicans put us in a Depression. Called Hooverism. Instead of 10% unemployment we got 30%.

Posted by: 5inchtaint | February 10, 2011 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The Red state red meat puppets of corporate America will do everything to keep their rich buddies tax breaks while breaking the back of Americas infrastructure. All Republican President shave been the reason for the exploded deficit but they spend their time trying to blame Obama for them.President Obama put the cost of the wars on the budget for all to see instead of hiding them like Dubya did and that caused his budget to go up plain and simple but the right will rewrite the facts into some fiction of their own making. Where is your jobs plan House Republicans wasnt that your stated priority? OBAMANOS!

Posted by: jbento | February 10, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have done it again, speaking about things where they have no knowledge, and letting their mouths overload what they sit on, and I don't mean the chair. There are some areas where cuts are possible, but when you have no approved budget from which to start, how can you make cuts that are meaningful?

Stupid on steroids.

Let's go back and cut the tax cuts that they gave to the ultra rich and put $400Billion back into the revenue stream and their problem would be solved. They won't do that because they must behave for their owners.

Posted by: ronjeske | February 10, 2011 6:43 PM | Report abuse

The situation in Egypt and Obama's Presidential behavior will continue to grab the headlines. Meanwhile, the hysterical republicans of all stripes will continue their self-love party -CAPAC, or whatever- largely ignored. The only way they will get any attention is by sutting down the government -good luck!

Posted by: RegisUrgel | February 10, 2011 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) announced Thursday that he intends to reduce government spending by $100 billion"


Is he going to start the cuts by cutting his own pay and all the 'perks' (ALL OF THEM, even the 'unreported' perks) he gets from his job?

Posted by: momof20yo | February 10, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"That ugly word TAXES must be in all equations to balance the budget."

Well, here's the thing. Half the population doesn't pay taxes. They'll have to start paying taxes. And a lot, too. Probably at least 10% of their income.

All those wonderful safety nets? They're going to have to go. If you can't afford it, then you don't get it. Just like real-life.

Jimmy Carter said it best. Life isn't fair.

People will whine "the children will be hurt". Don't worry, their children will be hurt a lot more if the country goes bankrupt.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!???!!!!

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 10, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

How funny that most folks have no clue regarding the Federal budget. The last study I saw, by a non partisan tax policy group, noted that domestic spending makes up only around 8% of total Federal outlays. In order to balance the budget without additional revenue, you have to eliminate ALL domestic spending, eliminate farm subsidies, cut a third of the defense budget, etc. in order to come close to a balanced budget. To achieve long term fiscal health, you have to increase the retirment age for social security, reform medicare and medicaid, etc. This 100 billion of "domestic spending" cuts is a sham that is meant to kill programs that far right wingers have wanted to kill since 1904. So, some of the cuts we are looking at and advocated by ignorant tea baggers are: rescind Metro funding of 2 billion, eliminate the Federal payment to DC of 275 million (thereby sending the DC budget into default), kill Amtrak, eliminate the National endowments for the Arts, Humanities, and Science (of course why on earth would a tea bagger want Art, Humanities, or Science that refutes creationism), gut the Justice Department, FBI, etc., gut the FDA (tea baggers just love salmonella and e-coli, as well as drugs that don't get trial tested), cut SEC and CFTC enforcement, etc., etc. The idea that we can balance the budget without reforming spending including all things being on the table (defense, entitlements, domestic, etc.) and not raise any taxes is completely absurd and unworkable. It is a lie - the GOP leadership knows it and the "Study Group" tea bag members are too ignorant to figure it out, being more used to one line slogans and talking points than actual thought. None of these jokers (on both sides of the aisle) are willing to make the courageous and real choices necessary to seriously attack our current and structural deficits. As noted by other posters, it will take a major crisis, such as a downgrade of the Country's creditworthiness, in order to get a realistic plan of action in place.

Posted by: fwillyhess | February 10, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The wild eyed job killers are on the march 5 million jobs to go away. Oh but they are not real jobs. They are government jobs and union jobs. Sick. They were elected on solving the jobs problem. Well we will just have to fix the mistake in 2012.

Posted by: Modeldon_9 | February 10, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The wild eyed job killers are on the march 5 million jobs to go away. Oh but they are not real jobs. They are government jobs and union jobs. Sick. They were elected on solving the jobs problem. Well we will just have to fix the mistake in 2012.

Posted by: Modeldon_9 | February 10, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

cut everything that help the people and keep the money going to the military or defense on invading two countries on a lie and unlimited ( as Chaney said, deficit do not matter) while the people on the planes was from Saudi Arabia and the GOP took this country from 900 billion in debt to over 14 trillion and they now want to take it out or the America people. People wake up for this is insane. trade deal that take jobs out of this country and a country that falling. insane

Posted by: lostdogrwd1011 | February 10, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The budget would not be in a mess had Ronnie Raygun and his fellow Nazis not started outsourcing American jobs and pushing down the wages.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

So, the projected budget deficit is supposed to by $1.5T, eh? I say split the difference: $750B in spending cuts and $750B in tax increases. Suddenly, you have a balanced budget.

BTW, that amounts to a mere $2500 reduction in services as well as $2500 increase in taxes to every man, woman and child in the USA.

See? How difficult was that?

Posted by: JoStalin | February 10, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

No worries. This effort to gut "liberal" programs - and that's all it is - will probably be as successful as it was in 1995. You'll notice the Department of Education and Big Bird are still around.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | February 10, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The do-nothings aren't going to cut anything. They are engaging in bluster and bragadocio to give a voice to the mean-spirited southern bigots in their base. These bigots hate working people, they hate federal government employees, they hate Hispanics, they hate African Americans, they hate gay people, they hate workers who are retired and they hate anyone who is not a white guy.

The do-nothings have not lifted a finger to create a single job, and they don't have a solution or an idea that they are willing to advance on any issue. They are just crotch-grabbing big-mouthed bigots who in the end will do what they always do when they come to Washington, feed at the public trough, stuff their drawers with millions in lobbyist' money and make a whole lot of noise that never adds up to a hill of beans.

Posted by: DCSage | February 10, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, the liberals I know only drink bottled water. I don't think I've ever seen a liberal drink water from a faucet or a public fountain. I've been told that they will deign to bathe in tap water, but I'm pretty sure they probably have some secret herbal additive. As for clean air, the liberals are still working hard on that. Pretty soon, there will be no smoking anywhere in a blue state, even outside in the woods at 4:00 A.M. Any Red-State tourists or visitors caught smoking will be sentenced to live 1 to 3 years in San Francisco, but may opt for death under the eighth amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Carbon emissions will be rolled back to somewhere around the thirteenth century, and anyone who leaves a carbon foot print larger that a size 9 EEE will be arrested, convicted, and summarily executed.
Posted by: jimbrowndog
**************************
Conratulations! Absolutley the stupidest comment on the board.

