« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can Boehner Find $8 Billion to Cut?

Several days before the August congressional recess, we noted that some conservatives were considering abjuring the House budget in favor of a 6-month CR to fund the beginning of FY 2013 in October.  Their rationale was to defer the major spending fights until 2013, when presumably, we would have more control over the final outcome.  Additionally, the original intent of this plan was to deny the Democrats and moderate Republicans the opportunity to use a must-pass spending bill to tack on tax increases and other bad proposals during the lame duck session.

At the time, we weighed both the benefits and the drawbacks to this proposal and concluded that if Republicans are set on funding government at higher levels and funding Obamacare for the purpose of bypassing the lame duck session, they should make sure there is a parallel agreement to terminate the lame duck.  No such commitment appears to be on the horizon.  Now there appears to be another complication with the impending deal.  If Republicans don’t modify their agreement on the 6-month CR, they will wind up approving $8 billion more in spending for FY2013 than they did this past year.

Pursuant to the 2011 debt ceiling agreement (Budget Control Act), the discretionary spending cap for the upcoming fiscal year was set at $1.047 trillion.  By setting the spending levels of the “clean” CR at $1.047 trillion, Republicans will ostensibly agree to $19 billion more in discretionary spending than proposed in the House-passed budget.  Any “clean” CR will obviously also include funding for Obamacare.  Some conservatives might feel that this is the price worth paying for deferring the battle to 2013, but I suspect that many more problems with the deal will begin to surface in the coming weeks.  The first problem is the additional $8 billion in spending that Republicans are prepared to support.

Yesterday, Politico reported that the CBO is now projecting that discretionary spending will only reach $1.039 trillion in FY 2013.  Aside for outlays and revenues, budget drafters also consider “offsetting receipts” in the budget when calculating the final spending figures.  Many government agencies, such as the FHA and Freddie Mac, charge fees for their services.  Those fees offset the cost of gross outlays and produce the final spending figure – net outlays.  As the housing market begins to recover, CBO is predicting that FHA receipts from premiums for loan guarantees will increase, netting much of that extra revenue and offsetting up to $8 billion in spending.[As a parenthetical, it should be noted that the current accounting method for “offsetting receipts” obfuscates the true size and scope of government.  Instead of including them in net outlays, they should be included in revenues, while posting the full level of gross outlays to reflect the true cost of government.]

Here is where you can observe how the culture of Washington spending has gotten us into this mess in the first place.  Most Americans who are languishing under permanent indebtedness would relish the news of lower spending estimates, and use it as an opportunity to save some money.  But not in Washington.  Much like the ancient Persian government described in the book of Esther, liberal politicians believe that any edict of spending “may not be revoked.”  Obama and the Democrats want to pocket the $1.047 trillion spending agreement, and spend the “additional” $8 billion on new programs instead of simply leaving spending levels at current levels.  Boehner and the Republicans must not go along with this scheme.

At some point, conservatives will have to decide how much they are willing to compromise in order to defer our priorities until 2013.  In light of some of the recent shenanigans of the Romney campaign at the convention, conservatives should not place all their hopes and aspirations in 2013.  We might be squeamish about provoking a budget battle immediately preceding the election.  However, we need to come to the realization that, at some point, we will have to fight.  That fight will take place irrespective of which party controls the White House and Congress.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • rabun1016

    I don’t think Romney will have any love for Boehner. Romney is a hard working slug. Boehner is not.

  • HopeHeFails

    We no longer have the luxury of talking about $8 Billion nothing-burgers. We need to be focusing on anything $100 Billion or more and stay out of the weeds.

  • General_Confusion

    Will Boehner cut 8 billion? No, but he will negotiate night and day for a “cut” that will turn out to be an increase of $800 billion!

  • garfieldjl

    The real question isn’t whether or not Boehner can find something to cut, the real question is whether or not Harry Reid will even allow it on the Senate Floor for debate…

  • cwfoster

    Does anyone REALLY think Boner WANTS to cut anything?

