-
Political and Economic Suicide
June 5, 2010 | 3 comments
-
In Re Excreta
March 23, 2010 | 23 comments
-
A World Without ACORN
December 2, 2009 | 49 comments
-
Walls Can Fall
November 9, 2009 | 44 comments
-
TARP and the Demands of Democracy
September 10, 2009 | 12 comments
The Public Policy
Why Are Spending Cuts So Hard?
Can we do better than cutting just 1/1000th of one percent of the federal budget?
Why was it so hard to get a budget passed that kept the federal government open for the remainder of this year? Why did it take the imminent threat of a complete government shutdown to broker a deal that cut $38.5 billion from the 2011 budget? The American people have a right to know the answers to these questions.
To be sure, a government shutdown of the magnitude nearly realized would have been disastrous. For weeks, the entire country was consumed with the possibility that basic government services would have grinded to a complete halt. Finally, after three years of record deficit spending, President Obama engaged and struck a deal with House Republicans to cut spending.
Rather than eliminating spending, however, some of those cuts were actually a rescission of spending authority for projects and programs that the government wasn’t going to need anyway. The Census Bureau, for instance, lost $6.2 billion for the remainder of 2011 — all money approved to conduct the 2010 decennial census. Now that the census is over, the money isn’t needed.
Soon after the deal was announced, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) released a report that projected the total “real” cuts would equal a meager $352 million. That’s roughly 1/1000th of one percent of the federal budget. Essentially, this means that Congress and the White House battled it out over policy matters for weeks on end to fund agencies at basically the same level as last year. Indeed, decades of spending gluttony on the part of both Republicans and Democrats has created a culture in Washington where the real cuts in federal spending are harder than ever.
Nevertheless, the combined $38.5 billion deal of real spending cuts and budget rescissions means the federal government will have less authority to spend taxpayer money this year. In Washington, that’s a real victory.
All of this leads to a sobering realization. Uncle Sam is not quite ready for the kind of austerity it will take to bend the spending curve down to a sustainable path. House Republicans approved a 2012 budget last week that promises to cut federal spending by $6 trillion over ten years. True to form, President Obama responded by announcing his goal of cutting spending by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. Of course, the president doesn’t really hope to cut spending as much as he wants to reduce the deficit. And the way he wants to reduce it?
By raising taxes.
The president says that spending cuts alone won’t eliminate the deficit, but thus far he has refused to offer any substantive proposal to reform entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, the greatest sources of uncontrollable spending. A report last year from the Medicare trustees revealed that the program will face a $38 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years. Moreover, the CBO estimates that Medicare alone will consume 12 percent of our annual economic output. The President has offered no proposal to tackle these spending crises, and Democrats are already preparing to scare seniors into believing that Republicans want to end rather than fix Medicare.
If the budget battle of 2011 threatened the worst government shutdown in memory in order to squeeze out $352 million in real spending cuts, then it is difficult to imagine what will happen when Congress begins the serious work of tackling entitlements and other discretionary spending. In fact, at the rate we’re going — borrowing more than 40 cents on every dollar that Washington spends (mostly from China) — we’ll have to cut spending by 40 percent annually to balance the budget. We’ll have to cut even more if we hope to make a dent in the national debt, which is now fast-approaching the $14.3 trillion ceiling.
At the bottom line, the reason it’s so hard to achieve real spending cuts is that the way Congress approves spending is fundamentally flawed. And while this year’s prolonged budget battle managed to keep down spending increases across the federal government and make only slight reductions in a handful of programs, the real victory is that House Republicans have changed the conversation.
When you have the president who signed multiple pieces of trillion dollar legislation start announcing a goal to cut spending, you know that a victory for fiscal responsibility is within reach.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Rep. Darrell Issa
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/20/why-are-spending-cuts-so-hard
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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| 4.20.11 @ 6:37AM
Is a victory for fiscal responsibility within reach?
Members of both parties claim that a disaster was avoided but the real disaster is still right ahead, the debt ceiling.
If the debt ceiling is raised with token cuts we are doomed.
The University of Texas just purchased a billion dollars of gold and little wonder. The American dollar is the real disaster as the FED continues to pump out fiat currency with no end in sight.
What's it all add up to for the public? The Congress is incompetent and the budget deal pretty well proves that.
For decades no matter was too small for Congress to wrap their grubby hands around. The Congress has passed many bad laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act which have prevented growth or left American companies open to attack.
Example: Chipolte's was sued by a professional litigant claiming that he couldn't see his food being prepared because he was in a wheelchair and the counter was too high. Although a lower court judge threw the suit out because the judge felt the litigant was a professional litigant who simply looked for opportunities the case was reinstated and the Chipolte's was ordered to lower their counters. If Chipolte's had been a small chain or a mom and pop operation this would probably have driven them out of business.
From a choking regulatory environment to dozens of agencies who oversee every conceivable operation of every business, the business culture has never been under a heavier load and it shows because the business sector is hurting.
Add to that that there are no penalties for faulty government operators and there is a standard of double indemnity working against the public.
A perfect example of that is the incompetent management at the FAA. Don't take this the wrong way but I thought the near miss of the First Lady's plane was quite appropriate. Those how support big government almost getting killed by big government was simply classic.
It highlights the fact that many government agencies are simply incompetent and a trillion a year is wasted on these agencies and what's the point?
Then there is Congress, stalemated over how much wealth they can seize from the public and how to spend it on dubious quests.
There is very little faith that the U.S. Congress is interested in resolving or solving anything and the purchase of a billion in gold by the University of Texas may be a tipping point. If you see gold hit $3,000 an ounce the FED is dead and will be rendered inconsequential.
And there's not much that the government can really do. While Obama goes around bragging about raising taxes on the rich the politically elite already know that's a dead end.
Why is that? Hauser's Law. The law shows clearly that whether the government raise taxes or not the revenue is always around 19.5% of the GDP. That's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_Law
The only way out is to cut government spending and neither party has shown the slightest commitment to that.
Ryan| 4.20.11 @ 8:18AM
Two hyperboles.
1. "we are doomed." What does that MEAN? Is the world going to end? Will I not be able to feed my family? Civil War? What?
2. "Neither party has the slightest commitment." Overstatement. True, the Repubs have given a token effort, but I will at least give them the credit that they DO have a "slight commitment."
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 8:37AM
What it means is that if our currency deflates or fiat currency becomes questionable you are subject to the whims of a political class and your personal integrity will not be a matter of who you are, but who the government determines you are. In effect, you are what you own but that could change and rather quickly if the dollar loses its value as currency. That doesn't sound like a gratifying experience to me.
As far as commitment, a spending increase of 3.3 billion which is heralded by both parties as a 38 billion dollar spending cut indicates there is not the slightest committment to cutting spending. It's simply pretend spending, not even "slight commitment" since there was no spending cut. No spending cuts means no commitment.
The real hyperbole comes from those who claim the FED can continue on their merry way without consequence.
Consequence is not hyperbole and the consequences are manifesting themselves right now. It wouldn't be the first time a government destroyed the currency and destroyed an economy.
In fact, I would bet you have to eat and your food costs are going up right now thanks to a declining dollar.