Posted by: overed | February 10, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Odds favor deficit growing by leaps until the next recession when the deficit will explode.

No solution to budget deficit except creating millions of new well-paying jobs and raising taxes.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Fiscal Conservatives my you know what. These cowards don't have the stone to do it the right way and that includes most of the Dems. That ugly word TAXES must be in all equations to balance the budget. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, all raised taxes and employment increase more than what was created and lost by tax cuts (recessions). If taxes are not on the table then we are being given a smoke and mirrors solution. The current cuts outline FINALLY by the thugs are nothing more than vengence against policies and organizations that have benefited the public good for decades.

Posted by: bowsell1 | February 10, 2011 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: short1
"Look a typical Dem...if it is so so easy - why did not yoru beloved Dems do that then - they had majorities all around for multiple years..and what did we get - higher unemployment....but forever increased government spending.

Neocons negative..LOL..LO..yeah - you Dems are such a sunshine.
________________________

Brush up on your current history, find some facts and go back to school and finish your GED.

Posted by: topwriter | February 10, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." The House has no common sense. The House Republicans cuts will cause unemployment to go up and it will not foster job investments. It certainly will not cause contractors to hire new employees since will be far fewer contracts let and some projects will simply go unfinished. The House is going to try and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Also, small and medium size business will get dragged into it as well. What a Congress we have elected. Idiots in action.

Posted by: mjmann | February 10, 2011 5:30 PM | Report abuse

To paraphrase kms123: "How about members of Congress voluntarily taking a nominal salary of $1.00 per year and voluntarily stop getting health insurance for themselves and their families?"

Sounds good to me kms! Unfortunately, the wealthy are only in it for themselves -how else did they get wealthy?

And the very definition of a republican is someone who believes the elite rule the majority. So, in effect, any cuts that increase the number of poor and underclass, the greater the control of the elite.

And by "elite" I do not make a distinction in political alignment or educational background. Those distinctions are fabricated for distraction purposes. I make a categorical delineation between the rich and the rest of us.

No cuts in defense? Surprise, surprise. As history and, in fact, current circumstances in Egypt show -you don't miff off the military.

Cuts in subsidies to big business? Nothing there either. Why? Well, you don't cut your purse strings if you want to get that third home in Arizona and get re-elected.

But wait ... that leaves cutting programs that help every one else! No problem with that! After all, as Nixon is reported saying, "F*** the doomed."

Posted by: topwriter | February 10, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Short1 wrote: "And Rufus....all that tinkering on the outer edges..but what exactly is makin gus go broke? The entitlements that you blame the "repubs' will take back?"

I didn't say anthing about blaming the republicans for taking back entitlements. If fact, that post didn't say ANYTHING about entitlements.

If your reading skills and comprehension were a little better, you'd know that you completely missed the point of someone who is probably agreeing with the general point that your posts are trying (ineffectively) to make.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Still waiting for specifics...

Posted by: damascuspride04 | February 10, 2011 5:24 PM | Report abuse

WHOOPEE- that's still nothing! With dod, homeland security, veterans admin and extra war appropriations the defense budget is upwarsd of $1.4 TRILLION just this year.....end these senseless and unethical wars and quit maiming and killing hundreds of thousands and bring our troops home and close nearly all foreign bases and cancel all weapons programs and we can save at least $600-700 BILLION.....

BTW- $1.4 TRILLION is nearly $4 BILLION A DAY! Total is more than 2 times rest of world defense spending and approx. 20 times the next largest defense spender China who has a population nearly 4 times the united states....what is wrong with this picture.....

Heck- in one day you could find $100 billion to cut from defense .......

Posted by: ticked | February 10, 2011 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Maddog wrote: "$100B is a good start - certainly better than the previous big spenders in the House."

It's funny (or pathetic and disingenuous) how people like Maddog whine about the last congress' spending and completely ignore the context of an economy and financial system that was melting down into the worst depression in history. Government becomes the borrower and spender of last resort (Keynsian economics) to stop the bleeding, stabilize the economy, and put us on a path to growth (slow though it may be).

The Federal government (both parties) did their parts and made some very hard, risky decisions at a time when minutes mattered and they didn't have months to study and debate the course of action. You should be thanking them for not sitting on the sidelines and letting the world's financial system collapse, which is exactly what your position implies.

It actually turned out as well as it possibly could have. The problem wasn't the deficit spending during a near-depression. The problem was deficit spending that maxxed out the nation's credit card during the good time. You can't borrow and spend in the bad times (when it's appropriate) if you guzzled credit in the good times.

That little gift was given to us by REPUBLICAN policies.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

nstead of cutting $100 Billion, how's about creating 20,000,000 new well paying jobs that will pay $100 Billion in new taxes. Think about that Neo-Cons! Think!

Neo-Cons are too negative. They belong with Mubarak. America has no room for Neo-Con negativity.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

=============

Look a typical Dem...if it is so so easy - why did not yoru beloved Dems do that then - they had majorities all around for multiple years..and what did we get - higher unemployment....but forever increased government spending.

Neocons negative..LOL..LO..yeah - you Dems are such a sunshine.

Posted by: short1 | February 10, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Maddog wrote: "$100B is a good start - certainly better than the previous big spenders in the House."

It's funny (or pathetic and disingenuous) how people lik Maddog whine about the last congress' spending and completely ignore the context of an economy and financial system that was melting down into the worst depression in history. Government becomes the borrower and spender of last resort (Keynsian economics) to stop the bleeding, stabilize the economy, and put us on a path to growth (slow though it may be).

The Federal government (both parties) did their parts and made some very hard, risky decisions at a time when minutes mattered and they didn't have months to study and debate the course of action. You should be thanking them for not sitting on the sidelines and letting the world's financial system collapse, which is exactly what your position implies.

It actually turned out as well as it possibly could have. The problem wasn't the deficit spending during a near-depression. The problem was deficit spending that maxxed out the nation's credit card during the good time. You can't borrow and spend in the bad times (when it's appropriate) if you guzzled credit in the good times.

That little gift was given to us by REPUBLICAN policies.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Let's see how fast this drives the economy into a ditch.

Posted by: Anglo_Rider | February 10, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

$100B is a good start - keep cutting. Certainly it's better than the spending increases the Democrats put into place over the past two years. Reduce the federal deficit, and get capital back into the private sector where real jobs are created. If we keep spending like we have been, soon we'll all be working for the federal government.

Posted by: JM80 | February 10, 2011 5:14 PM | Report abuse

The teabaggers and a number of other factions will say that our democracy is not working and that congress doesn't listen to "the people".

