And then.
Conservative lawmakers, however, said that was not enough.
“Speaking with many of my freshmen colleagues, for us, myself included, the pledge, the $100 billion, was simply a start; it was simply a floor,” Mr. Mulvaney, the South Carolina freshman, said at a news conference to unveil the study committee’s proposal. He added: “Anybody who is up to speed on budget issues should be scared to death by what’s happening with the debt and the deficit in this country. If you’re not losing sleep over it, then you’re simply not paying attention.”
The Times piece is an effective lay-of-the-land deal and provides a timeframe for when we can expect the debate over spending cuts to really come to the fore in Congress—a vote on a resolution that will direct Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan to set spending at 2008 levels is schedules for Tuesday. (Interestingly, it’s just been announced that Ryan will be delivering the GOP’s State of the Union response.)
The Post’s own story on the proposal is much more direct in drawing battle lines within the Republican party. Reporter Lori Montgomery leads with this:
Congressional conservatives on Thursday demanded far more dramatic reductions in government spending than House GOP leaders have recently proposed, in the first sign of a fissure between old-guard Republicans and tea-party-backed newcomers.
And then cites evidence of the fissure:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is empowered by new House rules to unilaterally set a limit on spending, has said he plans to direct appropriators to slice only about $60 billion from this year’s budget. The House Appropriations Committee is identifying cuts at that level.
But dissatisfaction with that approach erupted Wednesday, when the House Rules Committee began considering a largely symbolic measure aimed at reaffirming the commitment to reduce spending. Freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) insisted on changing the language to require faster and deeper cuts than Ryan has proposed. The full House is set to vote on the measure Tuesday, hours before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address.
Both pieces are decent all-inclusive reads—the Post’s feels the more comprehensive and aggressive (see: “erupted”)—but neither really gets at what the full impact of some of these cuts would be. And really, in an issue like this, that should come first. What I am interested in as much as the politics is the impact of the policy, something given shorter shrift in these two reports. Here are some specific GOP suggestions; let’s get specific on what they would mean.
For that, Slate’s Weigel is a good place to start. He lists, as above, some of the most interesting proposals. Talking Points Memo has posted the report (its brevity probably a big selling point to those who complained about the heft of the Affordable Health Care Act). And TPM’s Brian Beutler’s has an excellent look at some of the specifics: if X were to be cut by the suggested Y, Z would happen. Here are two examples:
Also on the RSC’s chopping block: the Legal Services Corporation, which is the federal organization that provides civil legal assistance to people who make up to 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The RSC says that eliminating the LSC would save $420 million—and the predominately low-income women currently served by the program would have to look elsewhere for assistance filing for help in domestic abuse cases and resolving custody issues (about 35 percent of its cases), in foreclosure or eviction disputes (25 percent of their cases) or even filing for bankruptcy.
They also want to eliminate Amtrak operating subsidies ($1.565 billion), which amounted to $32 per passenger in 2009. In 2009, 41 of Amtrak’s 44 routes—which service 500 destinations in 46 states—lost money, indicating that, without the subsidies, Amtrak would have to significantly reduce or eliminate its service outside the heavily trafficked urban coastal routes. The plans also call for the elimination of Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants to the tune of $2.5 billion a year.
$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