Huffpost Politics

Hal Rogers, House Appropriations Chair, Says Paul Ryan Budget 'Cuts Too Much Spending'

Posted: Updated:

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is concerned about the draconian cuts of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) proposed budget.

“It cuts too much spending, frankly, from the discretionary side of the budget," Rogers said during an interview with a local Kentucky station on Thursday, first flagged by ThinkProgress.

Rogers, who has served in Congress for over three decades, represents the second-poorest district in the country. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, he oversees the funding of federal agencies and programs.

"Most people don’t realize that we only appropriate one-third of federal spending … and we’ve cut that by $100 billion over the last two years,“ Rogers said. "That's unknown since World War II."

Rogers was once known as the "Prince of Pork" for his ability to earmark projects in his home district. But his power has ebbed with the waning of earmarks in general.

Ryan introduced his latest budget on Tuesday. His proposal aims to balance the federal budget in a decade, by repealing Obamacare and cutting spending for Medicare, Medicaid and programs for the poor. According to Investors Business Daily, the Ryan budget would slash federal spending -- outside of Social Security and interest on the debt -- to levels not seen since 1948.

Despite his reservations, Rogers said he will vote for Ryan's budget. "The problem, budget wise, is the growth of the so-called entitlement programs," he said.

Also on HuffPost:

Close
How Paul Ryan's Budget Would Hurt The Poor
of
Share
Tweet
Advertisement
Share this
close
Current Slide

Suggest a correction

Around the Web

Rep. Hal Rogers authors spending bill that would ease some cuts

Bill would keep agencies funded through end of September

House Appropriations Chair Takes Down Republican Budget: It 'Cuts Too Much'

House GOP crafting new spending bill

How the South Is Bringing Down the Grand Old Party

After the sequester: Why March 27 is even scarier