It turns out that they're wrong. The debate taking place in the government is an EXACT reflection of the split and the schizophrenia of American voters.

In the last election roughly 40% of voters said they voted for deficit reduction. About 40% voted for jobs creation. Then a tiny number voted for tax cuts and other issues.

Those objectives are mutually exclusive. The government CANNOT cut the deficit, cut taxes, and create jobs at the same time. It is not possible. Can't do it. Will never happen.

So we all fail when there is no political consensus or will among the voters.

Here's exactly what's going to happen to this country as we proceed down the current path: we will continue to tinker at the margins and refuse to make hard, responsible decisions. That path will lead us to a crisis where the hard decisions will be forced on us by market realities (dramatic rise in interest rates driven by a downgrade of the nation's credit worthiness and a precipitous drop in the value of the dollar.)

That crisis will be painful beyond imagining and will happen because this nation is incapable of making hard decisions to manage our finances responsibly.

That is your future and mine. On our current path, that future is only avoided if we are fortunate enough to die before it happens (and, of course, the republicans will assist you with that by repealing health care.)

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

====================

And Rufus....all that tinkering on the outer edges..but what exactly is makin gus go broke? The entitlements that you blame the "repubs' will take back? Lets just go back to 2008 spending levels.....that is enough to suffice for now - But Bozo Nobama has increased spending so so much in just 2 years ....the Dems are yelling to get back to 21008 levels - the cuts will be Draconian...Draconian? Now I ask you - if you had to get back to 2008 spending for your household..- a bit painful maybe ...but doeable...here - the Dems dont even think we can get back to 2008. Bottomline - SS-Medicare must be cut or higher taxes on the middle class just to make a dent - and then - stop the madness - being all things to all people - not possible with out going belly up.....look around - Greece - Portugal-England - riots - why - cause their governments can no longer afford the freebies it promised and now must cut-back. here's an answer...dont make those promises to begin with - they are not manageable...period! Its tough to ween the people off the teat of government - but it must be done.

Posted by: short1 | February 10, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I'll believe the Republicans in Congress are sincere when the cut their own retirement benefits! Try down to my Social Security Level!
That will be a good start!
1964 all over again!

Posted by: swtobill | February 10, 2011 5:11 PM | Report abuse

$100B is a good start - certainly better than the previous big Democrat spenders. Keep cutting, and free up capital for real private sector job growth. If we soon don't reign Obama and the Democrats in, we all soon will be working for the federal government!

Posted by: JM80 | February 10, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Bottom-line is that no matter how you slice it, no matter what their rhetoric may claim, Republicans are not at all serious about reducing the budget deficit or national debt. They are complete frauds.


If they were serious about fiscal security, they'd recognize that we've got a long-term challenge, not something that can or should be solved in a single budget cycle. And just as importantly, they'd recognize that revenue is every bit as important as spending, and that on the spending side our primary focus should be on reducing the growth in health care costs and reinvesting our bloated military budget on domestic priorities.


.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 10, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

$100B is a good start - certainly better than the previous big spenders in the House. Keep cutting. Reduce the federal deficit, and free up capital to be invested by the private sector for real job growth. If Obama's last year spending binge continues unabated, soon we all will be working for the federal government!

Posted by: JM80 | February 10, 2011 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Instead of cutting $100 Billion, how's about creating 20,000,000 new well paying jobs that will pay $100 Billion in new taxes. Think about that Neo-Cons! Think!

Neo-Cons are too negative. They belong with Mubarak. America has no room for Neo-Con negativity.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The teabaggers and a number of other factions will say that our democracy is not working and that congress doesn't listen to "the people".

It turns out that they're wrong. The debate taking place in the government is an EXACT reflection of the split and the schizophrenia of American voters.

In the last election roughly 40% of voters said they voted for deficit reduction. About 40% voted for jobs creation. Then a tiny number voted for tax cuts and other issues.

Those objectives are mutually exclusive. The government CANNOT cut the deficit, cut taxes, and create jobs at the same time. It is not possible. Can't do it. Will never happen.

So we all fail when there is no political consensus or will among the voters.

Here's exactly what's going to happen to this country as we proceed down the current path: we will continue to tinker at the margins and refuse to make hard, responsible decisions. That path will lead us to a crisis where the hard decisions will be forced on us by market realities (dramatic rise in interest rates driven by a downgrade of the nation's credit worthiness and a precipitous drop in the value of the dollar.)

That crisis will be painful beyond imagining and will happen because this nation is incapable of making hard decisions to manage our finances responsibly.

That is your future and mine. On our current path, that future is only avoided if we are fortunate enough to die before it happens (and, of course, the republicans will assist you with that by repealing health care.)

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse


If you leftist Dim weasels really wanted to gut our national defense you had six years to try and get it done. Shameful do nothing Dims did not pass a national budget for 2011 or a national defense budget. No wonder the Dims got voted out of the House in droves.

Posted by: screwjob23 | February 10, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

mdsince,

The problem is 30 years for Reaganomics, meaning tax cuts for the rich.

The problem is Newt Gingrich's Contract On America and turning control of our society over to BIG BUSINESS through deregulation and indiscriminate tax breaks for exporting jobs.

The problem is 43s total lack of oversight and his porn-surfing civil servants.

The problem isn't spending too much, it is taxing too little.

The last balanced budget was Bill Clinton's. Before that you go to pre-Great War.

Right-wing fiscal policy is a 140-year history of failure, bust-boom cycles with three depressions and over half a dozen recessions occurring during periods of no corporate accountability.

Right-wingers doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity, pure and simple. But they never stop and it always gets worse and worser and now worsest.

Grab your ankles and kiss civilization good-bye 'cause the right-wingers are out to destroy us all.

Posted by: TaxTheRichNow | February 10, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The teabaggers and a number of other factions will say that our democracy is not working and that congress doesn't listen to "the people".

It turns out that they're wrong. The debate taking place in the government is an EXACT reflection of the split and the schizophrenia of American voters.

In the last election roughly 40% of voters said they voted for deficit reduction. About 40% voted for jobs creation. Then a tiny number voted for tax cuts and other issues.

Those objectives are mutually exclusive. The government CANNOT cut the deficit, cut taxes, and create jobs at the same time. It is not possible. Can't do it. Will never happen.

So we all fail when there is no political consensus or will among the voters.

Here's exactly what's going to happen to this country as we proceed down the current path: we will continue to tinker at the margins and refuse to make hard, responsible decisions. That path will lead us to a crisis where the hard decisions will be forced on us by market realities (dramatic rise in interest rates driven by a downgrade of the nation's credit worthiness and a precipitous drop in the value of the dollar.)

That crisis will be painful beyond imagining and will happen because this nation is incapable of making hard decisions to manage our finances responsibly.