You can't eat hyperbole but you can pay more to eat the effects of doomed policies.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 10:21AM
You're living with the effects created by the Republican led Congress and President Bush - and then you blame the very people that saved us from another Great Depression? All economists said the government needed to increase spending during such a severe downturn to fill the economic void. Even Bush, to his credit, agreed to TARP, the auto bailout, etc. Were mistakes made - sure - but what was the alternative - a Great Depression?
Remember what you mother taught you- an ounce of prevention (regulation) is worth a pound of cure (deficit spending ).
Get our financial house in order, but anything that eliminates any job, government or private sector should be avoided at this time
Ryan| 4.20.11 @ 10:38AM
Not "all" economists, just those addicted to the Keynesian models. Several companies should have allowed to go bankrupt - GM, Chrysler, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc. Yes, jobs would have been lost, and gained later, but we threw their salvation on the backs of the American taxpayer rather than allowing them and their poor business models to affect us down the road.
Letting them fail would have been a more permanent solution. What we are dealing with now is temporary. The problems inherent in several of those companies are still with us. Now, we have to deal with a pending inflation issue AND high unemployment ANYWAY.
The alternative was NOT another Great Depression (which, btw, found its solution NOT in government overspending, but in industrialization and sacrifice); that canard is continually thrown out by Keynesians when their solution DIDN'T work in the 70s, and ours DID work in the 80s.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 11:39AM
On one hand you say another Great Depression was not in the offing and on the other hand, the companies in question should have been allowed to fail. Since you can't prove a negative, and in 2008 ALL economists were worried about the same thing, including conservative economists, that stipulation of no Great Depression is false. You don't know for sure. As far as letting the companies fail - I agree except when there were so many with so many workers involved - we're talking millions here - that alone could have pushed us into Depression.
The cavalier attitude that the second-guessers have about this is unconscionable. We don't have an inflation issue and unemployment, while still too high, has come done slowly, but steadily since those huge government programs you don't like were put in place.
We've already the experience of the government not doing enough in the 1929-32 time frame to create the Great Depression. I am thankful that cooler heads prevailed so we can confront the issues we have today that are manageable, rather than the tragedy wrought by another Great Depression. Thank you GW Bush and Barack Obama for doing what was right, not what was ideological.
axbucxdu| 4.20.11 @ 1:34PM
The only people that are cavalier are the Keynesians that blithely ignore the balance sheet consequences of this government largesse and the adverse monetary effects caused by the struggle to finance it. Really, if the economic response is anemic, Krugmann/Keynesian logic dictates increasing the crack dosage to the crack addict.
So what's the problem? Monetary aggregates and interest rates are not linearly proportional. The Fed has mismanaged itself into a corner. Unconscionable.
They must now thread the needle to avoid inflation. Fat chance of that. I defer to Dr. Hussman:
Charles Plosser and the 50% Contraction in the Fed's Balance Sheet
big bob| 4.20.11 @ 11:07AM
I can't let this stand. As a money manager, I assure you that this man has prolonged what would have otherwise been a very predictable recession. The housing collapse, (helped along by Schumer,Dodd, and Franks) amplified the problems. But taking MORE money out of the system with taxation, (and not so public fees, permits, etc.), does not help us at all. We now have 22 million public sector jobs; and some 11 million in the private sector. Common sense tells you that cant continue, if you actually stop to think about it!!! His ridiculous approach to destroy the private sector started with the banks and our auto companies. He has NO authority to do what he did there. He continues to thumb his nose at his delimited powers from the constitution. As he oversteps his authorized powers, he exercises power he doesnt have in the private sector. No, he has made a recession turn into a full -fledged depression. And then he does his Chicago best to shout down anyone who says otherwise...just ask S&P!!! No, this is on him, and him alone.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 11:55AM
Well, obviously I disagree... the seeds of the economic downturn started long before Barack Obama came on the scene, let alone his election as President. I'm glad he and George Bush teamed up to save the banks, auto companies etc. Remember all of that was begun by Bush, listening to all economists at the time what would happen if he didn't support the financial and auto industry.
To Obama's authorities - really? from early in the twentieth century the president has exercised authority over private industry to halt strikes, commandeer production facilities, aid the country is bad economic times... that is nothing new. And gladly, so did Bush and Obama.
You should get your facts straight though -
BTW - this country employs 153 million people of which 22 million are public sector jobs ...leaving some 130 million in the private sector ... So I would cool your jets on that huge error.
Look it up: http://www.workforcewv.org/lmi.....tional.pdf
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 12:46PM
Note: They didn't save the banks. The taxpayers ponied up to support the banks. Many banks have folded since then so one should question what was saved and what was not saved.
The taxpayers are going to lose billions on GM and that's if we're getting half the truth. I suspect that GM was simply a union bailout. Without the bailout they may have been forced to face the truth about their labor costs. Prediction: They'll be back for more and sooner then you think.
As far as the private sector overall wages are lower than the private sector so I'm not sure what point it is to compare the two other than to indicate the the public sector has many more benefits that are bankrupting the states and the country.
canuckistani| 4.20.11 @ 12:53PM
Toadies on here rail against "trolls" creeping around these boards, but the greatest threat to the conservative agenda expanded on this site is the creeping revisionism that now pervades replies by so-called defenders of the faith.
You are right on the nose with your assessment that the tactics used by the G in the face of collapse were not only necessary, but correct.
The collapse in Iceland, Ireland, Greece and Portugal (likely Spain next) were not the sad result of Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, but the license given by the Fed, Moody's and Goldman to the mortgage market that happy days are here to stay. Greenspan's assertion that the G was at risk of becoming a creditor and thereby start to compete with private sectors as his justification for supporting Junior's reckless tax cuts, was in hindsight, probably the one message that crytalized the errors made up and down the financial totem pole. Dodd, Frank and BHO had nothing to do with that fact.
The old axiom in sleuthing is "follow the money" and who benefitted the most from the last 20 years of manoevers: Goldman. Period. They even knocked out Lehman, Merill and Stearns in one shot. Epic.
It is time to cut the BS and enable Americans to trust markets again. You cannot make good choices without facts, and the only way to get facts these days is to use the power of the G to drag it out of the robber barons' sweaty hands, hold bond raters' feet to the fire and start having ceremonial arrests of bankers weekly.
As far as public policy goes, the programs people have voted FOR many times over the decades are sound programs, it is the courage of governing types to be clear on what it costs and how they will get the money, which means taxes MUST go up if a deficit emerges.
The electorate deserves the truth.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 1:47PM
There is overwhelming evidence that the bank bail outs were simply mere money laundering schemes that bailed out banks who made substantial donations to political entities.
If the government knows what it's doing since it controls banks then why would these bank failures have been so bad? If that's true then the government should also be shut down because it would indicate they don't know what they are doing.
Here's a great piece from Mises which shows why the banks couldn't be allowed to fail. The politicians were afraid of failing, to get political donations.
From Mises:
http://blog.mises.org/9492/ban.....liticians/
About 160 of the banks and financial institutions who have received, so far, about $305 billion in TARP money shelled out $37.5 million in campaign contributions in the 2007-2008 election cycle. President Obama received $4.3 million of those contributions. The Senators on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Committee and the Senate Financial Committee received $5.2 million on campaign contributions.
In addition, those same banks and financial institutions expended $76.7 milliion in lobbying costs to win friends and influence those in political power who determine how much and for whom the bailout money will be redistributed from the taxpaying public.
Thus, for a total of $114.2 million in political campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, those banks and financial institutions have received a more than 2,500 percent return on their political “investment” in the form of TARP money.
