-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Political Hay
Ryan’s Opening Pitch
His proposal is not the final word on budget cuts, just a first step.
Operating under new Republican rules that give him unilateral authority to set the maximum discretionary spending levels for the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year (though not how the money will be spent), House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) last Thursday proposed total discretionary federal spending for this fiscal year of $1.055 trillion. (Those rules were made possible by the Democrats’ failure to pass a budget in the last Congress.)
As a senior staffer for the congressman put it, Ryan’s spending limit allocation “is like an allowance that will guide the appropriations process for the current fiscal year. The federal government has been misbehaving as of late, so Paul cut their allowance.”
While President Obama’s budget proposal is for about $74 billion more in spending, Ryan’s numbers represent only about $33 billion less than 2010 spending numbers, leading the most fiscally hawkish Republicans to call for deeper cuts.
Ryan’s proposal does not represent the final word on spending; it represents a ceiling on spending for the rest of this fiscal year — a ceiling that can be lowered but not raised. It is likely that fiscal conservatives such as Indiana’s Mike Pence — widely considered to have presidential ambitions — and other members of the Republican Study Committee will offer amendments to make those deeper cuts. And it’s hard to see any reason they shouldn’t, given the recent Congressional Budget Office prediction of a deficit of $1.5 trillion for the next fiscal year out of a total budget of about $3.7 trillion. To be clear, Ryan himself seems committed to swinging the axe again. As he said to an audience at Marquette Law School last week, the cuts announced Thursday are “just the start.” (Watching that video made me say out loud, “Ryan should run for president one day, but for now we’re damn lucky to have him where he is.”)
In other words, the first swing of the axe is cutting less than 1% of the budget. In fact, it’s cutting only about one-quarter of the one-year increase from FY2010 to FY2011 and less than 5% of the three-year increase from FY2008 to FY2011.
Democrats are predictably screaming like stuck pigs (which they almost literally are), calling the cuts “draconian” and “unworkable.” I can already see the campaign ads against Democrats in 2012: “After what you’ve had to do in the past few years with your personal budget, do you really want to elect someone who can’t find a way to cut 1% from the bloated federal government?”
Congressman Ryan’s office generously responded to my inquiry on the topic Thursday evening, including making the point when it comes to analyzing the first axe swing that they “have seen considerable (and understandable) confusion on how to measure cutting $100 billion over 12 months. The non-security savings that we’d achieve by bringing spending to pre-binge levels for the remainder of the fiscal year ($58 billion) is being made over 7 months. ($100 / 12) X 7 = $58. Again — these are significant cuts, but just the beginning.”
It’s an argument Ryan is making both to his conservative colleagues, explaining to them that these cuts are bigger than they may at first appear, as well as to the left and its media tools who are already trying to make Republicans look bad with headlines like “House GOP Savings Plan Short of $100B Pledge” or “GOP scales back budget cut goals.”
In the meantime, since the Department of Defense’s budget will actually increase year-over-year, though less than proposed by the president’s budget, and since these cuts don’t touch entitlements, it’s basically domestic agencies that will take the well-deserved brunt of the first cuts. As laid out in a document from the House Appropriations Committee, the Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Financial Services will face large budget reductions, including the FDA and IRS. (If that doesn’t bring a smile to your face, then you must either be a depressed person or a Democrat.) Perhaps a later axe-wielder will have the courage to actually try to end one of those Departments, even if in a sunsetting fashion, just to prove it can be done.
In the meantime, conservatives would do well to give Paul Ryan the benefit of the doubt when it comes to budget cuts and not to assume that the first swing of the axe was intended to make the deepest cut.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/07/ryans-opening-pitch
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Lean Feminism
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- A World Turned Right Side Up
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.11 @ 6:45AM
Wal-Mart had a gross net of 419 billion last year. On that the evil Wal-Mart which pumps tens of billions of taxes through the economy made a profit of 15 billion. That's right. Fifteen billion.
The 32 billion cut proposed by the ruling class is a little over two years of Wal-Mart profits.
The 700 billion bail out was akin to 47 years of Wal-Mart's profits. The 3.7 trillion budget is akin to 239 years of Wal-Mart profits.
The 32 billion proposed cut is a farce and doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
The reality is that it leaves no doubt that the ruling class continues on, not caring about the effects of deficit spending on the nation and the nation's future.
Think of all the risk Wal-Mart assumed coordinating logistics, personnel, reporting sales taxes, payroll taxes, OHSA regulations and other mundane considerations. And after all that their profits are still taxed further.
