Promised GOP Budget Cuts May Be Much Lower Than Promised

WASHINGTON -- The GOP "budget cut" numbers are getting squishier by the minute. At least it seemed that way in the hallways of the Capitol on a ceremonial first day of swearing-ins, family photo ops and back-slapping goodwill.

Republicans campaigned coast to coast on, among other things, a promise to cut $100 billion out of the federal budget.

But now they are talking about cuts as slim as $30 billion, blaming the change on the fine print that no one read -- or if they read, did not understand.

It turns out the $100-billion figure meant $100 billion from a budget that President Barack Obama proposed, which was never passed. And now that the fiscal year is nearly half over, well, there's just no way ...

Even some Tea Party types who are sticking to the original goal concede that it'll be hard to reach as long as the GOP exempts -- as it plans to -- funding for defense, homeland security, veterans and entitlements. "I still think it's realistic," freshman Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said of the $100-billion target, "but the trick will be how we get from here to there."

Yeah.

But at least Griffith, a former leader of the Virginia legislature, expressed a determination to give it a go. He's a solid, earnest fellow from the mountains, and when you make a promise there, you try to keep it if you can.

A lot of other Republicans are more "realistic." Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), who's been in Congress since 1993 and now chairs the Homeland Security Committee, told me that $100 billion is of course unrealistic and the cuts will be $50 billion, tops. Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), the new chair of Oversight and Government Reform, told me to forget this year's number and explained that his goal is to cut $200 billion over two years. Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), the incoming chair of Financial Services' domestic monetary policy subcommittee, said that all of these numbers are chicken feed and a waste of time.

And over in the Senate, a top GOP aide told me that the real bottom line is a max of $30 billion for the rest of this fiscal year.

All these numbers can expand or contract depending on the baseline used. The cuts may sound bigger or smaller, for example, depending on whether you use the numbers the Democrats were talking about or the figures in President Obama's original 2010-'11 budget.

As for health-care reform, some Republicans are eager to focus on repealing and dismantling it. "My people are scared of Obamacare," said Griffith. "They want me to do what I can to get rid of it, and I'll have credibility with them to the extent that I do."

But King said the GOP had to be careful. "We'll vote to repeal and then move on," he said. "Then the experts on the committees will figure out what else we should vote on later. In the meantime, we have to focus on other issues."

Comments

[ZiloRS]

07:59 AM on 01/07/2011

From $100 billion in cuts down to $30 billion...that has to make you wonder, Tea Party, how much they will actually cut??? Probably won't even be $30 billion when they get done...

I also find it pretty telling that the GOP never wants to touch their precious defense funding. Probably because they have so many personal investments that are still raking in money for them thanks to government backing.

For the Tea Party and right wingers here who decry how bad the government is: Maybe you shouldn't have set all your hopes on the Tea Party that was elected...to government...

[MoneyChanger]

09:30 PM on 01/06/2011

They're going to do what they all do - they talk.

We have a serious problem with bloat in government. When that happens to us in business, we arbitrarily cut an area or function by the estimated bloat - say 25% -- then let the managers figure out what NOT to do. When we see what doesn't get done, we decide whether it's acceptable.

With the serious bloat in our governments at all levels, I'd suggest 25% to everything except SS & medicare (even defense; we don't need $700 hammers). After the 25% round, we'd probably discover that another reduction is in order. Following those painful "reorganizations", we could deal with the SERIOUS problem we have with SS & Medicare.

Of course, we could just wait until no one will buy our bonds, then do it like the USSR did –

[texfly]

07:19 PM on 01/06/2011

First, stop spending any more money on two unfunded wars.

[THEjomama]

01:50 PM on 01/07/2011

Uhhhh, how is spending money on something not spending funds?

[kbeth]

07:09 PM on 01/06/2011

They will cut funding from some programs and advertise the fact everywhere while they increase spending for their pet projects that their supporters will never hear about. The cuts will be minor and the increases will be huge. Penny wise and pound foolish as my grandmother used to say.

[William McKibbin]

05:01 PM on 01/06/2011

The Congress cannot be trusted to cut spending because Federalism is out of control -- it's time for a Constituto­nal Amendment instead -- more at:

http://wjm­c.blogspot­.com/2011/­01/repeal-­amendment.­html

Thank you for the opportunit­y to comment...

[nevertofarleft]

04:14 PM on 01/06/2011

hey teabaggers...how's that budget cutting going for ya?

[GodsWebmaster]

03:59 PM on 01/06/2011

Well Ron Paul says the numbers are a waste of time... yes except to use as lies to get yourself elected.

[Phxflyer]

03:10 PM on 01/06/2011

OK Teabaggers, how does if feel to be tossed aside less than 24 hours after your boys took office?

Thanks for proving P.T. Barnum and H.L. Mencken right!

[dlbnext]

01:54 PM on 01/06/2011

Former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul warned Wednesday that even if Republicans fulfill their pledge to slash $100 billion in federal spending, the United States still only has a one in 10 chance to avert an economic catastrophe, a $100 billion cut in federal spending — a goal that leading Republicans now are cautioning may not be realistic — would amount to “peanuts.” Paul pointed to the fact that the Federal Reserve recently embarked on a massive $600 billion expansion of the money supply without congressional authorization.

[Rick Eriksen]

01:43 PM on 01/06/2011

That is the problem with command...you have to do something, not just talk about it..and what you do can impact others...for exapmle just driving a car...that is a command position...you make choices..if your drink and drive, problem..if you speed, problem...if you text and drive, problem...if you talk on a cell phone and drive you are a problem...so you make choices about all of those things everyday...if you make the wrong choice at the wrong time..you, or worse yet someone else gets hurt...

[booker52]

01:39 PM on 01/06/2011

It's called a reality check

[yogfthagen]

01:28 PM on 01/06/2011

Personally, I'm just waiting for the Tea Party to sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches, so they can start railing on the GOP lack of follow-through on their campaign promises.
Never mind that the promises were impossible, contradictory, and delusional to begin with.

[ZiloRS]

08:00 AM on 01/07/2011

Yep. They probably won't go after their own party as they went after the democrats though. Too embarrassing.

[jamaicalover]

01:25 PM on 01/06/2011

"It turns out the $100-billion figure meant $100 billion from a budget that President Barack Obama proposed, which was never passed. And now that the fiscal year is nearly half over, well, there's just no way ...
 
Hilarious.

[american2008]

01:16 PM on 01/06/2011

Where are all the Teabagger protests? I thought that they were "Non-Parti­san" and all they wanted was to cut the debt? They seem to have shut down their protesting machine since the Repubs were elected huh?
They see that the Repubs are NOT going to cut spending like they "promised", the Repubs are not going to be working for the middle class etc. and yet the Teabaggers are NOT getting on buses and rallying in front of the Capital like they did when Democrats were in charge of the Budget strings. Hummmmmmmm

[Tygartman]

01:13 PM on 01/06/2011

Ridiculous. The fiscal year is now half over so they will save that amount pro-rated for the rest of the year. If the previous congress had done their job and passed a budget for the year, this problem wouldn't exist. You guys have such silly arguments.