Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:13 PM ET, 02/18/2011

What budget-cutting amendments has the House passed this week?

By Felicia Sonmez

Updated: Saturday, 5:10 a.m.

Lawmakers this week proposed 583 amendments to a resolution funding the federal government through September. Ultimately 153 of those amendments were considered on the House floor and 67 of them ended up being adopted by the House.

The amendments range from one that would cut off funding for Obama administration "czars" to several aimed at defunding the national health-care law.

Below is our round-up of the amendments that passed. (Note: The funding resolution would have to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate and be signed into law by President Obama in order for the amendments to become law.)

Sponsor -- Amendment number -- Effect in current fiscal year

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) -- #2 -- Eliminates $450 million in funding for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine program.

Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) -- #153 -- Shifts $80 million in funding from the Census Bureau to the Economic Development Administration.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) -- #368 -- Eliminates $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) -- #12 -- Directs $20 million to implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) -- #125 -- Shifts $298 million from NASA Cross Agency Support to the COPS community policing program.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) -- #297 -- Eliminates $1.9 million in the Bureau of Reclamation's water and related resources funding.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) -- #223 -- Shifts $510 million from research and development funds to firefighter assistance grant funding.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) -- #30 -- Eliminates $2 million in funding for the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

Ren. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) -- #84 -- Eliminates $8.4 million in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Registry.

Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) -- #379 -- Eliminates $10 million in funding for EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) -- #196 -- Eliminates $20.5 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Rep. Quico Canseco (R-Tex.) -- #249 - Eliminates $4.5 million in funding for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs.

Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) -- #381 -- Eliminates $15 million in funding for the Presidio Trust Fund.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) -- #276 -- Shifts $557 million in funding from school improvement grants and teacher quality grants to IDEA educational grants for children with disabilities.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) -- #532 -- Strikes language that prohibits the Department of Education from using the Alaska Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Program.

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) -- #108 -- Eliminates $1.5 million in funding for the Greening the Capitol program.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) -- #100 -- Eliminates $42.6 million in funding for the United States Institute of Peace.

Rep. Quico Canseco (R-Texas) -- #248 -- Eliminates $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) -- #291 -- Eliminates $20 million in funding for the Treasury Department's debt restructuring program.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) -- #334 -- Limits Urban Area Security Initiative grants to 25 high-risk urban areas.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) -- #211 -- Provides $30 million to carry out the provisions of the PROTECT Our Children Act.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) -- #208 -- Prohibits the use of public funds for Presidential Election Campaign Fund or political party conventions, at an estimated savings of $40 million.

Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) -- #514 -- Waives cost-sharing requirements for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response grant program.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) -- #404 -- Prohibits funds from being used to implement the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality rules.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) -- #195 -- Stops the payment of legal fees to citizens and groups who sue the government.

Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.) -- #165 -- Prohibits the use of funds to enforce an EPA rule on cement manufacturing emissions.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) -- #204 -- Eliminates funding of federal agency "czars," at an estimated savings of at least $1.5 million.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) -- #424 -- Prohibits U.S. military assistance to Chad due to its continued use of child conscription.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) -- #23 - Increases Health and Human Services HIV-AIDS funding by $42 million.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) -- #214 -- Prohibits funds for the Department of Education Regulations on Gainful Employment.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) -- #11 -- Prohibits funds from being made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any of its affiliates.

Rep. Don Young (Alaska) -- #533 -- Prohibits funds from being used by the Environmental Appeals Board to block air pollution permits required for offshore drilling projects along the Arctic Coast.

Reps. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), Joe Barton (R-Tex.) and John Carter (R-Tex.) -- #466 -- Defines specifically what greenhouse gases are and prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing regulations on those gasses emitted by stationary sources.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) -- #575 -- Prohibits funds from being used to pay any employee, officer, or contractor to implement the national health-care law.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) -- #267 -- Prohibits funds in the government funding resolution from being used to carry out the provisions of the national health-care law.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) -- #268 -- Prohibits funds in the government funding resolution from being used to pay any federal employee to implement the national health-care law.

Rep. Mary Jo Emerson (R-Mo.) -- #83 -- Prohibits funds from being used to implement the individual mandate and penalties and reporting requirements of the health-care law.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) -- #409 -- Prohibits funds from be used to carry out the medical loss ratio restrictions in the health-care law.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) -- #296 -- Prohibits funds from being used to implement the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study.

Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) -- #177 -- Bars funds from implementing the Travel Management Rule relating to the designation of roads and trails in the National Forest System.

Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) -- #566 - Bars funds from being used to require manufacturers to report to the Justice Department on the sale of multiple guns to one person.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) -- #145 -- Prohibits the use of any funds in the closure or realignment of the United States Joint Forces Command.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) -- # 146 -- Bars the use of Defense Department funds for parties, dinners and official functions for senior defense officials.

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) -- #498 - Bars funding to enforce regulations published by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation.

Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) -- #583 - Prohibit the use of funds for Overseas Comparability Pay Adjustment.

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) -- #38 -- Prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Agriculture's Community Connect broadband grant program.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) -- #467 - Prohibits funding to implement plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) -- #79 -- Prohibits funding to promote or regulate Health Care Exchanges.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) -- #126 -- Prohibits the use of funds for assistance to Saudi Arabia.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) -- #101 -- Prohibits the use of funds to provide nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for mohair.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) -- #13 - Prohibits funding to implement new Florida Water Quality Standards.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) - #8 - Prohibits funding for renovations or rental of the United Nations Headquarters in the United States.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) -- #377 -- Prohibits USDA funds from being used for construction of ethanol blender pump or storage facilities.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) -- #495 -- Prohibits funds to implement a NOAA Climate Service, which was proposed by Dept of Commerce in Feb 2010.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) -- #109 -- Bars funds for EPA guidelines on surface coal mining operations.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) -- #548 -- Prohibits funds from going toward issuing federal permits for harvesting fish for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) -- #47 -- Prohibits funds for the study of Missouri river projects.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) -- #149 -- Prohibits the use of funds for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) -- #94 - Prohibits funding EPA waivers for ethanol content of gasoline.

Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) -- #216 -- Prohibits funds from being to be used by the EPA to revoke a permit under the Clean Water Act.

Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) -- #217 -- Bars funding for the EPA to regulate fossil fuel combustion waste.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) -- #545 - Prohibits funds from being used to carry out the Consumer Product Safety Commission's authorization to create a consumer product safety information database.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) -- #200 - Prohibits funds from being used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the HHS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), which administers insurance provisions created in the national health care law.

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) -- #563 -- Prohibits the use of funds to modify the national primary ambient air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter (dust).

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) -- #430 -- Prohibits the use of funds to pay for the salary of any officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, or the Department of the Treasury who takes any action to specify or define essential benefits as required in the national health care law.

Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) -- #567 - Prohibits the use of funds to implement the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) -- #154 -- Prohibits Department of Education from enforcing the restrictions placed on Texas concerning Federal Education Funds.

By Felicia Sonmez  | February 18, 2011; 7:13 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: Intel chief sounds a gentler note on Obama
Next: After 90 hours of debate, House nears completion of government-funding measure

Comments

Hey GOP....where are the jobs. Still no legislation to create jobs. Your cuts to Educations will cut jobs, cuts to Health care put even more nurses,aids and support people on the streets. You could take cuts to the oil subsidies and repeal the tax cuts to the Rich who have proven under Bush did nothing for jobs. Cutting infrastructure spending does nothing but cut current and future project jobs.....Where are the job ideas? Oh you have none ...that is why we see none! You think that destroying Police and Fire dept jobs will help the economy!

Posted by: Americacares | February 20, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Republicans at work!!! slashing the EPA FDA etc(great for corporate profits!) And a 2% increase for defense( over 600 BILLION) Corporations couldn't ask for a sweeter deal!! Buying a congressman is a great investment!!!..

Posted by: jamestex | February 20, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Republicans at work!!! slashing the EPA FDA etc(great for corporate profits!) And a 2% increase for defense( over 600 BILLION) Corporations couldn't ask for a sweeter deal!! Buying a congressman is a great investment!!!..

Posted by: jamestex | February 20, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

This is the best of the best;

"Bars funds from being used to require manufacturers to report to the Justice Department on the sale of multiple guns to one person."

Got to keep guns flowing to drug cartels.

I'm also amazed by the number of bills from congressmen in coal mining states to eliminate monitoring air and water quality.

You can tell who's in the pocket of corporations.