What's wrong inside the beltway isn't the meager cuts. It's galling the ruling class believes the public is that stupid.
What's wrong is that members of Congress have no conception of all the barriers they put in place that actually make for reduced profits, more risk and a declining economy.
While the public continues to founder in a bad economy what is Washington Inc.'s solution. A measly cut so measly it isn't even worth mentioning, unless you want to reinforce your concept that the ruling class rules.
The comment made by Mark Levin should be enshrined in cement in front of the Capitol Building. Perhaps one member of Congress will read it and it will lite a fire under them to get serious about saving the Republic.
" Our government is being led by ideologues and amateurs. That is the real danger."
The bottom line is that the U.S. Congress has no concept of how hard it is to make a profit, and the 32 billion proposed cut, which is laughable, shows that they could care less.
Maddox| 2.7.11 @ 11:16AM
Excellent!
Amanda| 2.7.11 @ 3:29PM
I suspect that personally Ryan would have liked
to propose a larger cut, however, it would be a tough sell to the politicians. He is taking what
he can get for the time being with the intent to add more budget reducing in the future.
Personally I would like to see a 10-20% cut across
the board, including the military. We citizens
just have to suck it up.
vtwin| 2.7.11 @ 4:13PM
“Laughable” yes, but the joke is on the fools that continue to vote for the Republicans.
Beginning in the Reagan years our national deficit has exploded in dollars, from less than $1 trillion in 1980, and as a percentage of GDP, about 26% in 1980, to over $12 trillion and nearing 60% of GDP today. In fact, the only period in the last thirty+ years with balanced Federal budgets and a declining nation debt as a percentage of GDP were the Clinton years.
The problem is tax policy, taxes are too low for the wealthy, which results in accumulation of too much money into too few hands which in turn suppresses economic activity which results in higher spending by the government, stimulus packages, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, government provided healthcare…. Want to cut deficit spending? Then fix the economy and the quickest way to fix the economy is by rising taxes on the wealthy.
Baldy| 2.7.11 @ 5:46PM
Another proud graduate of economics from huffo-online continuing indoctrination class 101.
History proves you are a blithering idiot but don't let that stop you.
Your making progress.......................in your mind anyway.
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:06PM
Please explain how adding to the tax burden of the wealthy makes them hire more people.
Donna| 2.7.11 @ 7:12AM
Ditto-not buying this as a "first pass". Mad as hell the Repubs are back doing the same old crap. Insanity!
Ross Kaminsky | 2.7.11 @ 8:35AM
Bill and Donna,
I completely understand your anger and skepticism and I hope my atypical optimism on this issue proves more accurate than your perhaps better-founded pessimism.
I get the sense that Ryan is serious that these cuts are just the beginning. I sure hope so. The country and the GOP will have hell to pay if this is all there is...
Thanks for the comments.
Ross K
chuck| 2.7.11 @ 8:59AM
I understand the frustration, after the huge run-up from the already bloated 2008 levels, and the politics behind trying to cut so much almost half-way into the fiscal year. It sure would be nice to be surprised to find out the the Republicans actually grew a pair, and are willing to slash and burn as is necessary. Maybe we should take what we can right now, and turn up the heat for something major next year, such as ELIMINATING a department, maybe education. We could use that as a measure of whether they get our support in 2012.
Ham Chock| 2.7.11 @ 10:27AM
To: Ross Kaminsky
It isn't pessimistic to point out the facts. And the facts aren't dealt away by labeling them as anger and/or skepticism.
In fact, the truth should bring revelation and freedom.
Inside the beltway the truth is just another part of the dilemma. It isn't welcome and is usually met with negativity.
mames| 2.7.11 @ 11:27AM
Nothing will have changed until we start bringing home 15-25% more of our earned income. Until that happens its all political horse shit ( you know the kind that lumps up, petrifies and never goes away). The most important thing they can do is CUT,CUT, CUT and that means whole departments asap. They can start with education, agriculture and EPA. Please no more kudos for meager, pathetic efforts. Whoop fringgin eee, the brave Mr GOP wants to cut 1%!!
Redstateboy| 2.7.11 @ 1:00PM
EVERYONE knows what it's going to take.. and you're mostly right mames but let's not stop there. Defund PBS (what can you not see on PBS that can now be viewed on 2 or 3 other cable channels?!?) STOP Ethanol subsidies Immediately! Defund HEW and HUD! - turn that back to the States! Get Rid of FreddieMac and FannieMae and clamp down on that Moron at Interior Dept! and then stand back and watch this American begin to purculate.
