The Republican Study Committee—a conservative committee which includes about three quarters of the Republican House conference—released a plan yesterday that, lo and behold, attached some actual touch-and-feel-em concrete ideas to the party’s plan to “slash” and “cut” federal discretionary spending. The plan calls for $2.5 trillion in cuts over ten years (not touching the military, Medicare, or Social Security), a deep incision they say will be achieved by reducing non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels for the rest of 2011, and to 2006 levels thereafter. The proposal, put forward yesterday in a press conference by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the study committee, and others, is both more specific and tougher than commitments previously put out by the House leadership: an immediate cut of $100 billion compared to the (up to) $80 billion that leaders are seeking.
It’s full of specific proposals, which led the Post’s Ezra Klein to call it “a healthy document” the Dems are likely to be “interested in debating.” Dave Weigel at Slate—who declares “You can stop needling Republicans about what programs they want to cut now”—has a nice highlights reel of specific cuts the study committee is proposing:
The proposal does what Republicans have been talking about for two years—“repeal” of remaining stimulus funds (now $45 billion), privatizing Fannie and Freddie ($30 billion), repealing Medicaid’ FMAP increase ($16.1 billion), and what they estimate at $330 billion in discretionary spending cuts. Highlights of these projected annual savings:
- Cutting the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and do this by allowing only one new federal worker for every two who quit.
- Killing the “fund for Obamacare administrative costs” for $900 million
- Ending Amtrak subsidies for $1.565 billion
- Ending intercity and high speed rail grants for $2.5 billion
- Repealing Davis-Bacon for $1 billion
- Cutting annual general assistance to the District of Columbia by $210 million, and cutting the subsidy for DC’s transit authority by $150 million.
There are a number of issues for reporters to tease out here. First, it’s a complicated development for the non-wonk—explaining what exactly non-security discretionary spending is is a task, as is outlining where the cuts would occur, and what the impact of those cuts might be. And wise reporters have noted that although more specific than other statements and documents that have come before it, the new plans to cut to 2006 levels in 2012 are largely free of the kind of specifics you see above.
Second, it’s a complex political issue. Not just because a bill which carried all of these cuts would have little chance of passing in the Democratic senate, but because it sets up for a potential internal struggle between more conservative Tea Party segments of the Republican conference and the party’s leaders, who’ve proposed more modest cuts. The complexity here is in drawing attention to that difference without overstating it. So far, GOP House Leaders and figureheads of the new “cut deeper” crowd have played nice, publicly at least. This fight seems more expected than in progress. But it’s brewing.
In a Times front-page story today which calls the measures “drastic,” David M. Herszenhorn effectively spells out the internal political problems the plan might pose.
Even before the midterm elections, party leaders issued a “Pledge to America,” promising, without providing details of which programs would be cut, to reduce nonsecurity discretionary spending to 2008 levels, a cut that Mr. Boehner had initially pegged at about $100 billion for this fiscal year.
But with a temporary spending measure in place until early March — more than five months into the fiscal year — Republican leaders, including the Budget Committee chairman, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, have said that a more realistic goal would be cuts to 2008 levels prorated for the remainder of the fiscal year, or about $60 billion to $80 billion.
$2.5 trillion over ten years is pocket change compared to what the sincere and well-spoken Ron Paul, his son Rand, and other so-called tea party types are proposing.
But go ahead and keep putting all the focus on the easily dismissed pseudo-conservatives who refuse to cut the military empire, and who are ill-equipped to explain practical, Constitutional alternatives to wasteful and destructive federal programs.
I still haven't seen CJR mention the "ultra-liberal" Barney Frank or Dennis Kucinich; both of whom side with Ron Paul in the push for huge military cuts. Which is quite surprising, considering CJR's exclusive citing of "ultra-liberal" websites such as Salon, TPM, TNR, and the NYT.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sun 23 Jan 2011 at 05:19 PM
Reports the AP:
"In an unusual political pairing, liberal Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas." ("Tea Party: Defense Spending Not Exempt From Cuts," cbsnews.com, 1/23/11)
Since he has been in Congress, no legislator has pushed more for spending cuts than Ron Paul has. Yet, in the same time, the derelict AP has mentioned Rep. Paul in one out of every one-trillion reports pertinent to Paul's realm of federal action. So, you know it is noteworthy when they include him here, even if it doesn't come until the 20th graf of the 28-graf report.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 24 Jan 2011 at 08:09 AM
Barney Frank belongs to a party, whose consensus is military spending has to be reigned in. Ron Paul belongs to a party who, since the Reagan Adinistration, have used their power to push money to the military industry even when the military did not request it. Considering that any real savings to be acheived in federal spending have to come at the expense of defense spending, perhaps Ron Paul's credibility would be strengthened if he adjusted his political affiliation; or possibly he is waiting for the tea partiers to get tough on military spending. If the latter is the case, he will be waiting until hell freezes over. There is no trace of getting tough on the military industry in the recent tea partying House proposal to cut $100 billion from this years federal outlays. The cuts they propose are simply malicious attacks on the most vulnerable and on minimally funded amenities like Amtrak. For the tea partiers to attack military spending would be to attack the GOP's base in southern states. Southern states are far more heavily dependent on military outlays than the rest of the country. This is a legacy of the New Deal Coaliton which pushed miltiary spending to an underdeveloped part of the countrry. Before the Southern turn of the Republican Party, many Republicans were fiscal hawsk on defense spending. Clifford Case of New Jersey, for example, pushed for reiging in military spending. He was one of those treacherous liberal Republicans, whose views actually reflective a consensus of the Republica Party up until the 1960s. The Republican Party has long since banished such thinking from its ranks. Clifford Casae was defeated in a primary in the mid-70s by a candiate whose views anticipated those of the Tea Party. Ronald Reagan solidified this shift in the Republican Party. I respect the consistency of Ron Paul's opinions but if he is relying on the ignorance and ill temper of tea partiers to serve as a foundation for an attack on military spending, he will be waiting for a long time. I speak of the ignorance of tea pariers simply because their statements are steeped in ignornace. The current budget imbalance in Washington is a result of Republican tax custs and the drop in tax revenus attendant on a severe recession. Obama's spending initiative are an insignifant part of the imabalance The solid Republican state of Texas is suffering from a similar imbalance--indeed in percentage terms, Texas' imbalance is the worst in the country. If the country wants to tackle these issue, it should do so with a clear understanding of the facts. The tea partys power is based on demogogic, willful ignorance of these facts. Ron Paul shoulld distance himself from them.
#3 Posted by Pat Ronan, CJR on Sat 12 Feb 2011 at 06:38 PM