Still no bill cutting congressional pay or eliminating congresses lifetime health and pension benefits.

Any way $60 billion cut is just 15 weeks in Iraq.

Posted by: knjincvc | February 20, 2011 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Do you think the tea partiers will ever figure out that most of these so called "cuts" aren't cuts.

Posted by: Frazil | February 20, 2011 10:24 AM | Report abuse

how about $ 1 million to deport every member of Congress tonight. one hearing. choose your drop off spot. GOP members get sent to Afghanistan. Democrats go to Egypt.

Posted by: isometruman1 | February 19, 2011 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so the senate won't go along...hmmm but that doesn't mean the house has to go, oh heck we will have to rethink this and fund it.
Paybacks are hell dems,you ran roughshod over the voters to pander to your elite progressives.
Now you'll call the GOP all kinds of names, what's next?
And if the Supreme Court does decide to hear the Obama citizenship case????
Wow, but nary a word in WP that I have seen.
Just ignore it,,,, there are no GOP controlled parts of congress that the progressive media can't slander and bludgeon into submission...yeah just keep saying that

Posted by: Saladin3 | February 19, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse


"I support the troops until it comes time to pay for them."

- Typical leftist chucklehead

Posted by: screwjob23 | February 19, 2011 7:57 PM | Report abuse

As others have commented: why no significant cuts to our "defense" spending. Just consider:

- We spend something like $1 TRILLION a year supposedly "defending" ourselves (DOD, "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland "security," intelligence, etc)...apparently far more than the rest of the world COMBINED. How can that happen with NO ONE even asking the simple question: are we...and we alone in the whole world...really that threatened? No other country seems to feel the need to undermine their economy, way of life, and economic future in order to "defend" themselves? So why are we undermining our own economic future and way of life? Personally, I'm convinced many of the alleged "threats" to us are based on half-truths or pure fabrications by our political/military "leaders" with money/votes/positions/jobs/power/influence to protect. But, regardless, doesn't the present situation suggest to ANY of our "leaders" that maybe we should seriously reevaluate our policies...and discuss them publicly?

- I challenge anyone to list the countries that have invaded/attacked (or threatened) another country in the last, oh, 20 or 30 years. It's pretty much just America: invading Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq; sending missiles into Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia; leading the bombing of Serbia; threatening to attack Iran. Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait...but Saddam is gone now. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was more than 30 years ago...and the Soviets are gone too. Next after us is Israel...invading Lebanon, attacking/bombing Syria, threatening to attack Iran. No one else is remotely close to us. Many Americans like to pretend that other countries have the same desire that we do to invade/attack others...but it's certainly not borne out by history. And any pretensions that "pax Americana" might have prevented such attacks is pure speculation. And even if true, we're the losers in that equation since it has helped to now undermine our own economy and way of life.

The main "threat" to us seems to be that some other country might make us mad and we feel the need to go over there and beat the crap out of them. That hardly makes the world a dangerous place...for us. Where I grew up...Southern California...I don't recall the concept of having a "bully on the block" telling everyone else what to do being particularly "valued" or respected. It's little wonder that in opinion polls a few years ago Brits, by large margins, considered Bush a greater threat to world peace and stability than Ahmadinejad or Kim Chong-il.

- We should have a "contest" to pick the biggest fraud: nuclear weapons "modernization" (useful if the Klingons attack and Capt. Kirk is not available) or "missile defense for Europe." If "missile defense" is so important, why aren't Europeans rushing to pay for it? Because they're not complete morons who will waste tens of billions on a system that has never worked and against a threat they don't see. So, why are we wasting billions?

Posted by: Rigged | February 19, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Did even one Congressperson of any party (Tea included) propose an amendment to cut his/her own salary by as much as a penny? If not, I don't even want to hear the rest.

Posted by: chaos1 | February 19, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

WOW about $610 million in savings, $450 from one DoD boondoggle. Most of the rest simply shift spending from one pet project to another. I have a proposal that would cut $3,879 million, six times as much. Eliminate direct payments under the US Farm Bill. These payments were originally emergency payments due to low crop prices. With crop prices at or near record level for most "program" crops there is no need for these payments. OH wait most farmers who receive these payments are republicans and a fair number Tea Party members.