Redstateboy| 2.7.11 @ 1:02PM
uh.... that's be... watch this American Economy purculate.. or is that perculate?
Chalkdust| 2.7.11 @ 4:58PM
I agree Mr. Kaminsky. Congressman Ryan does not seem self-centered enough to be a member of the ruling class and appears to be sincere in doing the right thing.
In my opinion, hacking away at the budget underbrush like a madman can do more harm than good, particularly by giving by giving the liberal idiots ammunition to scare the peeps.
I for one tend to give "the new guys" room to work while keeping up pressure, but not enough to appear as crazy the liberals.
PineKnot| 2.7.11 @ 8:55AM
It's just a dream, but how much do you think Congress could cut the budget if their salaries and benefits were negatively tied to the annual deficit, i.e., if your Congress does a budget that runs a 40% deficit, their salaries and benefits are cut 40% for the year.
Even better: Require that they run for reelection using 40% less money than they did in the previous election.
That might make them get serious; somehow, I doubt it. Congress: a collection of lawyers who can't wait to fleece the American taxpayers. . . .
Amanda| 2.7.11 @ 3:32PM
Brilliant suggestion! Too bad it won't happen.
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:08PM
I like it. It's about as likely as a Club Med in downtown Detroit, but I like it.
Derek Leaberry| 2.7.11 @ 9:09AM
Ryan has already surrendered on the budget. The Tea Party has been used by the Republican Party for votes, nothing more. And so the nation gallops towards bankruptcy.
Baldy| 2.7.11 @ 3:04PM
Nice try troll.
Len| 2.7.11 @ 9:13AM
This is the same Paul Ryan that voted for TARP, NCLB, extending unemployment benefits, the medicare package of $400 Billion?
Meanwhile Ron Paul has for years had plans to restore constitutional government and eliminate unconstitutional agencies and restore fiscal sanity, but he continues to be ignored by conservatives.
Nuff said.
mames| 2.7.11 @ 11:32AM
What a principled man he is, the little weasel. And then "conservative" commentators rave about him. Well mr. conservative commentator change your name to spineless spin meister or Ross Kaminsky. Jeez you think these clowns have even heard of logic and consistency?
Stammon| 2.7.11 @ 9:23AM
Everything must start somewhere, and if Ryan can get a culture of abstemiousness started then I am all for it. As to the Democrats, it's telling that any cut is too much, and a broken promise at the same time. If the Dems can't buy votes with the public purse, they have nothing.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.11 @ 9:26AM
Ross,
I just had to post this link in case you missed the article. Please forgive the digression.
http://biggovernment.com/acoff.....n-country/
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.11 @ 9:29AM
Ross,
Please forgive the digression. There is an article about Sarah's visit to Reagan's ranch over at "big government"
I tried to link to it but it got kicked out as spam.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.7.11 @ 9:56AM
Ken,
I just read it. Seems harmless. Was there something in particular you found important in that?
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.11 @ 1:17PM
Ross,
yes I did. Did you scroll down and check out the pictures?
I thought it was remarkable that those young people invited Sarah to speak...and fell in love with her.
Ross, in a symbolic way, Sarah "donned the robe of the prophet" there on the ranch...without saying a word about it.
I must repeat myself.
I pray earnestly that she runs...and to hell with the early Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. If nothing else, she will raise the bar of courage for every GOP nominee.
I hope She is willing to fight Goliath single handed. That worked out pretty well the first time didn't it?
Amanda| 2.7.11 @ 3:36PM
Everyone taking a look, or second look at Sarah Palin should research her record - I have and it is stellar. Also, read the book "Sarah Takes on Big Oil" (at least I think that is the title) - she is a remarkable person and a courageous politician.
I would love her to run for many reasons, the most notable is that this country needs her, but, as an aside it would be fun to see how much ink she would use for VETOE!!!!!!!!!!!
Jonny Muffin| 2.7.11 @ 4:00PM
She wouldn't be fighting completely single handed... She has George Soros on her side:
http://www.examiner.com/americ.....ner-circle
Ken in Tyler| 2.7.11 @ 10:03AM
Here's what's missing in the current "budget cutting" proposals: anyone with the courage and wisdom to clearly state the long-term objective. It took us a long time to degenerate into our current fiscal calamity and it will take years to correct even under the best of circumstances. But someone has to stand up and tell the world where we are going and why. Then the gradual reductions pointing to eventual elimination of bureaucracies and programs will begin to make sense. As an aside, even "balancing the budget" won't stop the madness because there is so much off-budget largess, supplemental spending bills, and "emergency" spending add-ons that continue to compound the madness.