Ore Gone| 4.20.11 @ 3:14PM
With a government that can't say NO! The people are only left with taxes must go up forever. That sounds like a real win win situation. We have local, state and Federal governments overseeing our every little move with amazing amounts of waste. The Federal government needs to butt out and let the States manage their own internal affairs.
Clint| 4.20.11 @ 4:07PM
Someone conveniently forgot:
These Steps to The Economic Crisis, in The U.S. were: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, under The Carter Administration, pushing the writing of Paper in Risky Redlined Areas, The Clinton Administration 1995 Revisions,orchestrated by then Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen & Clinton Adviser Robert Rubin allowed for the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns, The Democrat threatened filibuster & killing of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 S.190, which then Senator Obama refused to Co-Sponsor, repeated ignoring by The Barney Frank Chaired House Financial Services Committee of Bush Administration Warnings regarding The FHLMC & FNMA, 17 times in 2008 alone.
JFGalt| 4.20.11 @ 1:01PM
The seeds of all this started in 1913 with Woodrow Wilson and the progressives who want something for nothing and think that they are smarter than anyone else around including the laws of physics and economics. Every president and congress since has had a hand in what we have today. We are already in a depression if you look at real numbers not the phoney junk trotted out in the media. READ THE GOVT'S OWN REPORTS! Its all there. Saint Reagan is responsible for some of this too with his huge miltary buildups which we can't seem to put a stop to now not to mention Clinton with NAFTA and the "Great Sucking Sound" of our jobs going overseas, Bush Light with his wars and OBAMA! with all the rest of his general stupidity. But most of the blame rests with the American people who have not stood up and demanded better govt. We just vote for the same boobs that rob us blind. If there was real outrage, we would be seeing massive recalls everywhere! No, everyone is in for themselves. Is the world going to end because of all this. Not likely but it may hurt and it will hurt the most to everyday folks who just want to be left alone to begin with. The rich don't care. Especially those that are the most involved in philantropic activities. They're not really out to help anyone but themselves or at the least to make themselves feel less guilty for the other things they do. Take a look at all the biggest Wall Street crooks and you will see that they gave much to charity but quietly kept the lion's share to themselves. Even if they lose half their wealth they will still be sitting in the catbird's seat. The wealthy own us and soon you will get to see the new heir to the world's throne get married amidst a hoopla that has no place in America unless something else is afoot.
big bob| 4.20.11 @ 1:48PM
MY BAD, comparing to manufacturing jobs, and up from 9 million 25 years ago. Way too many!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to
California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.
Kishego| 4.20.11 @ 3:13PM
The only thing Bush and ObaMao have done with the TARP, stimulus spending and corporate bailouts (I thought liberals were all against corporate welfare) is pull a curtain in front of the thieves from D.C. and Wall Street, as they picked the countries safe lock and stole everything in it.
Butch | 4.20.11 @ 5:08PM
And he exceeded any constitutional authority he had when he unilaterally abrogated the contracts of the Chrysler and GM bondholders. That act also violated about 800 years of legal precedent regarding contract law. Right in front of us all, he played King and robbed the bondholders to favor the labor unions, who had no claims in bankruptcy.
W| 4.20.11 @ 7:12PM
Goldman is the broker/bank/money shop for the democrats. Rubin, Corzine,etc
Quartermaster| 4.20.11 @ 8:07PM
Bush set the table. Obama is about to serve the final meal. It will be a bitter one.
The Obamanoids have saved no one from anything. They have merely steepened the downward trajectory. But, just hold onto your myths. They will shown to be what the informed already know them to be in the very near future.
As for teh question in the headline, the are hard because there are too few adults in FedGov. They are almost entirely, including both parties, Liberals who bought into FDR's spend and elect routine.
Sane Person| 4.20.11 @ 1:59PM
Why Indeed?
I am particularly disappointed when I see Mr. Obama, who proclaimed that the highest level of ethics would be upheld in Government, but then made political appointments of people who have clearly and openly violated not only ethics, but the LAW.
I speak of the recent reports of the Director of an Agency of the DOD, specifically DARPA, by the name of Regina Dugan. Ms. Dugan owns a company called RedXDefense in Rockville MD.
RedXDefense was started by Dugan a few years ago and survives on entirely Govt contracts.
Dugan was appointed to the Director of DARPA just after Obama's election.
Since that time, Dugan has awarded over $1.8M to RedXDefense. Thanks right, Dugan has funded her own company via the Agency that she directs.
See: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/regina-dugan/
and
http://articles.latimes.com/20.....a-20110403
This is pure corruption and it must be stopped.
Moreover, Dugan appointed a friend as the Deputy Director by the name of Kaigham Gabriel.
Please look at how he explains the awards by Dugan to her company of over $1.8 M - he claims that DARPA has conflicts of interest all the time and that they need more conflicts of interests to do the best work and attract the "best" people to Govt service. I can only presume that by "best" he means the most criminal.
Mr. Issa, if you wish to clean up Govt, you could start with cleaning out DARPA.
Signed,
Sane person (and a proud American)
TechMan| 4.20.11 @ 2:29PM
Sane,
You have only touched the tip of the iceberg of corruption at DARPA. Dugan got the job because her uncle was an important "bundler" in Chicago for the Obama campaign. He raised over $1M for Obama.
Also, did you know that Dugan transfered the running of her company to her father (she still owns the company BTW), who then gave her a $250,000 promissory note.
Tach Man
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:06PM
Why are the cuts so hard to achieve mr issa? Becasue idiots like you think shutting down the govt would be a DISASTER. Really? A disaster? and where did you learn economics? The real disaster is the situation we are in. I hope RINOs like you are unemployed very soon. You sir are a coward and lack the integrity to shut it down and fix it.
Kenny| 4.20.11 @ 6:42AM
The reason it is hard to cut government spending, even the waste, is because so many of those dollars flow into the hands of what can be best called 'parasites.'
These parasites are not just those directly on the dole but also all those in government employ to the extent they are over paid and underworked.
Ryan| 4.20.11 @ 8:19AM
Parasites come in all shapes and sizes - from the welfare queen to the big, government-entitled corporation and bailed out big business.
JFGalt| 4.20.11 @ 1:03PM
You failed to mention the biggest parasite of them all. The giant leech of government itself.
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:07PM
OF which Issa is one.
Intelligent Design| 4.20.11 @ 8:10AM
Here's a suggestion for Congress: The U.S. should leave the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya, and stay out of Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Algeria, etc. We should not be engaged in "nation building" unless the American public is willing to tolerate thousands more of our troops dead or wounded, and willing to spend $1 trillion more over the next few years in order to prop up Islamic regimes. Dumb.
What would make sense is to put about 25,000 of our troops along the border with Mexico. Untold millions of illegals are consuming hundreds of $billions in services, primarily in the areas of health care, education, and the criminal justice system. In addition, it is nearly certain that among the millions who have walked into the U.S. from Mexico, there are a few hundred Muslim terrorists planning attacks on American citizens.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 5:26PM
Ditto!
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.20.11 @ 8:23AM
Mr. Issa,
with all respect, sir, you have to represent your whack job constituents out there in California.
You know, the fruits and nuts who have allowed their own State to plunge off the fiscal cliff already.
Sir, you probably cannot fight very hard for spending cuts and keep your seat. We understand and sympathize. Nevertheless, as Rep Ryan has said, this is the most predictable catastrophe in history.