This is from the USDA website "Net Farm Income Forecast Up Nearly 20 Percent in 2011

Net farm income is forecast to be $94.7 billion in 2011, up $15.7 billion (19.8 percent) from the 2010 forecast, despite a $20-billion jump in production expenses. The 2011 forecast is the second highest inflation-adjusted value for net farm income recorded in the past 35 years" http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/FarmIncome/

Yet we will still pay over $10 BILLION in subsidies to farmers who's NET income is forecast to rise $15.7 BILLION in 2011.

Why do I not think that the republicans are serious about the deficit?

Posted by: tianyisun | February 19, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

This isn't a Budget resolution. This is a Destroy America Act. Bring back the recession! Let's have a real Depression! Let's pollute the environment! Let's teach lies to the kids in Texas! Let's create a Hobbesian State of Nature, All Against All, in which our lives can be nasty, brutal and short! Tea baggers forever!

Posted by: frodot | February 19, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I applaude the actions of both Republicans and Democrats who supported big cuts in government spending.

I'm still looking to see how much we saved by taking Pelosi's private jet away from her !!! I think she spent enough of my tax dollars on her boondoggles to nowhere with family and friends.

Posted by: sgtprovo28460 | February 19, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I applaude the actions of both Republicans and Democrats who supported big cuts in government spending.

I'm still looking to see how much we saved by taking Pelosi's private jet away from her !!! I think she spent enough of my tax dollars on her boondoggles to nowhere with family and friends.

Posted by: sgtprovo28460 | February 19, 2011 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I applaude the actions of both Republicans and Democrats who supported big cuts in government spending.

I'm still looking to see how much we saved by taking Pelosi's private jet away from her !!! I think she spent enough of my tax dollars on her boondoggles to nowhere with family and friends.

Posted by: sgtprovo28460 | February 19, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Dear Republicans:

This isn't what we sent you to DC to do. This isn't serious governance. Not even close.

Get your act together, soon.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | February 19, 2011 3:48 PM | Report abuse

A very sad commentary on our so called democracy; "of, by and for the people".

Posted by: hfaulk01 | February 19, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I agree with rojas...Cut their salaries aids and they should fly coach instead of first class. Doesn't matter which one,Republican or Dem. While they are proposing extending cost of living increase, furloughs, not once has anyone mentioned cutting their salaries.

Posted by: koolone | February 19, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I think we the people ought to insist that Congress, liberal, conservative, tea party, that they begin cuts with themselves. Like lets say cutting their salaries by 15%. Cutting their staff by 15%. Cutting their operating expenses by 15%. We also see them cutting everything but alway maintaining their salaries or better increasing it. Lets start the Peoples Campaign- Start Cuts with Congress First. What say you?

Posted by: rojas1953 | February 19, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Anything in there geared to investment for the future?

I saw a few that might be construed that way, but they all come at a heavy cost to programs already suffering from right-wing bludgeonings.

Taking money away from teachers and giving it to disabled students doesn't help if there are no teachers to teach the disabled.

Most of this is simply right-wing assaults on the society they already hamstrung.

Posted by: PoliticalPrisoner2012 | February 19, 2011 12:39 PM | Report abuse

WOW about $610 million in savings, $450 from one DoD boondoggle. Most of the rest simply shift spending from one pet project to another. I have a proposal that would cut $3,879 million, six times as much. Eliminate direct payments under the US Farm Bill. These payments were originally emergency payments due to low crop prices. With crop prices at or near record level for most "program" crops there is no need for these payments. OH wait most farmers who receive these payments are republicans and a fair number Tea Party members.

This is from the USDA website "Net Farm Income Forecast Up Nearly 20 Percent in 2011

Net farm income is forecast to be $94.7 billion in 2011, up $15.7 billion (19.8 percent) from the 2010 forecast, despite a $20-billion jump in production expenses. The 2011 forecast is the second highest inflation-adjusted value for net farm income recorded in the past 35 years" http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/FarmIncome/

Yet we will still pay over $10 BILLION in subsidies to farmers who's NET income is forecast to rise $15.7 BILLION in 2011.

Why do I not think that the republicans are serious about the deficit?

Posted by: tianyisun | February 19, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for reporting this list. A lot of representatives will be answering for them later.

The slickest move was Eric Cantor's, who kept his name off the list, and apparently persuaded one of his colleagues to reverse the $450 million "jet engine to nowhere" boondoggle that Cantor pushed. Cantor says he's against earmarks. No he isn't.

