Firedoglake points out that, as mentioned above, the document might not be as concrete as it as being touted to be. David Dayen points to a question Weigel asked at the announcement before ruminating on the true value of this document, which may not be its actual proposals:
When asked by Dave Weigel how many jobs would be eliminated by cutting funding to these priorities, head of the Republican Study Committee and future high school football assistant coach Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “We think if you reduce federal government spending, you actually create jobs.” It must comfort him at night. It’s based on nothing, but it must make it easier to sleep. Talking point Ny-Quil.
While the above cuts are actually identified (the full list is here), the cap on discretionary spending at 2006 levels is mostly just assumed, so once again we have this claim that we can “cut spending” without any sense of all that would have to be cut to meet the cap. Only $330 billion out of the $2.25 trillion in cuts have a specific named source. So again, Democrats trying to argue with this document are left to largely chase phantoms.
The value in this document is knowing that the battle lines have been drawn. Republicans in the House want $80 billion in cuts this year, and trillions over the next ten. Now it’s the President’s move. And the end of the continuing resolution on March 4, as well as the need to increase the debt limit, hang out there over the horizon.
I was particularly drawn to Bradford Plumer’s piece posted midnight yesterday, “The GOP’s Serious Budget Headache,” which sheds some interesting light on internal problems for the Republicans separate from the Tea Party vs. the Establishment story. Plumer gets very, well, specific.
Yet even the RSC was careful to tiptoe around the fate of more popular programs. (Pell Grants? Home heating-oil assistance?) And for good reason: Republicans may not lose sleep over scuttling, say, the union-friendly Bacon-Davis Act (an RSC proposal that would lead to $1 billion per year in savings). But what happens when NASA’s budget gets ripped apart? Republicans in Texas, Florida, and Alabama, where NASA offices and facilities are concentrated, may not be overly thrilled. Or how about when subsidies for flights to remote parts of the country get squeezed 30 percent? Rural lawmakers get ornery. Squabbles like these ended up sinking GOP attempts to cut spending in the early 2000s. As one former appropriations aide told FoxNews, “It’s the little stuff that everybody fights the hardest about.”
He then concludes with a nod to the potential for future internal conflict of the nature most are seeing bubbling up.
In other words, conservatives haven’t quite worked out all the kinks. And, in the meantime, Republican leaders haven’t figured out how to balance the zeal of their right flank with the headaches involved in getting those cuts to stick. Sure, Jordan said he was “optimistic” that the GOP leadership would take up the RSC’s recommendations, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor “applaud[ed]” the committee’s proposal. But, underneath all the happy accolades, there’s still plenty of room for ugliness.
We will be tuning in Tuesday to see specifics debated and (perhaps) fissures erupting.
$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