It is Thelma and Louise driving full bore toward the cliff, but in the movie, we never had to witness their final destination below.
We Americans will have to live through the inevitable crash at the bottom. Most of us will survive it, but every one of us will be terribly injured and in pain and penury for the remainder of our lives.
That's a hell of a note.
I don't want to hear any more whining from you guys. STEP ON THE DAMNED BRAKES, STUPID!
WL| 4.20.11 @ 10:06AM
Old Tex....
You are absolutely correct. These dumb republicans have sealed the deal with me....I really thought this ISSA goon was a serious guy until the last few months of a Republican house....
1. He was almost the first one to come out and throw in the towel on the debt ceiling vote before the crowd even took our seats....
2.The secret weapon of propoganda disappearing acts....During the election Mr. ISSA was going to be John Wayne and Wyatt Earp all in one on his "oversight" committee......
And since taking power.....we have had NOTHING.
Anyone else notice how there are no "scandals" anymore? Not that I am a big fan of them....but it sure does seem funny how scandals don't seem to exist anymore....and Mr. ISSA is proving about as effective as a stinkwind in a hurricane.....
JFGalt| 4.20.11 @ 1:05PM
Once the election is over, the electorate is simply like an annoying fly buzzing around - that is until the next election rolls around and the same BS is spread and people line up miles deep to stick their faces and wallow in all that BS.
Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 7:02PM
Mr. Issa has an interesting criminal record...as Debbie Schlussel puts it:
"Issa has made a career of being a shill, cheerleader, and personal representative in Congress for Hezbollah, Arafat, Syria, and the global Islamic terror machine. He has a track record of anti-Semitic statements–dismissing critics (like myself) because they are “Jews”–and of using his Congressional office to try to intimidate others, mostly conservatives and many political enemies. And then there’s his long criminal record. During his life–he stole at least three cars, stole his multi-million dollar business, stole patents, fired an employee at gunpoint, committed arson and insurance fraud, at a plant (and then the detective investigating it mysteriously “died”), lied about his military record, was caught carrying a concealed weapon and ammunition including tear gas (believed to be for the purpose of committing armed robbery), and even stealing one of his fellow soldier’s cars."
Here's Issa on 9/11: (From the New York Daily News):
"GOP Rep. Darrell Issa under fire from everywhere after 9/11 comments
BY Richard Sisk and Michael Mccauliff
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Thursday, April 3rd 2008, 2:05 AM
Hamburg/NewsSan Diego GOP Rep. Darrell Issa was under siege for suggesting the federal government had already done enough to help New York cope with 'a fire' that 'simply was an aircraft' hitting the WTC. Related ArticlesWASHINGTON - The California congressman who called the Sept. 11 attacks "simply" a plane crash ran for cover Wednesday under a barrage of ridicule from fellow Republicans, first responders and victims' families.
San Diego GOP Rep. Darrell Issa was under siege for suggesting the federal government had already done enough to help New York cope with "a fire" that "simply was an aircraft" hitting the World Trade Center.
"That is a pretty distorted view of things," said Frank Fraone, a Menlo Park, Calif., fire chief who led a 67-man crew at Ground Zero. "Whether they're a couple of planes or a couple of missiles, they still did the same damage."
"New York was attacked by Al Qaeda. It doesn't have to be attacked by Congress," added Long Island Rep. Pete King, a Republican.
"I'm really surprised by Darrell Issa," King added. "It showed such a cavalier dismissal of what happened to New York. It's wrong and inexcusable."
Lorie Van Aucken, who lost her husband, Kenneth, in the attacks, slammed Issa's "cruel and heartless" comments.
"It's really discouraging. People stepped up and did the right thing. They sacrificed themselves and now a lot of people are getting really horrible illnesses," she added.
Under pressure from all sides, the Golden State pol - who got rich selling car alarms after getting busted for car theft as a teen - pulled a partial U-turn. He issued a statement but cowered from the press.
"I continue to support federal assistance for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks," he said.
But he didn't retract his wacked-out rhetoric claiming the feds "just threw" buckets of cash at New York for an attack "that had no dirty bomb in it, it had no chemical munitions in it."
He went on: "I have to ask ... why the firefighters who went there and everybody in the city of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration."
In his statement yesterday, Issa insisted he only "asked tough questions about the expenditures" during a hearing Tuesday on an aid bill for sick New Yorkers.
"He realized he stepped in it," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-Manhattan), who was leading the hearing when Issa popped off.
"The sound I'm hearing is him slamming the brakes and going in reverse," crowed Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn-Queens). Issa also belatedly admitted 9/11 was "an attack on America" in his statement.
It shouldn't have been that hard.
He took to the floor of Congress on Sept. 11, 2001, to argue passionately that America - not just New York - had been attacked, but conveniently forgot that during his Tuesday diatribe.
"It seems that with the passage of time, something happened along the way where the scope of the problem and the real extent of the problem has not drifted out to California," fumed Staten Island GOP Rep. Vito Fossella.
Health officials estimate it could cost $1 billion to care properly for the ailments that may emerge in the people who lived through the horror of Sept. 11 or breathed that toxic dust.
New York lawmakers now want Democratic leaders to bring the 9/11 care bill to the floor soon - before more members of Congress start spouting off like Issa.
mmcauliff@nydailynews.com
You may also be interested in:
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....1K6hyN0Vc."
Just because he has an (R) after his name doesn't make Mr. Issa worth listening to.
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:15PM
"We understand and sympathize."
Oh no we don't. We do not want politicians like Issa we want leadership and leaders take arrows instead of running home to hide behind mommy or the RNC. So what if he is not reelected? Cant he do anything else for a living? Lead, do the right thing; if you lose the election know that you did your best. At least you can live with yourself unless Issa has gotten to the point that he can live with himself regardless of how he acts like most borderline pols.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.21.11 @ 9:38AM
Hey Mames
I was being sarcastic with that sentence.
Walking Horse| 4.20.11 @ 8:47AM
Why spending reductions are hard is no arcane mystery: politicians like the power and it dovetails nicely with a fundamental character defect in human beings: the desire for lunch at the expense of others.
Issa is correct that no serious approach to restoring fiscal sanity can avoid absolute reduction in the price of federal government of at least 50%, because we borrow 40% of all funds currently expended and we have a current debt load of near biblical proportions. [It is obvious the current political class has no intention of ever repaying said debt.]
Reductions of this scale have been implemented in the past. You probably never heard of the Depression of 1920. That is primarily because sober people once inhabited DC and they undertook sharp reductions in the size of the federal government:~50%. The economy rapidly recovered and the hangover from WW I and the execrable Wilson Administration was a distant memory.
baba mama | 4.20.11 @ 9:03AM
Congressman-I would feel a whole lot better if
you were investigating Obama. My guess is you
struck a deal with him when you were called to
the White House. If you had time to write the
article, you have time to investigate the corrupt-
ion. Take your pick of scandels....how about the
"birther records and the deal Pelosi made to
certify his eligibility...that would help us all who
are sick of career politicians on both sides.
breakn70| 4.20.11 @ 9:11AM
Mr. Issa makes two revealing comments right off the bat that once again confirm that our elected representatives are out of touch with their constituents. The first is where he refers to the "$38.5 billion in spending cuts" that we all now know amounted to either $350 million or zero depending on who you want to believe. The second, more telling comment was, "For weeks, the entire country was consumed with the possibility that basic government services would have grinded to a complete halt." I have yet to meet or hear a single individual in my world express concern over the possibility that the curtailment of "basic government services" would be a problem with the exception of social security checks and the funding of the military. Some in my world have even wondered out loud "how long would the government have to be shut down before the deficit would disappear?" as though the shutdown would be a positive thing.
