-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Instead of raising the debt ceiling again, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) suggests cutting enough spending to keep the federal government under the current debt limit for a few more months. We’re only talking about $20 billion in cuts and Coburn’s amendment lists 640 duplicate programs that could be consolidated. The Wall Street Journal has more. Since running against runaway federal spending is all the rage now, it would be a good chance for Democrats to show that they’ve learned a lesson from their recent electoral setbacks — and an even better chance for Republicans to demonstrate they actually believe the rhetoric they campaign on, something that wasn’t in evidence the last time they held power.
View all comments (42) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/25/how-about-some-spending-cuts
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- A President Loses His Power
- Obama’s Drone War
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
Bob| 1.25.10 @ 4:44PM
Although Coburn's "recommendation" makes sense if you don't know anything about the federal budget, his rhetoric is not matched by fact. Most duplication is administrative and the administrative portion of the funds spent is minor. Thus, instead of $20 billion, the actual number is closer to $2 billion. The reduction of the remaining $18 billion would be actual cuts to schools, teachers, construction companies, etc. This would hurt the economy even more. That's not to say it would be worth cutting the $2 billion --it would -- but the impact on the total would be minor.
53% of the federal budget is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Almost 20% is Military and 9% is interest payments. There is no way to get any significant cuts without cutting entitlements. If Coburn were really serious about cutting spending, he'd cut entitlement programs.
But that is the problem, both Dems and Republicans know that if they cut those programs, they will not be reelected and lobbyists will not give them any campaign contributions. So, in terms of cutting spending, the Republicans are actually worse than the Democrats. Republicans call for tax cuts which are proven NOT to stimulate the economy but they won't cut spending. Until Republicans cut spending before they cut taxes, they are morally bankrupt. Dems are not morally bankrupt, they are just dumb when it comes to the future of the country.
The way you solve this problem is with term limits and public financing of campaigns so we have citizen legislators and no lobbyists. Right now, the primary job of legislators is to get reelected -- not to govern. They spend more time on raising money than doing the people's business. Until that changes, there is little hope no matter who is in power. Republicans proved that over the past 8 years and Dems are proving that now.
Interested Conservative| 1.25.10 @ 5:38PM
First step - slowly step away from the bong.
Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:09PM
So you think that government works? Now, back to the bong....
Floyd Looney | 1.25.10 @ 6:07PM
Bob, overhead in government is a LOT more than 10%. What % of entitlement spending actually reaches the person at the end? I'd be shocked if it were even as high as 40%. Paper-pusher, chair warmers and desk jockeys should be cut first, true.
Anyone remember the nonStimulus Bill? Thats a lot more than $20 billion still unspent. They could easily cut that without "hurting" anyone.
Yes Bob, the stimulus bill spent $2 million to weatherize 7 houses in Texas, I bet 90% went into some leftist pockets along the way.
Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:26PM
The problem with your statement, Floyd, is that you haven't run the numbers. There are 1.9 million non-military federal employees making an average of $75,000 each. That includes the President and the Executive Branch, all of the departments, Congress, Social Security, Medicare, etc. If you take the non-military, non-interest federal budget and divide it, the average personnel overhead is 7% of the total federal budget. Add 25% fringes for offices, etc., and you get about 9%. Those are the facts, but you and others here don't seem to want to know the facts. Thus, 10% is a pretty good estimate.
That's what's wrong with blogs like AmSpec, no one seems to want to know the real facts.
Siegfried X| 1.25.10 @ 7:11PM
"We're only talking about $20 billion in cuts..."
That's the problem, ONLY.
For the past 15 years no one has even TALKED about real spending cuts. Instead we get these tiny, symbolic, fig leaf cuts while RINOs and Democrats alike support new entitlement programs that cost tens or hundreds times what the cuts save.
Back in the mid-90's Republicians talked about eliminating the Department of Education and real across-the-board cuts, along with "devolving" a lot of the rest back to the states so they could start weaning themselves off federal money.
Today we have RINOs like McCain who demogogue about a few tiny earmarks in someone else's district, while support every entitlement that a Ted Kennedy-like Democrat wants.
Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:28PM
There are no fiscal conservatives in Congress -- not Democrats and not Republicans. The Republicans talk a good game but when have any of them actually cut a budget? Reagan grew government and the budget. Bush grew government and the budget. When Republicans ran Congress, they grew the size of government and the budget. Forget about RINO's -- that's a figment of your imagination. Just understand the fact that their are no fiscal conservatives in Congress. Once you get elected you are beholding to the special interests whether you are on the right or on the left.
ds80| 1.25.10 @ 10:53PM
Reagan did not grow government. The Democrat House at the time did.
Bob| 1.26.10 @ 8:20AM
That's nonsense. He had the power of the veto. If he really wanted to make government smaller he could have just said "no". The fact is that Reagan had it both ways -- he could say he was for smaller government and then blame it on Dems. You need to have a tune-up in the logic department.