It is striking how some of these amendments seek to block reform measures. It's been widely reported that the online for profit "universities" are really sketchy if not worse, so reforms to keep federal dollars from being wasted there are blocked. Meanwhile, Pell grants for legitimate schools are reduced. I don't think that online universities ought to get any federal money unless they are accredited by some serious oversight organization. As it stands now, these "universities" are now advertising on late night cable under an "internet date matching" format. How appropriate.

As noted below, Forbes' bar on base closures simply has the effect of locking in hundreds of millions if not billions of efficiency reforms. It is not fiscally responsible, and is just another earmark from a different method.

The predictable anti-poor, anti-education, anti-health, anti-environment (even the Chesapeake Bay! Come on fellas!), anti-abortion agendas come through here loud and clear.

The pro-investment banking, pro-business fraud agendas also come through loud and clear.

And even so, didn't the R's promise $100 billion in cuts?

And what about their shrieking about social security and medicare?

These guys are like lemmings marching in a straight line over the cliff. As the economy does better as it gradually seems to be doing, a heck of a lot of middle of the road folks are going to think that education is important, and Republican blocking of cost saving measures and reforms will give the D's a lot of great messaging opportunities.

So what happens now? Most of this will be rejected by the Senate, and the conference committee will be deadlocked for a while. Then some version will be issued that won't pass either house. If Obama plays it right, he benefits greatly.

Posted by: aclearview | February 19, 2011 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Don't sweat it, guys. This bill won't go anywhere. These egoistic crooks just wanted to write up a list they can use at night to wank off to. It represents their wet dreams and now they have an alternative to their mother's picture.

Posted by: Rawuzi | February 19, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Cutting $20.5 million from the NEA really makes a big dent in the deficit. I guess if artists routinely spoke out in favor of the GOP, they'd have received a $20.5 million increase. I wonder how many Iraqis and Afghans $20.5 million will kill?

Posted by: djmolter | February 19, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Not 1 penny taken from the defense budget. Buck McKeon and his ilk made sure that the defense industry can continue unabated to gouge and fraud the taxpayer.

Posted by: jmellis1 | February 19, 2011 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I find this so-called "cut" to be interesting:

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) -- #145 -- Prohibits the use of any funds in the closure or realignment of the United States Joint Forces Command.

Closing the u s joint forces command was proposed by Secy Gates to save huge amounts of money. This so-called "cut" saves some pork for Forbes.

fraud!

Posted by: summicron1 | February 19, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I find this so-called "cut" to be interesting:

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) -- #145 -- Prohibits the use of any funds in the closure or realignment of the United States Joint Forces Command.

Closing the u s joint forces command was proposed by Secy Gates to save huge amounts of money. This so-called "cut" saves some pork for Forbes.

fraud!

Posted by: summicron1 | February 19, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The same mentality now in control of the House was exposed in the 1980's and 1990's with airline executives cutting costs without offering a product anyone wanted. SHutting something down is not fiscal responsibility, it is childish temper tantrum throwing. Just ask Braniff, Eastern Airlines, and all the other airlines that filed for bankruptcy after their CEO's ruined them.

Posted by: fmamstyle | February 19, 2011 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Well its a start. Some of it may be trite and none of it is likely to go anywhere. At least the GOP has made a start. Lets see what happens next. I think moast agree that defense spending cuts must be made. but I am a realist and don,t think it will happen. For too many years congressman have padded their districts and their wallets with defense expendatures. Its going to be very difficult for them to climb down from the fat cat. Perhaps a change in elected congressman, who are not so tightly bound to the military, establishments, lobby interests and other special interest groups might help. Elections are not that far away.

Posted by: cliffc1 | February 19, 2011 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Missing is any type of admendment that would prohibit, bar, shift, or eliminate any BIG government funding assistance to corporations or chambers of commerce.

Posted by: whocares666 | February 19, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

as a group of people these folks are just a laughing stock. they live off the public purse, with easy health care, good retirement, and they just are such a pack of blowhards.

Posted by: 44fx2901 | February 19, 2011 10:21 AM | Report abuse

moronic, just moronic. avoid the real decisions and just throw your lot into this picky stupid things. What a joke. Mothers, don't let your kids grow up to be members of congress.