Either I live in a very small world or Mr. Issa has an extremely inflated sense of how many of us care about a government shutdown or see it as a bad thing.
Ned| 4.20.11 @ 10:06AM
The fault lies with Mr. Issa, not your small world.
Everyone I talked to about a 'government shut down' was strongly in favor... shut the sucker down, and shut it down long enough that the smug government employees in D.C. have to start worrying about making THEIR mortgage payments.
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:29PM
Lets see if Issa will respond to any of these concerns or if he will continue to play politics and pad his own nest.
There are a large number of profane names that I could be called but pity the man who calls me a politician like this little scum and spin miester. I too met absolutely NO ONE who was concerned about a shut down. Most of us were hoping for one to show the world once and for all it isnt the big threat the Dems make it out to be and to keep pressure to do spending cuts not this LIE of 38 bil that is really 389 mil. Keep our target list of those folks we need to remove via the primary system and donate our money directly to those who deserve it regardless if they are in our state or not and never, NEVER give money to the RNC.
John | 4.20.11 @ 9:11AM
$352 million in real spending cuts! In the end even this will be found to be illusionary. Obama announced his goal is to cut spending by $4 trillion. He knows this is a winner. But it is just talk. On July 3, 2008 he also announced the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow (shouldn't this be a national holiday?). Everyone is in favor of cutting pork with the minor exception of their own pork. However, "victory for fiscal responsibility is within reach." Defund the Department of Education? This has been a right-wing dream. It will be accomplished under this administration. We are broke. Once the international community realizes that we are writing rubber checks we will face the consequences.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 9:18AM
Perhaps 4 trillion in spending cuts will amount to 38 billion in spending cuts as 38 billion turned out to be a 3.3 billion dollar increase.
I really think you're on to something
The key appears to announce spending cuts far in excess of what will actually transpire.
For instance, announce a quadrillion in spending cuts and you get a 100 billion.
Although that sounds hyperbolic, apparently it could work.
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:31PM
The nerve of Issa coming on here and continuing the lie. These creeps have no shame, NONE.
PattyMor| 4.20.11 @ 9:21AM
The president's 2008 campaign is being investigated even though he took no public money. This is quite unusual. But don't look for anything substantial to come out of it. The Bamster just delays, obfuscates, or refuses to provide the information. What are we going to do, complain to Eric Holder??
But, the budget "deal" just shows how unserious the Rat Party leadership is. They have lots of new freshmen congressman and what did they do with it? More of the same ole, same ole. Then they tried the old rope-a-dope on the public about their grand compromise. All for a pittance of real savings.
So, load up on food. Prepare for your own defense. And protect yourselves as bet you can from your own government. Prepare for a very hard landing.
Erling| 4.20.11 @ 9:23AM
I'm baffled by Rep. Issa's comment: "The real victory is that House Republicans have changed the conversation." That's it? The GOP controls the darn place, but all they can muster is conversation change? Speakers Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, Tom Foley, and Nancy Pelosi didn't diddle with conversation change- they passed legislation by steamrolling their opponents (namely our guys). Speaker Boehner has no stomach to go to the mat to pass conservative, constitutional bills to limit the growth of the federal government and protect Americans' liberty. I want real change- not conversation change.
big bob| 4.20.11 @ 9:26AM
Mr. Issa, I have read everything your office has published in the last few years. Your research and documentation is impressive and your observations on the money. I applaud you for posting this piece here in the American Spectator as it has some of the best thinkers I've seen on line making comments.
The very first answer to your question as to why it is so hard to to make spending cuts has to do with who acts like they have a majority and who
HAS a majority!! The Republican party has been in the minority for so long, they do not understand what it means to actually have power. You and your fellow leaders have spent so much time worrying about what the media might think, that you have lost track of the damage this maniac has done to the country, the constitution, the economy and our way of life. He is SO far ahead of you and your companions, you remind me of the last band in the Rose Parade when television is not broadcasting and no one really cares who they are or what they are playing!!! You have become almost irrelevant. Rep. Boehner does NOT understand strategy and posturing. He is too worried about too many things, and not the right things at that. You and your peers need to be putting a full court press on this idiot with respect to the EPA, Deficit, Debt ceiling, regulations, Dept of Justice prosecutions (with their extreme prejudice!!), and the Czars, just to name a few topics!! Instead, Boehner gives up the one offensive tool he had to take Obama down the mat, anyway. He did not even get a point for takedown, if you will.
Why is it so hard? Because you and your peers do not realize what is at stake here. At least you do not behave as though you realize. This is slipping away from you daily. You yourself should have a dozen hearings set up. Why don't you? Why isn't there a stream of Czars coming into your committee? And if they won't because they are not accountable, who is?? Why are you leaving this alone?? Because you have an "agreement"? I don't know why, but as an active Tea Party member, I have no sympathy and am VERY disappointed with your inability to stop this juggernaut.
Just as I hold the Senate republicans responsible for letting Clinton off the hook, if we fail to hold the line here, it will be on you and the other chairman. Find your backbone and your voice...and it won't be so difficult.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 2:13PM
Have you forgotten your meds today?
big bob| 4.20.11 @ 9:30AM
"When you have the president who signed multiple pieces of trillion dollar legislation start announcing a goal to cut spending, you know that a victory for fiscal responsibility is within reach."
If you actually BELIEVE this, then we are truly lost. He has you right where he wants you. For the record, you can't believe anything he says...he lies Mr. Issa. He lies for a living and continues to lie!! And when he is caught, as he was a few days ago about the Texas vote, he gets pissed and takes it out on the person holding him accountable. So if you really believe what you said and think that is actually true, you might as well just become a Democrat.
Pete| 4.20.11 @ 10:17AM
So true. If you actually believe that he is acting in good faith, you have already lost.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 2:16PM
That's the trouble with politics - nothing is as it seems.
Ore Gone| 4.20.11 @ 3:25PM
I had to read that four times. I can't believe he actually put that in words. W.C. Fields would be proud of Mr. Issa. Obama must have dirt on everyone and all it takes is a little chat in a plane or the WH and they become believers. If his lips move he is lying.
darcy| 4.20.11 @ 9:16PM
Mr. Issa: If for even one moment you think the conversation "shift" by Obama is anything else but campaign rhetoric, then you are an absolute fool.
I suggest you go back to Southern California, retire, and let some young gun take over your district. You are useless.
martin j smith| 4.20.11 @ 10:05AM
Mr Issa: If the Republican party desires to get the voters on board with their actions and ideas they have not been doing a very good job. And, I would also add this: To beat Obama in 2012, which I assume and hope is your and the Party's goal it is my view that there has to be more open debate DIRECTLY WITH OBAMA HIMSELF. And, this your Party seems to fear ? That is not only unproductive but it turns me and other voters off. What is the PROBLEM ? We are not looking for the of the WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION of cobat, but rather direct and honest CONFRONTATION on Obama's policies.
We the people are waiting.