  • spolson

    Dept of Energy, Mission; eliminate dependence on foreign Oil. Progress -100.
    Dept of Education, Mission; unknown Progress -100.
    Dept of interior, manage public lands. Parks closing, use is -100 progress.
    Dept of Justice, mission justice; promotes racism denies justice.
    “Illegal” Aliens kick them out, no unearned benefits.
    You need look no further than eliminating one or more even all 5. Budget solved.

  • Melody Warbington

    I read the platform periodically. We actually discussed it at our last county GOP meeting with some of our state leaders who attended. Wouldn’t be the first time Boehner is wrong.

  • drfredc

    The solution to this sort of budgeting problem is simple — create a means for taxpayers to direct a portion of their tax dollars to this or that social marketplace program. If a program doesn’t cross a certain threshold of viability in funding by taxpayers, that program goes away, or is provided a pathway to smoothly evolve into a private sector charity where it can fend for support by other means. Any program that is an essential part of the social marketplace fabric should do fine taking their case to the taxpayers.

    If something doesn’t get funded, well, then it’s not the politician’s fault — taxpayers don’t think its worth funding… Those who want something funded can damn well fund it with their own tax dollars. Or take their case to support it directly to taxpayers.

    Start with boxes taxpayers can check to have a portion of their tax dollars fund (or not fund) Planned Parenthood…, Amtrak, Cornahol, Green Energy speculation, Education, or paying down the debt. Not sure why the list couldn’t be a lot longer…

    My current personal favorite is to limit COLAs for federal workers and their pensions to two times the FPL, put a portion of the “savings” towards entitlement reform support. The Cost Of Living Adjustments have evolved into Cost of Luxury Adjustments for overpaid gubermint workers. Federal wages and benefit programs need to be brought back into line with private sector wages and benefits. But that’s just my little thought.

    Whatever — Start with something manageable…

    Taxpayers (aka the untapped productive sector of our economy) could probably have the budget balanced in a very short time if given the opportunity, and the result would likely be our future would be directed towards more, not less, productive behavior and prosperity.

  • jakee308

    John “The Weeper” Boehner couldn’t find his a$$ if he reached behind him with both hands.

    What amazes me is that they think these paltry cuts matter somehow. They would if there were more of them so that the aggregate amounted to at least a trillion.

    We know for a FACT that the IRS gives out refunds on bogus returns and doesn’t do much about it. We’re pretty sure that Medicare/Medicaid and SSI are being defrauded by BILLIONS, yet for some reason, they consider a few billion dollars just too precious to give up.

    With the Boner as speaker, obamacare and budget reform will NEVER happen. Majorities in Congress or not, Romney as President or not.

    All the votes for repeal were Kabuki; they knew it would never get past Harry Reid.

    If there’s even the REMOTEST possibility that a bill to repeal would succeed, it’ll never get out of committee.

    Watch and wait but don’t hold your breath.

  • krish

    Romney…if he really wants to cut the spending…he has to first confornt Boehner & McConnell…it is up OH & KY voters to throw these bums out!

  • krish

    I am sure, Boehner is praying that Dems retain the senate..so that he can blame Reid & co for spending otherwise his & McConnell gig will be up!

  • Melody Warbington

    streiff, as an activist, I use the party platform often in discussions, especially when identifying myself as a Republican. Identity politics and all that. For example, if I’m talking to another GOP member and we’re talking policy, I can tell them I support the GOP platform without going through each and every issue. They generally understand that means I am pro life, that I support the military and am not an isolationist, that I support traditional marriage, and that I support small government, low taxes and fiscal sanity.

    I usually have some talking points about the platform handy, and folks are generally receptive to discussing the planks as a starting point, especially if I am trying to convince others of the vast differences between the parties. It’s rather startling sometimes to liberals when I point out that those differences are actually spelled out on paper, although the GOP could and should certainly do a much better job of governing according to those principles.

    It’s also helpful if I’m talking to a staffer in D.C. about my standing on an upcoming vote or displeasure at one already cast, to point to the party platform as a basis for my position, in addition to whatever else might apply (statistics, logic, history, the Constitution). A candidate may not run on said platform, but if he has an “R” by his name, I surely do not think it out of bounds to let him know that I expect him to support those principles. My two cents based on my experiences.