Len| 2.7.11 @ 10:24AM
See above...Ron Paul he has had the courage and wisdom you speak of.
mames| 2.7.11 @ 11:37AM
Amazing all the hoopla over Reagan who also failed to aggressively attack the 3rd rail , anlien amnesty on the trust us word of congress and worked with Brady on the gun control law. Consistency and integrity please!
Ken in Tyler| 2.7.11 @ 12:57PM
Concur. I respect Mr Paul but he has made too many enemies (see RedState!) even on the Conservative side. Perhaps his lack of general acceptance is in part due to the way he insists changes be implemented ovenight rather than in a planned and orderly manner. Still like him though.
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:40PM
Agree 100%. Which means, of course, that the politicians will actually have to treat us like adults, when half our population is a bunch of whiny kids who want their "fair share" and "social justice." It would also require politicians to think beyond the next election, which I fear is our greatest stumbling block.
Baldy| 2.7.11 @ 10:24AM
I agree. It doesn't go far enough but it is a start.
The wailing and moaning will build to a fever pitch soon.
Stay strong GOP. You have most of the country backing you.
Well, the ones that have a thought process anyway.
mames| 2.7.11 @ 11:40AM
Baldy,
Grow some hair and a pair. Your reasoning is as naked as your dome. :)
Baldy| 2.7.11 @ 3:11PM
Mames,
I have a full head of hair and have never had any of the female persuasion allude to me needing any more size.
So can we assume you are speaking for those I mentioned that do not possess a thought process?
Dumb question?
Cato| 2.7.11 @ 10:37AM
This $32B "cut" is nothing more than a rounding error compared to the 2010 budget.
The majority in Congress is missing a golden opportunity -- just vote NO on raising the debt ceiling. If that was accomplished, then drastic cuts would be statutorially required -- and those cuts would be far larger than any amount that could be negotiated.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.11 @ 12:51PM
You're right. It's the easy solution.
Nunya| 2.7.11 @ 2:11PM
It's also the least likely to happen, in my opinion. I doubt that there are enough Republicans in Congress that have the intestinal fortitude to withstand the backlash from the Democraps and the media that would certainly happen if they vote against raising the cap.
Nope, they'll raise the cap, then make some statements about "compromise" and "budget cuts" and how they're going to "stop spending", while they turn around and lead the country to the 3rd world a la Zimbabwe.
I hope I'm wrong.
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:18PM
It isn't just a backlash from Dems and the media. There would also be a huge backlash from about 50% of the people. Don't kid yourself. Addicts always scream when forced to go cold turkey. Ryan knows this, which is why his road map plan is so gradual. Too much screaming means voters swing back the other way. Especially when the mean stinginess of Ryan, et al, is hammered by the media 24/7. I, too, would prefer much more drastic cuts, but not many will agree with me when their entitlement drug supply is cut off. Look what Reagan dealt with when he tried to cut spending. And look how everyone is avoiding the big Social Security elephant in the living room.
I guess what I'm saying is let's be grateful for what we're getting, and let's KEEP THE PRESSURE ON for more cuts, and more, and more, and more.
Timely Renewed | 2.7.11 @ 11:01AM
No matter how many cuts this Congress implements, nothing will stop future Congresses from reverting to their old ways of pork barrel and special interest borrowing, spending and regulation. We need to restore the Constitution's original meanings and allocation of power to the states. There have been conservative resurgences before, but they have always failed because they never addressed the last 70 years of abuse of the Constitution by progressive control of the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government. Legislative action alone is not enough. We need to promote amendments to the Constitution to restore its original meaning and structure regardless of the future vagaries of political parties.
The first step is to amend the amendment process itself to eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. Only this will permanently constrain future federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Ken in Tyler| 2.7.11 @ 12:54PM
Timely, your heart is in the right place but further tinkering with the Constitution won't fix anything unless we FIRST cleanse the judiciary and the Congress has the authority to do that now under Article 1, Section 8. Also, under Article 3, Section 2, the Congress can limit the types of cases the SCOTUS can take up. The key is getting Congress to do what they were hired to do and stop doing extra-Constitutional nonsense. The original Constitution wasn't perfect but adding more Amendments won't make the judges or SanFranNan pay any more attention to it.