George S| 4.20.11 @ 10:06AM
Good question. Here are my answers:
One. Not even 20 years ago, congressional campaigns cost maybe a couple of hundred grand, tops. Today, one will need (easily) over a million in a lot of districts as congressional seats are no longer a local matter thanks to the neglecting of federalism. You, Congressman, will need much more than that because you are a top target of Democrats and their fund raisers nationwide. Where will you get the millions you will need to fend off the ferocious attack ads and media savaging? Donors. Not the average Joe (he throws his RNC solicitation in the trash) but from lobbyists. Lobbyists that have a stake in big government. Pay to play. So, even if everyone is in agreement that government spending must cease, every congressman will try to save their donor's special interest.
Two. Over 75% of federal spending kicks in by law. To defund entitlement programs or government entities, one must pass a law, get it through both houses, then the President. Along the way, everyone will get fired upon so heavily that political losses are inevitable (see 2010 Election). Is any member of Congress so committed to cutting government that they are willing to sacrifice their power? Not even Paul Ryan could bring himself to cutting Medicare or social security.
Three. Americans do indeed want to see government spending controlled. But the debt still has to be paid. The only way to pay the debt is through high taxes and a one-shot wealth tax. But no American wants to write a check so Congress will deficit spend and borrow in lieu of facing voters with entitlement cuts or raising taxes. This prevents any meaningful cuts from happening.
Four. What are the chances of a wealth tax being a one-shot deal? Once we clean our books, the temptation to spend again will be too great to ignore. Everyone who bought a house knows that you need to close down your credit lines above you mortgage payment prior to the bank approving the mortgage.
Five. How will reduction in spending translate into votes? Liberals give things away, conservatives take things away. Think about it: conservatives say the best course is for government to get smaller which, by definition, takes things away. Reduction in entitlements? A negative. Less government employees? A negative. Less earmarks? A negative. It's twisted logic to many... in order to make things better, freebies must be reduced. Liberals give more away of other people's money. Which does the public prefer? How do you convince Granny that spending 5 bucks more a month for medicine makes things better for her? Liberals will be quick to point out that that 5 bucks will go to the rich, who already have more than what's fair. Who will Granny vote for?
Am I in the ballpark?
Ore Gone| 4.20.11 @ 3:30PM
On your first point. Scott Brown was elected thanks to a lot of us giving money to stop HealthCare. A lot of small donations equals to a big donation by a lobbyist. The people still have some say in this game but our money has to offset the Unions and any corporate figure looking to bed with the WH. Can you say GE!
Eric Cartman| 4.20.11 @ 10:20AM
Why Are Spending Cuts So Hard? You've got to be kidding, Congressman? Here, let me straighten it out for you:
1. We have one party who will never, ever cut taxes OR spending and actually hates America when her people are prospering ans wants to "spread the wealth" to people with the "Get me some Obama money" mentality. Take a Congressional Junket to Detroit if you need an up-close and personal look-see. Take a wild guess who this is.
2. We have another party who couldn't explain simply and with wit how to get out of a paper bag. They can't seem to find a spokesperson who can actually speak (please see Trump or Rush for lessons) and say the things that need to be said with humor with a right amount of sarcasm to get A FREEKING POINT ACROSS! If you Republicans - you sitting Republicans - cannot, in this environment, get people to understand that we are broke and going broker, then just run this SNL spot on a continuous loop for the next two years: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni...../1178451/. Putz.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 2:20PM
We are doomed. Even the Republicans can't balance a budget... but they got themselves elected - for what?
Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 7:04PM
Eric,
You are a hero of mine, you know that, right?
Eric Cartman| 4.21.11 @ 12:36PM
Thank you, OT. The feeling is mutual :-)
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 4.20.11 @ 10:34AM
I predict:
-Federal spending will go up but the rate of increase will go down.
-Taxes will go up, but not as much as Obama and the Democrats wanted.
-No real entitlement reforms will be made.
-After much sound and fury the debt ceiling will be raised.
-Inflation/Stagflation will return with a vengeance.
-Republicans will declare victory.
-Democrats will cry that seniors, children and poor will die in the streets.
-Democrats will call Republicans racist, evil and Hitler. Republicans will wet themselves.
-A balanced budget amendment, gun control and abortion changes will be discussed in an attempt to distract those on the left and right from the real problems.
-We will have to suffer another article like this from a Republican luminary.
-Much to the surprise of the world, the fall of the USA economy will drag down the economy of the entire world.
-The ruling class will prosper.
-Obama will be relected mostly because the republicians will run a RINO/CINO again.
-Stock up on food and ammo. It may even be too late for gold and silver.
-Dire times are coming.
simon templar| 4.20.11 @ 5:28PM
I am sorry to say, but you nailed it!
Who Cares?| 4.20.11 @ 10:41AM
AA’s 12-step program for ethanol-drinking addicts applies to D.C., and if one doesn’t take the FIRST step, well---
All one needs to know is that more than half of the people writing the kiting checks REFUSE to admit they have a problem.
Point, set, match.
When Obama became president, the excessive writing of bad checks was programmed to happen---“He won!”
As above, so below.
The micro level AND the macro level are NOT unconnected!
Likely the people who read this site and make comments are typical Americans, in most ways, so I’ll wager more than a few individuals have weight and health problems.
If anyone wants to do more than continue to rant about all the same old political Obama crap, if they are OPEN minded enough, Google on a “Dr. Lustig” and “SUGAR is poison” on youtube, and watch his takedown of fructose.
His 90 minute lecture has over a MILLION views since coming out in 2009, and---
Hopefully, real soon, he will win the Pulitzer Prize for medicine, because his case about what a poison sugar is, is bullet proof.
I will never look at an obese person as simply a glutton and a sloth, now that the whole story—to date---is out!
Dietary peace, brothers and sisters!
Appleby| 4.20.11 @ 10:47AM
Why is it so hard to cut spending? Because nobody wants to do it.
Long, long ago, Aesop ended a famous fable with these words: "But who will bell the cat?"
That question has yet to be answered. And when we face Our Lord on Judgment Day, He will want to know why.
Franklin| 4.20.11 @ 2:23PM
Exactly - if you don't want to or can't cut spending, then you have to increase revenue ... higher taxes are on the way; whether D or R won't matter. We have to pay for our profligate ways over the last 35 years.
darcy| 4.20.11 @ 9:22PM
NO. Higher taxes equals consent to business as usual. Higher taxes will BE SPENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not used to decrease debt. Don't you get it??
Drunken Sailor| 4.20.11 @ 11:08AM
Only in Congress can you project to increase spending by $50 Billion, cut that to $25 Billion and then claim a $25 Billion dollar savings. In the real world you still increase spending by $25 Billion
Pete| 4.20.11 @ 11:24AM
The real question is how we get back to the days where politicians were actually engaged in "public service." At some point, the implied altruism vanished and political office became a sought after career for the money and the power involved, both during and after their stint was over. This shift has created a class of people that truly thinks of themselves as the "ruling class." Much in the same way a CEO displays arrogance, so do these politicians feel that there is no one else qualified to do the truly meaningful work they are doing. Except politicians aren't as easily or quickly discarded as CEOs for poor performance.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.20.11 @ 11:57AM
“Can we do better than cutting just 1/1000th of one percent of the federal budget?”
Not with the people in place before 2010. The chorus calling for retreads, stay the course, “everyone but my congressman” still resonates.