That is your future and mine. On our current path, that future is only avoided if we are fortunate enough to die before it happens (and, of course, the republicans will assist you with that by repealing health care.)

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Regarding proposed GOP budget cuts: H377 NO!

Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous | February 10, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Republicans are more afraid of teabaggers than of the public. They make ridiculous cuts of essential services, and leave sacred cows like Ag subsidies and Defense Contractors untouched. They care more about appeasing Beltway Bandits and ConAgra than in providing clean water for Americans.

Republicans have already shown how unserious they are about deficit control when the stomped their feet to add $700 billion to our debts to provide $100,000 tax refunds to millionaires. This is just another "No Billionaire Left Behind" proposal to undercut the middle class and slop pork to their corporate masters.

Posted by: AxelDC | February 10, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"proposes $100 billion in cuts"

And that barley scratches the surface.

CUT EVERYTHING!!!

We do not have a REVENUE problem.

We have a SPENDING problem.

NO OBAMACARE.

NO TSA.

NO BATFE.

CUT

CUT

CUT

DO IT NOW.

We are on track for a $1.7 TRILLION DEFICIT this year.

STOP SPENDING! I don't care who's sacred Ox gets gored. STOP SPENDING.

Posted by: mdsinc | February 10, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Democrat debt $14 Trillion and continued deficit spending (investments) in more government failed programs, as Hillary Clinton said is weakening the U.S.A. defenses against “the war on terrorism” radical Islam terrorists, al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and others strategically located e.g. Yemen throughout the world.

Obama’s Director James Clapper (DNI) demonstrated to the American people his Obama “political correctness” to blur the identification of radical Islamic terrorist threatening Nations through out the world.

It took Michelle Bachman to “drag out” from the panel, Muller, FBI, Panetta,CIA, Wagner, Homeland Security and Leiter Counterterrorism, the Islamic terrorist threats of Hezbollah, Lebanon, Hamas, Gaza that are growing in force and weapons to threaten and attack Israel, Jordan and any others in the region with terrorism to conquer and control as outlined in the Muslim Brotherhood Islam jihad terrorist handbook.

Americans are on the alert to Egypt’s revolution (so-called protesters) to overthrown the President of Egypt. Protesters interested in democracy do not demand the removal of the President. The President leaves, then what? The next move will be taking over of Parliament.

It will be obvious to everyone when the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islam groups infiltrate Egyptian government and Egypt is transformed into a Nation of Islam the religion of the Muslim people. The mistake in the Islamic Republic of Iran will be repeated in Egypt right under the nose of the political liberal lefts Obama and possible with his encouragement.

Possibly, the Democrats can disguise the Muslim religious take over until Obama runs his 2012 election campaign. If Obama is elected in 2012, it will be clear sailing for the Muslim world accomplished by the religious banner of Islam.

Posted by: klausdmk | February 10, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

When they claimed that the recovery was too fragile to raise tax (or restore tax to pre-Bush level) for the top 2% of Americans, I wanted to believe them. Now they want to fool us into believing that such deep cuts won't turn the economy back into recession. I thought I knew which side the Republicans are on. Perhaps I was wrong.

Posted by: ExpressReader | February 10, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"proposes $100 billion in cuts"

And that barley scratches the surface.

CUT EVERYTHING!!!

We do not have a REVENUE problem.

We have a SPENDING problem.

NO OBAMACARE.

NO TSA.

NO BATFE.

CUT

CUT

CUT

DO IT NOW.

We are on track for a $1.7 TRILLION DEFICIT this year.

STOP SPENDING! I don't care who's sacred Ox gets gored. STOP SPENDING.

Posted by: mdsinc | February 10, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

screwjob23

GO BACK TO FOX NOISE FOR MORE LIES AND BRAIN WASHING, screwboy! Conservatives have been driving this country into the ditches and over the cliff for 42 years - since Nixon took office. Try denying that one, screwboy!

The right-wingers have been trashing this country for decades.

First they attacked education. Today we can't compete.

They attacked science. Today we can't compete.

They deregulated the banks. Guess what happened.

They trashed the air and water standards. Asthma is rampant and there isn't enough clean water to go around.

They attacked science but couldn't outlaw gravity or make the sun rise in the west.

RIGHT-WINGERS ARE STOOPID! You simply cannot teach them anything but boy can you wash those tiny little brains!

Posted by: TaxTheRichNow | February 10, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

OK, let's look at serious cuts -- perhaps $35 billion or more from the defense budget, $25B or more from the farm subsidy bills, then, to save a lot of money (and perhaps find revenue), end the expensive losing war on drugs, legalize and tax marijuana.

In terms of health care fixes, how about rewriting the health care compensation that underpays primary care and overpays specialists. Lot's of money there.

Also, how about a serious cost review on the cost to the government on end of life care -- there are billions spent on extending life by days to folks who are in agony - the only winners there are the hospitals.

Posted by: Barry8 | February 10, 2011 4:49 PM | Report abuse

You cannot cut your way out of this type of recession while not creating millions of jobs along the way. What the GOP is proposing is reckless cuts that throws out the baby with the bathwater. Cutting programs that lead the charge for economic development during a recession. Really? There is no accounting science to their approach to fixing this economy. I am waiting to see which republican will finally become the adult in the room and actually lead instead of pander. I don't think this will come from the House side.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | February 10, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Is there an analysis on how many jobs will be lost with these cuts? For example, public money finances almost all infrastructure projects. The projects are often built and planned by private sector architecture and engineering firms. You cut the money you will have more unemployed. I swear to God Republicans lack the ability to deconstruct complex issues and identify damaging consequences.

Posted by: doesntmatter | February 10, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Indiscriminate budget slashings didn't work in 1981. Neither did indiscriminate tax cuts for the rich.

It is time to pay the bill for Reaganomics, Gingrich's Contract On America and 43s total lack of oversight.

Teabaggers just don't get it and other right-wingers refuse to admit their failures. The GOP trashed our country and they should pay for it. Bill the RNC for the $14 trillion today.

How does one pay that bill? TAX THE RICH NOW!

Vote the regressives out of office, then arrest them for destruction of the public security.

The United States doesn't need foreign enemies while the right-wing politicians and News Corp are doing their dirty work from inside the country!

Posted by: TaxTheRichNow | February 10, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse


The House controls the purse strings. Naturally the leftist scum want to gut our national defense first and foremost, especially during wartime. Barry's proposal does not cut defense spending either.

What is being cut is Barry's tax and spend boondoggles.

The last Congress that was controlled by the Dims utterly failed to pass a 2011 budget and a 2011 defense budget. No wonder the do nothing Dims were voted out of office.