AWM| 1.25.10 @ 8:18PM
You need to be in the front lines seeing hundreds of people every day, then you'd get to hear about the crack whores having babies for a check, all the disability frauds, kids on Ritalin for a check, massive drug movement to the black market from pharmacies paid for with your tax money, and it just goes on and on.
Terminate Entitlements NOW!
Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:30PM
While you're at it, terminate Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Military. That's a good way to get elected.
Pingback| 1.25.10 @ 8:54PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : How About Some Spending Cuts? Information By A links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.25.10 @ 9:20PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : How About Some Spending Cuts? Federal Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 1.25.10 @ 9:48PM
Contrary to what people trapped in the eternal Fox Newsopia believe, Obama's instincts on spending are not all that wild, and he's said to be leaning towards a pay roll tax cut. Take away the stimulus -- widely considered to be necessary by conservative economists -- and the bank bailouts -- begun by W. -- and you do NOT have a run away spender in Obama. True, he's a Democrat and a liberal; he spends more than Jack Kemp would have. But the idea that he's on some kind of crazy spending spree is just not backed up with evidence.
ds80| 1.25.10 @ 10:57PM
I'll just echo Vinny Gambini:
"Everything that guy just said is bullsh*t"
Although it *is* very entertaining.
Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 3:16AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : How About Some Spending links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.26.10 @ 3:23AM
Here's how you raise £100bn through tax hikes | The Spectator | Tax Finance Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 1.26.10 @ 10:09AM
The Deficit has gotten so big and the pressures to feed it with more borrowed money so intense that it may well be that collapse is inevitable.
"Stars produce energy through nuclear fusion, producing heavier elements from lighter ones. The heat generated from these reactions prevents gravitational collapse of the star. Over time, the star builds up a central core which consists of elements which the temperature at the center of the star is not sufficient to fuse. For main-sequence stars with a mass below approximately 8 solar masses, the mass of this core will remain below the Chandrasekhar limit, and they will eventually lose mass (as planetary nebulae) until only the core, which becomes a white dwarf, remains. Stars with higher mass will develop a degenerate core whose mass will grow until it exceeds the limit. At this point the star will explode in a core-collapse supernova, leaving behind either a neutron star or a black hole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar's_limit
Oldefarte| 1.26.10 @ 11:45AM
Excellent, James, and true! Government could/should begin cutting/eliminating foreign aid, governmental employment, farm aid, the space program [restricting it to unmanned space rockets only for scientific purposes], welfare,etc. The government's deficit/debt can be lowered by two means---tax/revenue increases and/or expense/costs reductions. Any taxpayer that examines the government's budget would have a heart attact in seeing what they have to pay for with their tax payments!!!!!
Nelson Lee Walker | 1.26.10 @ 5:21PM
1814 characters 314 words
The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is :
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!
The American voter must IMPOSE term limits by NEVER REELECTING ANYONE IN CONGRESS, AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION! In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term. That's the only way to teach them that the voter is boss! The “one term limit” can be eased AFTER citizens get control of Congress.
Congress will never allow us to constitutionally term limit them by an amendment. Our only choice is to NEVER REELECT them. All of them!
The number of ‘good guys’ left in Congress is negligible, so if we threw ALL 535 members out, we wouldn’t do as much damage as the good we would gain by turning Congress into a bunch of honest, innocent freshmen.
Some of the reasons in favor of this approach:
• It gives us a one-term-limited Congress without using an amendment
• It encourages ordinary citizens to run for Congress
• It is supported by 70% of the country (see Rasmussen and Cato polls)
• It is completely nonpartisan
• If repeated, it ends career politicians in Congress
• It opens the way to a “citizen Congress” of guys like you and me
* It would open a torrent of fresh ideas to improve our government
• It ends the seniority system that keeps freshmen powerless
• It doesn’t cost money. But you MUST vote! Just don’t vote for an incumbent
• It takes effect immediately on Election Day
• It is the only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to “Throw the Bums Out”
• When the ‘pros’ stop running, ordinary citizens will run, and win
• If it doesn’t work, do it again and again! It will work eventually,without a doubt.
NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!
Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
Email nels96@gmail.com for your free NEVER REELECT bumper sticker
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:09AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:10AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.29.10 @ 11:11AM
Political News Highlights and Controversy» Tom Coburn: Instead Of Raising The Nationa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
aija| 5.10.10 @ 7:19AM
But that is the problem, both Dems and Republicans understand that if HP0-J33 exam they revilement those programs, they be going to not be reelected and lobbyists be going to not provide them some crusade contributions. So, in cost of selection spending, the Republicans are actually worsened than the Democrats. Republicans call for set cuts which are proven NOT to impact the frugalness but they won't revilement spending. Until Republicans revilement outlay before they revilement taxes, they are morally bankrupt. Dems are not morally HP0-J24 exam bankrupt, they are meet unarticulate when it comes to the forthcoming of the country. The artefact you cipher this difficulty is with constituent limits and open finance of campaigns.