Oldefarte| 2.7.11 @ 11:41AM
Being respectful of the 'first step' principle, hopefully thought has been given to the negotiation element of the budgetary process, whereupon Democrats will naturally offer their usual spending items inflating governmental spending [with a compromise the final result]. R's cutting numbers should be excessive in order to achieve their desired core amounts at the end of this process. Also, R's should initiate the the discussion of the usefulness/necessity of each and every governmental program and their related expendatures [since so much of same is wasterful of taxpayers' income]. On our end of this problem, it's important for taxpayers to remember that November 2010 was also the 'first step', and that we need to CONTINUE to elect solid conservative politicians and send them to DC to help/assist Ryan and his fellow elected R's continue and improbe this budget cutting [long term] process. As the old saying goes, ROME WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 2.7.11 @ 11:56AM
Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul:
"My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion."
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj
Doctor Right| 2.7.11 @ 12:40PM
Pathetic.
3rd-Party, anyone? I've about had it.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.11 @ 12:52PM
No kidding!
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:23PM
A third party split is the WORST thing we can do. Unless, of course, you want four more years of Obama. The thing to do is write to your reps and senators and tell them this is good for starters and ask what else they plan to cut. Keep the pressure on for more. We can't let up, not for a second, but we also can't abandon the leadership less that a month after they took office. Give them a chance, please.
Louis Jenkins| 2.7.11 @ 1:29PM
Well, Thomas Jefferson was correct:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property -
until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
It will be awful when we realize that we should have listened.
George S| 2.7.11 @ 1:38PM
Look at what Ryan is faced with. The budget defict is 1.5 trillion. The federal budget is 3.8 trillion. Out of that, 2.4 trillion is mandated spending which kicks in by law (social security benefits, interest on the debt, etc.) and can only be reduced by actual legislation. That, in itself, is a whole different ballgame.
That leaves discretionary spending cuts (which, by the way, is what the Republicans only campaigned on). Most of that discretionary spending is national security (military, DHS, CIA, NSA, FBI, ICE) which is roughly 800 billion. That leaves about 500 billion. Even if all of that is cut, that still leaves a deficit of over 1 trillion. So I can't see where Rand and others "see" 500 billion in spending cuts without touching national security (imagine the Democrat ads on that).
However, what Ryan is proposing is huge: refusing to baseline a budget into the next year. This sets up the political will to keep reducing budgetary increases in addition to setting the stage for future cuts. Then we can attack the fat in the national security discretionary spending without a political fallout. It will then become painfully clear that these cuts are just not going to have an impact unless we put something else on the table: mandated spending. Only then will the political will arise; it will be of necessity. Right now, there are way too many people (voters) who preach fiscal restraint, yet are fully expectant of government to meet its promise of social security and Medicare. With the Baby Boomers retiring, there's even a bigger voting bloc. This is the reality and the first step to ultimately changing the entitlement mentality is what Ryan is proposing, which lays the groundwork for actually reducing government spending in the future.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.7.11 @ 3:56PM
That sounds like Washington D.C. gobbledygook for "We will try to get away with murder and call it an accidental homicide."
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:26PM
No, it is REALITY. I appreciate the lack of trust. I share it. But they can't fix 100 years of abuse in a month. Especially not with a Dem Senate and Obama. Please, let's be realistic.
jstwndring| 2.7.11 @ 1:41PM
Even with a mandate to gut the federal government, they cannot bring themselves to do it. Why? Who are they afraid of? The press? The Democrats? Or, are they playing us yet again? I believe it is the latter. Until we replace the leadership, we will get more big government, albeit, at a slightly relaxed pace. They still don't take us seriously. Maybe they think they have more time than they do.
Joe D.| 2.7.11 @ 3:40PM
With regards to the first swing. It stinks. I hope there is much more. Get rid of agencies. We do not need most of them. They are all probably unconstitutional.
And we, Tea Partiers, will be watching. We know longer just want them (Progressives) stopped. We want them turned back.
Jonny Muffin| 2.7.11 @ 3:50PM
It's good to see most of the comments are calling out the crap that the GOP is trying to pull. I don't even really need to say too much except kudos to those who aren't falling for the bs, and to those who give them the benifit of the doubt that this is a sincere first step, stop being a bunch of suckers and enabling them.