Posted by: 44fx2901 | February 19, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how many people recognize that this is a constitutional crisis rivaling no other since Congress tried to dismantle the New Deal in the 1930s. Will the President have the bravery to defend the separation of powers outlned in the US Constitution? Will the Senate have the wisdom to preserve the US Constitution? Or will those who would sell out the Constitution for their own aggrandizement be successful in their coup? The House is infected with a nest of traitors to the Constitution hiding behind its demogaguery. The Republican Party should be absolished and its leaders tried for treason.

Posted by: DavidATL45 | February 19, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Just thought I'd also mention that these cuts don't help business that I'm aware of and kill more jobs than they make. How will this help anyone? I think we're finally seeing the fruits of the stimulus. Don't we need more stimulus now?

Posted by: digtalcomp | February 19, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I am against any of these amendments that prohibit funding to allow us to enforce our own laws. That is counter productive.

Posted by: digtalcomp | February 19, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone still wonder why our laws are such a mess and businesses have such a difficult time following regulations? These amendments would only cause another layer of "can we or can't we" to trying to understand the laws, waste more of our taxpayer dollars, pay for more legal fees to straighten the mess out. These are the people who are supposed to "save" us? Notice how many useful regulations they are trying to defund. I see there are even amendments to stop payment to enforce regulations of the Surface Mining Regulations, EPA guidelines for surface coal mining and manufacturer reporting of multiple gun sales to one entity. Talk about special interest. It would be a joke if it wasn't so deadly serious.

Posted by: njglea | February 19, 2011 9:36 AM | Report abuse

# 145 by forbes of va (rep) shows a strange mind set....he is going to reduce the deficit by preventing the closure of a military command DoD wants to close which would umpteen times the savings he will generate!!!HYPOCRITE

Posted by: KENMAREINC | February 19, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Being from WV I can see the harm that the EPA cuts will do to the environment. But most folks, including those in WV, cannot think beyond today and agree with those cuts. This is so short-sighted and our country will pay for it in the long run. Hopefully, the Senate will have some sense and reinstate the EPA cuts. Hey, where are the cuts to Defense? Let's get real here, folks.

Posted by: sallycat | February 19, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

nanonano1 wrote:
Many of these cuts reveal the idiocy of past funding.
------
Many of these cuts reveal the idiocy of current representatives.
Let's make it easier to pollute the environment and more difficult to access health care.
Interesting party, but don't drink the tea (#216 -- Prohibits funds from being to be used by the EPA to revoke a permit under the Clean Water Act.)

Posted by: mcnalchr | February 19, 2011 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I thought the Republicans were going to focus on jobs. Instead they focus on meaningless cuts to the Federal budget. Until they address the entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and social Security), none of this makes a difference.

And since the law attempts to reverse Obamacare, the possibility of passage is near zero. So these guys wasted months of argument for nothing. It would be nice if our elected representatives found the political courage to address our most pressing problems and stop grandstanding for their political base.

Posted by: edwardatvienna | February 19, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Many of these cuts reveal the idiocy of past funding.

Posted by: nanonano1 | February 19, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse

"Even a staunch liberal should admit that "we can't afford all this government spending" was a major theme leading to last fall's Republican victories."

~~~~~~I am a RINO, not a "staunch liberal", and I agree that we can't afford "all this government spending". I say this because THAT was a MAJOR theme leading to the GOP's defeat in 2008 when McCain LOST to President Obama! Bush got the unfunded tax cut for the wealthy, bush got us into a $TRILLION war in Iraq, bush allowed the outsourcing of jobs overseas, bush got the unfunded Prescription Drugs for Seniors passed, bush and PAULSON initiated the TARP bailout of Wall Street!
ALL of this, and more, while the SILENT GOP HOUSE and CONGRESS sat on their hands. The American PEOPLE threw out the GOP!!

It is only NOW, under Obama, that the GOP sees a financial crisis, one that THEY created and want to blame OBAMA and the "liberals" for.

Hypocrits!

Posted by: cashmere1 | February 19, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse


Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) -- # 146 -- Bars the use of Defense Department funds for parties, dinners and official functions for senior defense officials.
~~~~~~~~

I am SO pleased at the Defense Department cut proposed by Rep. Randy Forbes, (R) of Va., aren't you?? It didn't say how much this ammendment would save the taxpayer, but I remember $21 MILLION being set aside by the Defense Department during the Iraq War for a "VICTORY IN IRAQ" party!