Posted by: screwjob23 | February 10, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I fail to understand something. If the economy is doing poorly, and people aren't spending money, only the GOVERNMENT can. So if we cut down on government spending the economy is sure to contract even further and go deeper into the hole.

And, instead of having those people who owe THE MOST to this government for giving them the opportunity this country offers to make gazillion bucks, we cut their taxes out of the principle "what's mine is mine and go out and get yours" and they call this "fairness."

Don't we all support the country we live in? Don't we all deserve some modicum of support in return for doing so? You wanna give Donald Trump a gun and go fight Al-Qaeda?

What a sorry country we have become. Totally devoid of any sense of morality where it REALLY counts.

Posted by: ethanquern | February 10, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

So our Tea Party friends want to cut/eliminate the agencies. Let us see, which ones make the cut:
EPA - Kill
FAA - Kill, who cares if planes fly into each other.
FDA - Kill, we all should be able to sell snake oil cures to each other, remember this is a free country
FHA - Kill, we do not want any highway speed limits
FSLIC - Kill, we do not want our bank accounts to be insured, do we.
NTSB - Kill, ensuring safe transportation limits our freedom.
SEC - Kill, our stock traders should do whatever suits them, remember this is a free country.
CFTC - ditto, the Hunt brothers clan may again corner the silver market if they so choose, but then, so what?.
CPSC - kill, imagine regulating baby crib manufacturers - what will they do next?
NSF - Kill, who needs science anyway, the Lord has revealed what needs to be revealed.
OSHA - Kill, mining disasters-- stuff happens so why bother worrying about safety.
Federal Reserve - Kill, we should all be able to print currency, if we so desire. Remember this is a free country.

Posted by: Observer20 | February 10, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Why clean air and water are solely "liberal" concerns escapes me - maybe conservatives are trying to prove some macho point by surviving salmonella.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | February 10, 2011 3:55 PM |


Well, the liberals I know only drink bottled water. I don't think I've ever seen a liberal drink water from a faucet or a public fountain. I've been told that they will deign to bathe in tap water, but I'm pretty sure they probably have some secret herbal additive. As for clean air, the liberals are still working hard on that. Pretty soon, there will be no smoking anywhere in a blue state, even outside in the woods at 4:00 A.M. Any Red-State tourists or visitors caught smoking will be sentenced to live 1 to 3 years in San Francisco, but may opt for death under the eighth amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Carbon emissions will be rolled back to somewhere around the thirteenth century, and anyone who leaves a carbon foot print larger that a size 9 EEE will be arrested, convicted, and summarily executed.

Posted by: jimbrowndog | February 10, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The GOP talks spending reductions, but they do nothing more than shuffle the chairs on the deck. In fact, during the Reagan Administration the U.S. deficit doubled.

This is the problem with the GOP. Double-speak that only their blind followers are fooled by. It gets nothing accomplished. Under the GOP, spending tends to increase because they have lulled their base into believing that it has been reduced.

How about this. Cut Medicare completely. I'm young, I probably won't see a dime of that anyway. I am nowhere near retirement and the old folks (baby boomers) that qualify are the ones that spent us into this situation. Let them suffer the consequences, TODAY. This is how ridiculous these GOP yahoos sound in washington and their gullible base eats is up. The US Treasury is not a game. If you look at the worst performing schools in the country you will find that the top 9 are led by the GOP. Looking at the how their 'base' communicates on blogs, I can believe it.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | February 10, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Why clean air and water are solely "liberal" concerns escapes me - maybe conservatives are trying to prove some macho point by surviving salmonella.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | February 10, 2011 3:55 PM |


Well, the liberals I know only drink bottled water. I don't think I've ever seen a liberal drink water from a faucet or a public fountain. I've been told that they will deign to bathe in tap water, but I'm pretty sure they probably have some secret herbal additive. As for clean air, the liberals are still working hard on that. Pretty soon, there will be no smoking anywhere in a blue state, even outside in the woods at 4:00 A.M. Any Red-State tourists or visitors caught smoking will be sentenced to live 1 to 3 years in San Francisco, but may opt for death under the eighth amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Carbon emissions will be rolled back to somewhere around the thirteenth century, and anyone who leaves a carbon foot print larger that a size 9 EEE will be arrested, convicted, and summarily executed.

Posted by: jimbrowndog | February 10, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I think any cuts should be off the table until the tax cuts for the rich are repealed and corporate welfare is ended.
Until the breaks for these do nothings, these living off the public dole in the form of tax cuts and welfare for the upper class is ended, all proposals for cuts should be rejected.
It is high time this country stops trying to live off the backs of the poor, the infirmed and the needy and demands that the upper classes begin to pay their fair share.
Period.

Posted by: vwcat | February 10, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

without new tax revenue, we will have the worlds best military protecting a crumbling, polluted, poor, hungry, uneducated country. why don't we stop funding two pointless wars. we'll probably save more than 100 billion in 6 months. but we will not, because were stupid

Posted by: rmk1122 | February 10, 2011 4:36 PM | Report abuse

WillSeattle wrote: "Since Mubarak said he's not going ... Maybe Congress can man up and cut the foreign aid to Egypt to $0 and 0 cents.

MAN UP, CONGRESS.

Cut all funds to Egypt NOW."

Agreed. The Saudis said that they would restore all assistance lost if the U.S. cuts aid to Egypt.

Take the Saudis up on that offer now. Let the Arabs help their own. They say we're irrelevant so let's show them what that means.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Congress ...

How come Mubarak has 20 to 30 million US dollars in personal wealth?

...

Bet that would create a lot of American jobs if it had been spent in AMERICA instead of given to Egypt!

...

SPEND MONEY IN AMERICA AND CREATE AMERICAN JOBS!

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 10, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

No way out of the hole unless Republicans man-up and create millions of new well-paying jobs that pay taxes.

Severe cuts are also needed to defense. Republicans want to hide behind troops in order to protect their own defense projects. Much payola you know.

Posted by: Maddogg | February 10, 2011 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Since Mubarak said he's not going ...

Maybe Congress can man up and cut the foreign aid to Egypt to $0 and 0 cents.

...

MAN UP, CONGRESS.

Cut all funds to Egypt NOW.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 10, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

The tax cut legislation passed last year cost $400 Billion.

In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $42 Billion in profits, and paid $500 Million (or less than 2%) in federal taxes. Who here would like to have a 2% tax rate?

We can go a long way towards balancing the budget by removing all the tax subsidies and loopholes for corporation, and lowering the rate to say 15%.

The budget would get get a lot closer to being balanced, and the distorting effects of the tax code -- where established companies pay a pittance, and startups pay through the nose -- would be gone. This means a more innovative, competitive economy, and more JOBS!

Posted by: dpc2003 | February 10, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

CUT MILITARY SPENDING !!!