Of course this will be a rhetorical question soon. Even your “reformers” are about ready to raise the debt ceiling so they can kick the can down the road till they can get out on the reelection trail.
“……..you know that a victory for fiscal responsibility is within reach.” He (Obama) is lying, and if you believe a word of that last statement are part of the problem. Mr. Issa, you are drinking your own kool aid
DWS from Weeeest Virginny| 4.20.11 @ 12:17PM
The real reason there are no real budget cuts is because no one want to disrupt the club house atmosphere of the Congress. As long as it consists of members like Orrin Hatch who, claiming conservative credentials, still talks about "my dear friend and colleague Teddy" it will always be easier to raise debt and taxes than cut spending. Cutting spending forces real prioritization and pits the advocates of diffrent priorities against each other. Then Orin and Ted are no longer bosom buddies but rivals. Georgetown and the watering holes near Capitol Hill are no longer full of good cheer. No palsy walsy. And the loss of that is worse than national bankruptcy.
Paul Clare| 4.20.11 @ 12:46PM
Rep. Issa: Well put! But are we going to see ALL the Republicans continue on this fight? Will the deficit be allowed to increase? If so that takes away any need to make further cuts. I myself do NOT want you to have another "credit card" to pay off the others!
In short, can Washington get real about the problem and just defund all the excess government to bring the spending in line with reality?
Respectfully, Paul
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 12:48PM
What fight was there? There was no fight. There was a kabuki dance followed by a celebration. That is not promising.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 12:48PM
What fight was there? There was no fight. There was a kabuki dance followed by a celebration. That is not promising.
Wayne | 4.20.11 @ 1:05PM
"To be sure, a government shutdown of the magnitude nearly realized would have been disastrous."
Oh really, why is that? This is the type of statement that makes us leery of the GOP establishment. It is cowardly. Just do whatever Obama wants until 2012, because with this thinking he got you by the balls.
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:38PM
EXACTLY. What he is saying is that those mean dems would hang this on us and we don't have a way to deal with it because we are so flippin 'stupid. Hard as it may be we have to call them as they really are, scum bag politicians with "values" that move more than a starving rat.
Oldefarte| 4.20.11 @ 1:21PM
Some of you people just don't get it. Okay, the R's obtained a measly $38 billion defecit reduction for a 8 month period. Without ignorantly labeling this as RINOism, do you understand that, if not for these R's efforts, Obama and the Democrats would have ADDED $200 billion [instead of the SUBTRACTED $38 billion] to the budget? ITS THE GD DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! Granted, IMO the REAL/CRITICAL political fight is NOW [with the 2012 budget and the debt ceiling], and I'm 200% with you that all of the political chips have to be put upon the table regarding same; but please, quit sniping about Issa and other R's when the real war has to be against the Democrats. Who among you bloggers here [except for idiots like VTWIN, ABROOKS etc] are willing to truthfully admit that you voted in November of 2008 for Barack Obama [or have voted for Democrats in your respective regions/districts]; and therefore it is partially YOUR FAULT [and not these R's] for being responsible for placing these D's in power and in the political position to perform the damage that they are now carrying out????????
Wayne | 4.20.11 @ 2:00PM
We get it, but obviously you don't. We get the need to fight the democrats, and not capitulate. We don't need democrat lite.
Oldefarte| 4.20.11 @ 2:57PM
Okay, then contemplate the following [from Newsmax's front page article of today]:
“......While Trump himself has said he would like to have seen deeper cuts, as would I, as would most of these tea party folks,” Stone said. “It’s a step in the right direction. We’re going to have to do more but we also have to keep all of us on the conservative side who want to cut spending overall together. If we fight amongst ourselves, the Democrats and the liberals and those who don’t want to cut spending will win......”
mames| 4.20.11 @ 3:45PM
You have to keep the pressure on these, these, "people". Remember when the GOP controlled the whole thing? Did cuts occur. NO and most of these clowns are the same dem lites that were in office then. Dont make the mistake of thinking GOPers will do the right thing when they have the power - they have proven they will not.
'put another way " being poor doesn't reveal character being rich does" and the GOP has been rich in power before and their character was fully revealed for all to see including the spending fanatic "W".
Al Adab| 4.20.11 @ 6:38PM
Please do not confuse Republicans and the GOP with Conservatives and the Conservative Movement. The two are not synonomous. Conservatives mostly opposed the spending spree which took place during the Bush 43 years. Alternatives being worse (as we now see) left few options for concerted action. What you did see was constant reductions in budget deficits and a balanced budget following the 1994 election of a Republican House. That continued until the Bush administration. Simply ask, which Party is more likely to reduce spending and gain budgetary control?
darcy| 4.20.11 @ 9:38PM
I'm going to burst your bubble, Al Adab. But I must. At this point, what with Issa praising Obama for changing the conversation (hogwash) and Boehner reneging on his $100 Billion in spending cuts that HE DID NOT FIGHT TO ACHIEVE, I haven't the slightest bit of confidence that ANY Republican gets it. The entire House leadership is in the process of neutering the freshman class and "acquainting" them with the way things are done in DC.
We -- these days -- expect the Democrats to destroy America; what we don't expect is for the Republican ruling class to go along for the ride and pick up the spoils as they can. But this is exactly what is happening.
Only 59 House members voted last Friday against the compromise, only 59! All others were wetting their pants afraid of a government shutdown and the Obama PR war machine. If our Tea Party people won't fight for us on the House floor -- and the leadership acknowledge the people's mandate -- it's inevitable that the fight for our country will take on extra-congressional dynamics. But not before the people discover that what ails America is the failure of the two party system that has in effect become one party with two flavors: socialist dark and socialist lite.
simon templar| 4.20.11 @ 5:45PM
You are right in the idea that we can no longer tear each other to pieces but must continue to support those that are trying to do the right thing and are making great effort to do so. The fact of the matter is equally true that WE do not trust this ruling elite nor establishment R's for very good and longstanding reasons. The skepticism on this blog by my fellow conservatives is very legitimate and the questions and observations they are offering are critically useful. What we want is no more BS, lying, manipulation, or betrayal but straight answers. We want some fighting spirit and want to see some bloody noses for once coming from the GOP...not the lame, whining, and apologetic nonsense we continually hear. People are starving for real, tough, tell it like it is, leadership. We do not expect to win all the battles from the start but we want to see some clear, brass ball, rolled up sleeve, fist swinging, smart political fighting. Respectfully offered to his ancient flatulence...Signed, the Saint.
SpiralArchitect| 4.20.11 @ 1:25PM
To what end result is this piece written?
AmSpec has a fairly small following...
There is no real substance in the article that is not known to this crowd; by and large this is a piece written more for the authors accomplishments or mantle.
Stock up on food you say?
How, do tell, are we to gain such supplies w/o income (stopping before ranting) >:(
blackwatch| 4.20.11 @ 1:33PM
Issa,
Want to make a real statement?
Announce on TV that you are cutting your pay by whatever percentage the Federal Budget is out of balance by.
So that would be a 40% cut in your paycheck at this time.
If you can't stand the borrowing then you and your family should not profit from the inter-generational theft that you are committing.
Didn't you make millions selling car alarms?
Issa--be a REAL leader and the people will follow.