Baldy| 2.7.11 @ 5:55PM
One thing is certain.
There are many here who expect this mess to be turned around overnight and it ain't gonna happen children.
This mess has been created over decades and every department of the fed is complety entrenched and dug in for battle with these people we sent to DC in Nov.
They are well armed, well financed and will anything to save themselves.
To believe that the new crew is going to go in and start slashing and burning within the first few months is naive at best.
Get your expectations in line with reality folks.
This is going to be a long haul.
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:27PM
A voice of reason.
Eddy| 2.7.11 @ 7:02PM
Want to erase the deficit in 5 years? Cut the defense budget in half. We would still spend more than the next five largest defense budgets in the world combined.
``All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin-Laden.
Whose winning the war on terror?
baldy| 2.7.11 @ 8:43PM
Great idea Eddy!
Slash the defense budget just when the landscape in the middle east looks more like a islamic takeover,China military buildup, Russia making out like a bandit with start, and pres Alinsky giving away our allies trident missle codes and some neighbors to the south holding hands with islamic wackjobs.
Very smart Eddy!
The world is a much safer place now that your mentality has taken the power levers in DC.
Why not just get rid of our military?!
What is there to worry about?
Wendy| 2.7.11 @ 10:07PM
Ross, you are acting like the battered wife who continues to make excuses for her husband. It's time to admit that Paul Ryan was always the cheating louse your girlfriends complained he was, and he will never change. Now look at Rand Paul and his $500B proposed cuts. Rand Paul is that man who really gets you and treats you with respect, so leave the battering drunk and elope with HIM.
Rand Paul, $500 billion cuts. Could be all yours. Just waiting for you to make the move. You know you want it.
Richard Baker| 2.8.11 @ 12:24AM
Guys:
It's not the defense budget which is set in stone via legislative legerdemain. The dead hand of government is killing the goose that lays the Golden Eggs here in America. Ok, for arguments sake, let's halve the defense budget. Are you liberals ready to fight these Islamic crazies in your backyard? I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you lefties are given the choice of Islam or death. Wonder how Kumbaya sounds in Arabic.
Eddy| 2.8.11 @ 3:44AM
Those Islamic crazies are now in our backyard and cost us billions of dollars with some exploding underwear and a few box knives wielded by illiterates. But, hey lets build that starwars system that Ronnie wanted. Money is no object.
Bankrupt the country, just like bin-Laden said. An economically weakened America will fall just as rapidly as a militarily weak one will. Taking money from schools, transportation and infrastructure does nothing to strengthen our nation. Spending tax money in those areas will make us stronger than wasting money on bloated military programs that even the army doesn't want.
Let's stop spending our money on foreign soil defending other nations against Russia. Let's get out of Germany, the war has been over for more than a half century. Do we ever leave?
Just because we need a strong defense doesn't mean that we need one larger than all nations combined. Can we deny that there is waste in this area when we are so ready to say that it is everywhere else? Can we rant against the bloated bureaucracy everywhere in government except in the largest bureaucracy? Can we say that the government doesn't do anything efficiently except run the defense department?
You are fools if you buy into that rhetoric. Bought and paid for by the military industrial complex and their political contributions.
The cold war is over, live with it.
PCC| 2.8.11 @ 12:52AM
I suggest that the budget cutters start with the premise that there is no such thing as mandatory spending or entitlements, apart from interest on the national debt.
When businesses or families face tight times, they have no choice but to enact painful cuts on things that once seemed "mandatory" and "entitled". On the business side, salary cutbacks, layoffs, cheaper premises, etc. For families, no desserts, sell the car, no vacations, get a smaller house, in-state university instead of private college, etc.
Like Gov. Christie says, no doubt some of these programs are good, valuable programs, but we just don't have the money!
Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and Defense all have to be on the table. Indeed, each of them actually needs some radical surgery, and no time to lose.
idalily| 2.8.11 @ 4:32PM
Agree with this. BUT the budget cutters have to get this premise from US. They won't do it on their own. And half the country does not agree with this premise right now. (Everybody wants to cut spending, just not the spending that's for THEM). Changing hearts and minds of our fellow citizens is even more important than changing the scope of the budget cutters premise.
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:10AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:41PM
Concur. I respect Mr Paul but he has made too many enemies (see RedState!) even on the Conservative side. Perhaps his lack of general acceptance is in part due to the way he insists changes be implemented ovenight rather than in a planned and orderly manner. Still like him though.