For those shaking in their boots about being attacked my some little country, stop being a wuss. Life includes risk, deal with it. Supporting our outrageous military expenditures does not you a patriot - it makes you a scaredy cat.

We don't need troops in Germany. We don't need a pile of new fighter planes. We don't need our military spending to equal that of the next 27 industrialized nations combined.

Tea partiers have the right idea, in general, in cutting the budget --- then the go ahead and put forth all kinds of insane, idiotic cuts - "kill the dept of education! Get rid of the EPA" that totally insane. Yeah - let's just let companies pollute to their heart's content - brilliant idea.

Military cuts are where it's at. Who is brave enough and enough of a patriot to get on board with reality here?

Posted by: chop1 | February 10, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Look no further than Department of Defense. Robert Gates offered a large number of cuts that he said wouldn't affect troop strength or readiness, but would reduce the deficit. Consider also the various agriculture subsidies that are no longer needed, and those to other businesses that are doing just fine without them.

Posted by: sober1 | February 10, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Our intent is to make deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of government, leaving no stone unturned and allowing no agency or program to be held sacred," Rogers said Thursday in announcing the $100 billion in cuts.

If leaving no stone unturned only yields $100 billion in cuts, then we are in serious serious trouble.

The deficit is $1.5 Trillion.
The entire year's federal budget is just over $1 Trillion.

They could shut down the entire government and we still would have at least a $500 Billion deficit (more actually, because one third of the fiscal year is over.)

This is a very serious problem. We either have to raise more revenue or slash entitlements. So the GOP has painted us into a box and put us in a no-win situation. Their ideology and rhetoric preclude them from doing either (increasing taxes and cutting entitlements.)

Whining and fighting over $100 billion in cuts is like trying to fix a leaky faucet when a tidal wave is coming.

Sadly, there is no light at the end of this tunnel because there this nation does not have the balls or the political will to manage its afairs responsibly. We will soon have the influence of France and the finances of Greece. Enjoy.

Posted by: RufusPlimpton | February 10, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Good start. Keep cutting.

Posted by: Chippewa | February 10, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I really wish people from around the country could drive around the DC area and see just how many office buildings say General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, BAE, CSC, Raytheon, and so on. The defense budget has little to do with the troops besides using them to justify it. What happens once we have no more combat troops in Afghanistan? Will we cut back then? Defense spending is welfare for the rich, nothing more.

Posted by: booerns14 | February 10, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I really wish people from around the country could drive around the DC area and see just how many office buildings say General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, BAE, CSC, Raytheon, and so on. The defense budget has little to do with the troops besides using them to justify it. What happens once we have no more combat troops in Afghanistan? Will we cut back then? Defense spending is welfare for the rich, nothing more.

Posted by: booerns14 | February 10, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

100 Billion= about 2 years of war at a billion a week.

Untold suffering will occur in the domestic arena as a result of these inhumane cuts. Dignity impaired, lives diminished, pain,
ignorance, cold, hunger.

Frankly, as soon as we leave the theatre of war all shall return to
preexisting conditions. We will have wasted lives, money all for
naught.

100 Billion = 2 lousy years of boondoggle war.

And the numbers and assumption are correct.

Posted by: jato11 | February 10, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

If you're looking for good news, I guess it's that after more than a month on the job Republicans are finally proposing a legislative package that addresses the jobs situation. But the bad news is Republicans don't have one single proposal here that would create jobs. Because on the Republican agenda, jobs are priority none. What this exercise in futility proves is that the Republican approach doesn't represent a serious effort at deficit reduction.


Instead, it's an exercise in targeting programs that help the kinds of people Republicans don't like. They really don't care about deficit reduction: the GOP's precious tax cuts for the Rich added nearly twice as much to the deficit as the total amount of cuts in this proposal. For the better part of two years, Republicans have claimed that the way to balance the budget is to just cut domestic spending programs. Today, they've proved that claim to be a myth.

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 10, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Keep digging because this is only the beginning. We have major budget cuts yet to do and if GOP OR Democrats think that voters aren't serious about slashing that deficit you best be prepared to give up your seat if you are wrong. It's past time to make govt responsive to voters again. You fail to keep cutting at your own peril.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | February 10, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

$100,000,000,000 is still not enough to cut considering the projected deficit of $1,500,000,000,000,000.
This $100 billion is less then 1/10th of one percent of the deficit.
Get real and start cutting!

Posted by: rteske | February 10, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Republican mindlessness and silliness. Republicans' puerile posturing. Republicans working to undercut America and Americans' economic recovery from the Republican Bush-Cheney Great Recession.
We have come to expect nothing better of these selfish political prostitutes.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | February 10, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

So many seem worried about tax cuts or breaks or incentives. To most people a tax break is unfair if it doesn't help them personally. No one complains about the breaks they get - just the ones others get. You could tax(confiscate) all the income (100%) of the wealthiest americans and still not balance the budget. How can anyone sincerely believe the spending cuts are not necessary. Trying to comprehend the size of the US budget and deficit is difficult but imagine in your own home - if you are spending more than you make what do you do? The rational person SPENDS LESS. Then over time they also look to earn more. One can help immediately - one takes time. Implement the immediate cure first.

Posted by: cmhbph1 | February 10, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I got it now, the 100 billion is to make sure more people lose their jobs, so they can win Presidency in 2012..... I got it now.

Posted by: Sincear2021 | February 10, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

This is some impressive posturing - but that's all it is and the GOP knows it.

Cutting discretionary spending but ignoring long term entitlement reform and refusing to raise taxes will do next to nothing to reduce the deficit.

The whole purpose of this exercise is to throw red meat to the conservative crowd by going after "liberal" programs.

Why clean air and water are solely "liberal" concerns escapes me - maybe conservatives are trying to prove some macho point by surviving salmonella.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | February 10, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

if they were serious:
1. cut aid to Israel in half = $3b
2. cut agricultural subsidies in half = $8b
3. eliminate family planning/abstinence funding => $.5B
4. eliminate oil subsidies = $4b
5. cut the corps of engineers budget in half = $2.5b
6. eliminate rancher subsidy
7. eliminate timber subsidy
8. eliminate SUV subsidy
9. downsize dept of education, labor, hhs, ag and energy
10. cut out DHS boondoggles and downsize
11. add a new tax bracket for over $2.5million
in annual income
12. eliminate f35 second engine = $.5B
13. slow down federal computer upgrades - move to more open source licenses
14. eliminate federal subsidies of state and local core activities (like police)

see, it's not too hard. there's easily $100b in waste unfortunately our congress wont cut the real sources of waste because they are all too politically powerful.

Posted by: PindarPushkin | February 10, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I want to know how cutting 100 billion, creates any jobs. Show me cutting 100 billion creates jobs.