Al Adab| 4.20.11 @ 2:00PM
What we don't yet have is enough NO votes. No Congressman should vote for a budget that includes funding for any private agency such as La Raza, The Urban League, SEIU, ACORN, Planned Parenthood or the like and there are thousands of them supporting their own agendas with taxpayer dollars. It is immoral for citizens to be coerced into supporting issue groups whose agenda is not their own. No Congressman should vote for a budget containing funding for any of the executive agencies who's ruling have the force of law. Congress makes the law not the agencies (mandarin bureaus). This would include EPA, OSHA, DOE (both) and hundreds of others. Untill we have enough votes to end this nonsense our troubles will continue. At this stage, seeking compromise for it's own sake is no less irresponsible than supporting the agenda we are trying to end. Simply refuse, like Jeff Flake and some others to support budgets with these items in them. Eventually there will come a day.
Ore Gone| 4.20.11 @ 3:34PM
Have you noticed the Trolls are working on their Raise Taxes talking points already. Black is White and White is Black.
Richard Baker| 4.20.11 @ 3:44PM
Who really believes that the Kenyan and his troops saved the car companies and the banks? It appears that S&P thinks the whole edifice is a house of cards.
Iaidoka| 4.20.11 @ 6:40PM
Sorry, Rep. Issa. You guys didn't cut anything except the rate of increase. From usgovernmentspending.com, the total outlays for 2010 were 3.456T. Total projected outlays for 2011 are 3.819T. How, exactly, is that a cut?
If these numbers are accurate, the only way you can say you cut was to say it would have ben 3.857 without your 38B "cut". In my world, and in the world of anyone who actually, you know, has to live by a budget, you INCREASED spending by 363B.
Thom| 4.20.11 @ 6:58PM
Congressman ISSA,
Do you also think the Titanic could have been saved after she slipped below the waves if the 1500 odd people on board had all grabbed a mattress and plugged the holes in 6 compartments below the water line? That’s kind of what I’m hearing here.
By the first opportunity to replace King Obama and get control of the Senate comes around we are going to already be 2 trillion dollars in debt heavier and the debt service alone is going to exceed the Defense Department budget if interest rates rise much at all above where they are now. Rising interest rates are pretty much a certainly because our creditors aren’t going to stand for continued devaluation of our currency and get a negative ROR on their money. The water is lapping over the bow of the Titanic now, it won’t take much more worsening economic conditions (rising inflation in fuel, food, etc) to put the bow under water and an unstoppable end result.
Those with cash reserves aren’t going to invest them in an economy strapped with endless government regulations from A to Z with the prospects of just having their earnings go to feed higher taxes. Between lack of growth and ever higher burdens of debt drag this boat is about to flounder. 50,000 new minimum wage workers at McDonalds aren’t going to save us. Neither is having a conversation about a problem that grows 4-5 billion a day and wiped out the recent real budget deal savings in about an hour and 45 minutes of Federal spending……
The problem isn’t the lack conversation about the problem. The problem is lack of respect for those that pay the bulk of the tax burden to support all those that get the benefit. Those don’t happen to be the same groups of people hence the welfare state crowd have no stake in this matter because they aren’t paying the taxes to support it and haven’t missed a check or meal through this entire mess. These are fundamental polar opposite views of what the functions of this government are. At the end of the day someone is going to lose here in substantive terms and the only remaining unanswered question if how many in this society are going to have to get off the taxpayer tit?
My money is on the Titanic going down…..
Impeach Don't Wait| 4.20.11 @ 11:41PM
"These are fundamental polar opposite views of what the functions of this government are."
Bingo. Which is the real reason why I'm starting to believe that the necessary cuts aren't going to happen. Those in government who believe it's the government's role to bridge the gap for every "deprived" group, to micro-manage every aspect of commerce via subsidy, and to borrow and monetize our worries away, will never find places to make substantial cuts. The president can speak of the need to cut spending but everybody knows he doesn't mean it. I mean, EVERYONE KNOWS HE DOESN'T MEAN IT! ESPECIALLY HIM! Won't happen. When the ship sinks, when people are dying in the streets and there's no money to pay for ANYTHING! Nothing! Zip! Nada! --that's when a worldwide monetary system will be implemented--just another way to wave away the problem... and our economic freedom with it. Nobody will turn this ship around. Because Democrats aren't appropriate to govern the U.S., and the Republicans let them take the lead and have to ask for their permission to do the right thing. It's called "negotiating".
shipley130| 4.20.11 @ 9:58PM
I normally would agree that when a president starts talking about cutting spending, I could count on some spending in practice, but Obama only practices pretend truth. Pretend truth=Lie.
Leveut| 4.20.11 @ 10:25PM
"When you have the president who signed multiple pieces of trillion dollar legislation start announcing a goal to cut spending"
He's lying.
" you know that a victory for fiscal responsibility is within reach."
If you're a fool, because only a fool would think Obama isn't lying.
Random Blowhard| 4.21.11 @ 5:37AM
The spending will stop, unfortunately it will stop once the US dollar becomes "Zimbucks" and the country suffers total economic collapse.
Looking at the increases in Gold and Silver over the past few months we have 6-12 months max before we hit the wall.
Spend,Print, Bailout,Default, Collapse...
The United States of Argentina - change your getting.
dani| 4.21.11 @ 10:32AM
People like WilliamGgreider say the S&P should not have downgraded the U.S. Was he not the one who wrote Secerets of the temple? He so hates the "Banksters" but seems not to realize that Goldman Sachs, The Fed, and Fanny, and Freddie are the most important players in our current problem except for we the people who have not demanded balanced budgets via spending cuts. You go S&P until the pols get the hint.
Xenophon| 4.21.11 @ 1:15PM
Well, Darrell, if you REALLY want to change the conversation, I would suggest putting forth an initiative to eliminate an entire cabinet level bureaucracy. Choose one: energy, transportation, education, housing, or commerce. We don't need these leeches. Why don't you get down to brass tacks and do something that will actually make a difference? Otherwise, we're toast.
Despondent Libertarian| 4.21.11 @ 1:34PM
This is one of the greatest assortment of board comments I have ever read!
GotFreedom| 4.21.11 @ 5:11PM
Mr. Issa, you said that you intended to conduct investigations into the release of classified diplomatic cables by Wikileaks; recalls at the Food and Drug Administration; the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the foreclosure crisis; the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's failure to identify the origins of the meltdown; as well as business regulations and alleged corruption in Afghanistan--how are those investigations going?
Or have you backed off of the investigations this (what you once called them) "corrupt" administration?
whizkid| 4.21.11 @ 10:53PM
Two places we could & should start to work on are--1. Remember when Obama said he/congress would attack the estimated 300-400Billion in medicaid/medicare fraud?? To fund a major part of Obamacare?? What ever happened to that?? The Teletron in Times Square should read out a daily $ amount of fraud CAUGHT each day!! That would daily reinforce to the citizens that SOMETHING is being ADDRESSED and FIXED for once!! 2. Eliminate base line budgeting!! It ASSUMES [ & we ALL know what that does] that we start from a flawed assumption. Things change. Some programs/projects HAVE to have a "Completion date!! ASSUMING we start from last years reckless spending as tha START of the new year is ridiculous!! We don't continue to spend $$ in families if we don't have it, we cut back & adjust!! The Government needs to ADOPT & TAKE TO HEART 24/7/365 this approach!! Doable and sensible!!
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:04PM
is good