I wonder what ever became of that money, since there WAS no "Victory" in Iraq!

I have only quickly read through the Ammendments, but I see no other Defense Department cuts..... and THIS is where the CUTS need to be SUBSTANTIAL! ENOUGH of treating those Generals like Kings, and ENOUGH of padding the wallets of the Defense Industry so that they can pad the wallets of our Congressmen!

In the meantime, in the Defense Department, I guess we can be thankful that the brass now has to party at their OWN expense. I have the feeling though that they will find a way to cover their parties on the backs of the taxpayers! They cover everything else!

Posted by: cashmere1 | February 19, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

The intent of this bill was and will cause a govt shutdown ... let it happen. The sooner the fiscal pain becomes so bad that it forces the house to act responsibly the better ... recall what happen at the very end of Bush's presidency, the GOP had to support the bank bailout because they were the party in power and had no other choice ... when there is no other choice but immediate disaster then the GOP slink back and vote to do what is right, but never before they force the country to the precipice

Posted by: johnmcgraw | February 19, 2011 7:34 AM | Report abuse

This is magnificent! As a conservative, I disagree with the JFC amendment and a few others. But on the whole, this is a necessary first step toward limiting the activities of the federal government, along with their corresponding cost and intrusiveness.

At the very least, this shows that House members are listening to the citizens who elected them. Even a staunch liberal should admit that "we can't afford all this government spending" was a major theme leading to last fall's Republican victories.

Posted by: Cville2Cville | February 19, 2011 7:32 AM | Report abuse

This is magnificent! As a conservative, I disagree with the JFC amendment and a few others. But on the whole, this is a necessary first step toward limiting the activities of the federal government, along with their corresponding cost and intrusiveness.

At the very least, this shows that House members are listening to the citizens who elected them. Even a staunch liberal should admit that "we can't afford all this government spending" was a major theme leading to last fall's Republican victories.

Posted by: Cville2Cville | February 19, 2011 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Spending has to be cut to reduce massive deficit spending and to avoid eventual economic disaster. So it's a start.

Some are questionable or silly. The VA rep must represent the area where Joint Forces is located. Getting rid of a headquarters is a good idea and if you want to save money, it's a good choice. The Saudis can afford anything they want so not clear what the Dem rep from NY is trying to achieve. What happens if the USG learns of a terrorist plot to blow up a Saudi oil facility (which would drive up the price of gas a $1 or more per gallon if successful). Is the USG prohibited from sharing the info because it is "assistance?" So much for acting in the national interest.

Posted by: RichardCollins | February 19, 2011 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Now that the House has finished up this charade masked as debt reduction let it be know that not one job has been created in last 2 months. Possibly the Drunken heads in the GOP has increased the unemployment rolls. But one battle that needs to be highlighted is the fact that Rep. King of Iowa tried to get the Bacon-Thomas act from 1934 repealed. If repealed would have been the highlight of Rep. Kings desire to bring back slave labor and create an ALL-WHITE IOWA. The good people of Iowa need to take a good hard look at this mans record of trying to create slave labor. They need someone to represent them that is not racist. They need someone who will care about every voter, not just the white ones. And Mr. King is not it. Hopefully in 2012 they will elect someone who cares about every nationality, creed and color.

Posted by: sumo1 | February 19, 2011 5:59 AM | Report abuse

I hope the American people have the sense to realize that they have elected a bunch of immature, unintelligent, children to the House.
If the government cuts off funding for vital purposes, such as health care and environmental protection, yet refuses to cut off funding for wasteful military spending like the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va, which is widely recognized to contribute nothing to military capability, where are our priorities?
These people are crazy!! Nuts!! it is incredible they could be elected to office. Thank God we have a few grown-ups in the Senate.

Posted by: SensibleCentrist | February 19, 2011 5:34 AM | Report abuse

It a small start. Now they need to find another 1.59 trillion per year to cut!

In looking at that list its amazing to think that most of those things were being proposed to begin with. Assistance to Saudi Arabia! Really?!?!?!

Posted by: davidholt123@comcast.net | February 19, 2011 5:17 AM | 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