Posted by: Sincear2021 | February 10, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have never been against spending - they just don't like Democratic spending.

And they apparently don't like clean air and water, a safe food supply, or safe products either.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | February 10, 2011 3:44 PM | Report abuse

GOP are professional grandstanding. They know their cuts wont make it through the Senate.

Posted by: Sincear2021 | February 10, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Great job, keep up the good work. Cut all the fat and then some. Give America back to Americans who work hard.

Posted by: tonyjm | February 10, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

DON't JUST BUDGET CUT - CUT THE AGENCIES !!!!
The "hit list" for Taking Back Our Country and restoring fiscal sanity:

Abolish the job-killing EPA
Abolish The Dept of (d-crat socialist teacher union) "Education"
Abolish the Dept of (d-crat socialist supporting union) Labor
Abolish the FCC
Abolish the Dept of (buying votes for d-crat socialists from Indian Tribes) Interior
Abolish the Dept of (Special-Treatment for Minorities with Taxpayer-Funded) Housing and Urban Development
Control the Federal Reserve - or Abolish it.
Abolish the Dept. of (Doing nothing to actually help) Commerce
Refocus the Dept of Homeland Security (for ILLEGAL immigrants) into something that might have a chance of actually protecting America and doing something useful.
Eliminate the thousands (NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS HOW MANY THERE ARE) of White House CZARS

and on, and on, and on....

Posted by: TeaPartyNation | February 10, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The GOP thinks it can cut $1 trillion without touching defense, Medicare, agricultural subsidies, or corporate welfare. Sure......

Posted by: maurban | February 10, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"...leaving no stone unturned" EXCEPT for tax cuts for the wealthy which of course exacerbate the budget deficit. There are two ends to the equation and the GOP has no interest in dealing with the end that might inconvenience their wealthy voter base.

Posted by: paul6554 | February 10, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

What is the jobs impact of the cuts? Have they cut the military substantially? How about huge subsidies for corporate agriculture? Have they cut those substantially?

Any cuts that don't deal substantially with the military-industrial complex are little more than posturing.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | February 10, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

They have to find more cuts because Obama is spending it faster than they can cut.

$18B for wireless, $58B for high speed rail...

Posted by: ahashburn
---------
Even then, it is not enough. As Mark Zandi stated, the GOP's deep cuts will create double digit unemployment. Incidently, they have called for cuts in high speed rail anyway (small drop in the bucket)

Posted by: beeker25 | February 10, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Who in the h#ll would ever vote for Donald Trump!

Let's see, he's got scary hair and went bankrupt three times. And was divorced how many times?
Not to mention he's an idiot

Posted by: maurban | February 10, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

They have to find more cuts because Obama is spending it faster than they can cut.

$18B for wireless, $58B for high speed rail...

Posted by: ahashburn
---------
Even then, it is not enough. As Mark Zandi stated, the GOP's deep cuts will create double digit unemployment. Incidently, they have called for cuts in high speed rail anyway (small drop in the bucket)

Posted by: beeker25 | February 10, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

If Donald Trump were by a miracle to become the GOP candidate for president, he could probably win.

I do not see either Democratic or Republican party that seem to work for the world financial oligarchy letting that happen however.

Posted by: Elisa2 | February 10, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

$100 billion is just a start. Glad to see GOP listening to what voters told them in 2010.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | February 10, 2011 3:14 PM |
_______________________________________

Not even close. Intelligent Americans' did not elect the GOP to come to Washington to play unrealistic games. When they say that they are cutting 100 billion from the budget without any specifics on what they intend on cutting, that suggests that they don't know. This is just talk, the same kinda talk that lost the Democrats their seats. The American people want to see JOBS. JOBS. JOBS. That is their number one priority.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | February 10, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I have listened very carefully. The only one that I have clearly understood to have actually listened at all, in any real way to the vast majority of the voices of the people so far is the builder Donald Trump.

The people want jobs and the rebuilding of industry to sustain them.

Posted by: Elisa2 | February 10, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"Further details on the specific cuts were not immediately available."

_____________________________

That is to say, we have no plan. We just "WANT" to cut this much.

Next they will say they are cutting funding for the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and U.S. Homeland Security.

While at the same time, they will reduce taxes on America's most wealthy, which, I add, include both Democrats and Republicans, but give no breaks to the middle class.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | February 10, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

$100 billion is just a start. Glad to see GOP listening to what voters told them in 2010.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | February 10, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

This is just another example of GOPers flexing their biceps, exposing their abs, and posing naked to show off to Tea Bag extremists their prowess at "cutting spending." All the Republicans are Congressman Lee under their button-down shirts.

I want to know how all this cutting will generate new jobs for the economy? Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost if the rapacious Republicans have their way now. They are thugs protecting the interests of wealthy fat cats, lobbyists, and blind religious bigots.

Posted by: dee5 | February 10, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Are they serious?

Mubarak is leaving Egypt with $2 to $3 billion of the $20 to $30 billion in US tax dollars he stole over the years ... and no cuts there?

Want to get serious about budget cuts - end the two foreign wars of Republican adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan we can't afford and bring all our troops home and fire all the 3-5 times standard soldier pay mercenaries for the unneeded "embassies" there.

Al-Qaeda LEFT both countries HALF A DECADE AGO.

GET REAL!

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 10, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Further details on the specific cuts were not immediately available."

_____________________________

That is to say, we have no plan. We just "WANT" to cut this much.

Next they will say they are cutting funding for the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and U.S. Homeland Security.

While at the same time, they will reduce taxes on America's most wealthy, which, I add, include both Democrats and Republicans, but give no breaks to the middle class.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | February 10, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

There is only one place to make big cuts, the Defense Department. To BALANCE the Budget, instead of the Repubs silly "Anything But Obama" cuts I propose eliminating the Navy, who's last and final war was WWII, and th eNavy's Army, sometimes called the Marines, whose job is to jump off of NAvy ships and invade.

Simple solution, balances the Budget, and keeps America safe. Yes, you guessed it, I'm an Army vet.

Posted by: chucky-el | February 10, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The sign trade deals to sell away the resources of the US people.
The turn their backs on the US people to make more profit in using others for hire.
They threaten destruction if any of their wealth is taken from them through taxes while they take from the people all that they can through contracts, bribes, and corrupt deals.

This kind of greed is as old as time.

God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods.

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Posted by: Elisa2 | February 10, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Ahhhhh, more talk with no specifics!!!! Well, except for cuts to programs the "fat cat" lobbyists oppose and benefit the vast majority of the population!

Posted by: dwatson1 | February 10, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

cut all raises for Senators and Congress till the budjet is balanced.all donations to the senators and congress shell be applied to the defict till it is balanced too.recind all tax cuts till the defict is paid then don't fund the WORLD

Posted by: theoldmansays | February 10, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

They have to find more cuts because Obama is spending it faster than they can cut.

$18B for wireless, $58B for high speed rail...

Posted by: ahashburn | February 10, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"Our intent is to make deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of government, leaving no stone unturned and allowing no agency or program to be held sacred," Rogers said Thursday in announcing the $100 billion in cuts. "I have instructed my committee to include these deeper cuts, and we are continuing to work to complete this critical legislation."

OH! Except for congresses pay congressional lifetime health and pension benefits, subsidies to corporate AG, oil/coal/gas and of course military spending.

Posted by: knjincvc | February 10, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The GOP, party of wealth, doesn't give one bush about the rest of us.

Posted by: jimsteinberg1 | February 10, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

nerds!!! just kidding

Posted by: k-jackson | February 10, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I'm guessing this is their good cop bad cop dance. War and tax
breaks and making the slaves pay for the roads to the salt mine.

Posted by: 5inchtaint | February 10, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

WOW..now they want to put 500,000 people out of work.

Those Tax Breaks for the RICH are not working out so well for you HUH..

Posted by: pdq5 | February 10, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

WHERE ARE THE JOBS, REPUGS?!?!

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 10, 2011 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Why not call for $300 billion in cuts. They know the Senate won't go along so this is a game and a real waste of time. But then Congress under either party is pretty good at useless votes and that is what this is.

One would hope that Republicans would get serious which is what they promised the electorate. But it appears that their leadership will have a much trouble with the Tea Party as the Democrats had with the Blue Dogs.

In the end the people suffer.

Posted by: peterdc | February 10, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have NO GUT's..

They have NO problems
Spending and Borrowing the Money.

We have to RAISE TAXES Dramatically.

AND
they still have no guts to do that..

Posted by: pdq5 | February 10, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans went for a joyride with the economy during the Bush W years ..put all kinds of dents in it..bashed in the front end and now they want to return it as if they were not behind the wheel driving... what they are claiming to want ot fix..is what they messed up in the first place.. maybe not the areas where the least amongst us were helped..but they went out of their way to ensure prosperity for their supporters at the expense of the poor..now they want to draw back and blame those who need help the most.. these people should be exposed for the dastardly evil people they are..and should never have real power ever again..

Posted by: sabrina2 | February 10, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Guy sure has some white hair.

Posted by: 5inchtaint | February 10, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Bwaahahaha!

"Further details onspecific cuts were not immediately available."

Teabaggers, please.

Don't hold your breath for those "specific details."

Republicans have already voted for tax cuts that will add nearly fifteen (15) times more to the national debt as they are proposing to cut on the spending side.

As for the GOP's latest list of budget cuts, they shave a mere $23 billion in spending.

The budget deficit will be $1.500 trillion for this fiscal year. So, if the GOP has their way, it will be $1.477 trillion.

That's a cut of merely 1.5%.

Despite everything the GOP is going after, our budget deficit will be 98.5% of what it would have been otherwise -- virtually unchanged. In other words, the only thing they didn't slash was the budget deficit.

The GOP’s proposed cuts include a nearly $1 billion cut in WIC -- the Women, Infants, and Children program, which provides food and nutritional advice for mothers and their toddlers, as well as cuts for the Centers for Disease Control, the FBI, job training, alternative energy research, and green jobs initiatives.

Bottom-line is that no matter how you slice it, no matter what their rhetoric may claim, Republicans are not at all serious about reducing the budget deficit or national debt.

They are complete frauds.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | February 10, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

mogrianne wrote: agree let the wealthy congress and senate take a one year cut in pay. And instead of us funding 75% of their healthcare, how about we just fund 20% of their healthcare. That would mean they are really walking their talk instead of just dumping more burden on the tax payer. Beacaue in the long run the government has no money, they do not earn money they get it from the taxpayers - us. So instead of cutting money from the poor lets ask the richest people in the country, our government represenrtatives, to take a cut for the country, let them show how much they care about the deficit.
----------------------------------------------
Where's the petition ..I want to sign it..for sure..

Posted by: sabrina2 | February 10, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The reality is $100 billion is not even close to enough in cuts. There really needs to be an overhaul and audit of all the agencies. We need to consolidate the government to make it more efficient. Job performance should matter if your a governement employee!

Posted by: markymarkfunkybunch | February 10, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Start by eliminating the ceiling on Social Security taxes while keeping the limitations on the payback. Rich people can afford a little more. Bill Gates surely wouldn't miss a few thousand dollars. And even if he it's the American people who make up his work force and consumers who made him who he is.

Then stop letting American corporations repatriate their offshore net profits without paying any taxes. They hold onto their billions in revenue and than every five years some congressman with an election coming up helps them to keep all the profits and pay nothing to Uncle Sam.

And yes Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. No less than Bernie Madoff's. So is that insurance policy you bought from Mutual of Omaha. So let's stop pretending the Wall Street mega corporations are a friendly bunch and tax them. Who says they pay us for our living when we pay more taxes than they do.

Posted by: KraftPaper | February 10, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the House GOP is already flailing around and its leadership - Boehner, Cantor - is ineffectual, not in charge. It's only the beginning. When you come in with a rightwing agenda that wants to tear down government and has no positive ideas for the country's future, this is what you get.

Posted by: dudh | February 10, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I agree let the wealthy congress and senate take a one year cut in pay. And instead of us funding 75% of their healthcare, how about we just fund 20% of their healthcare. That would mean they are really walking their talk instead of just dumping more burden on the tax payer. Beacaue in the long run the government has no money, they do not earn money they get it from the taxpayers - us. So instead of cutting money from the poor lets ask the richest people in the country, our government represenrtatives, to take a cut for the country, let them show how much they care about the deficit.

Posted by: mogrianne | February 10, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I agree let the wealthy congress and senate take a one year cut in pay. And instead of us funding 75% of their healthcare, how about we just fund 20% of their healthcare. That would mean they are really walking their talk instead of just dumping more burden on the tax payer. Beacaue in the long run the government has no money, they do not earn money they get it from the taxpayers - us. So instead of cutting money from the poor lets ask the richest people in the country, our government represenrtatives, to take a cut for the country. let them show how much they care about the deficit.

Posted by: mogrianne | February 10, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Congress should adopt a salary of twice the median family income. Pay for performance - as family income rises, Congressional pay rises.

Posted by: Ashland | February 10, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Astonishingly there are no defense cuts. What gives?

Posted by: ExConservative | February 10, 2011 2:05 PM | Report abuse

How about taking members of Congress voluntarily taking a nominal salary of $1.00 per year. Members of Congress can also voluntarily stop getting health insurance for themselves and their families.

Posted by: kms123 | February 10, 2011 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company