« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

House Republicans Just Can’t Bring Themselves To Cut Spending

Did you know that House Republicans are still defeating amendment after amendment to cut spending — even relatively small amounts?

You probably didn’t realize this because, for some reason, no one is reporting it. So here are just a few of the amendments the House defeated last week. If you’re not happy with this record House Republicans are compiling this election year, let them know now!

Amendments to H.R. 5325, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, which contains more spending than last year’s bill:

McClintock (R-CA) – Cuts the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by $1.45 billion. Rejected 113-275.
Chaffetz (R-UT) – Cuts the Advanced Manufacturing Program by $74 million, to FY 2011 levels. Rejected 140-245.
McClintock (R-CA) – Eliminates nuclear energy research subsidies (saves $514 million). Rejected 106-281.
Chabot (R-OH) – Eliminates funding for the regional commissions, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission (saves $99.3 million). Rejected 141-276.
Blackburn (R-TN) – Cuts 1% across the board (would cut $321 million). Rejected 157-261.
Mulvaney (R-SC) – Brings the bill toward RSC budget levels by cutting a total of $3.1 billion across almost all accounts. Rejected 125-293.
King (R-IA) – Prohibits funding of Davis-Bacon union wage requirements. Rejected 184-235.
Flake (R-AZ) – Across the board spending cut that would keep funding at FY 2012 levels ($87.5 million savings). Rejected 144-274.

And note that, while Members were voting against spending cuts, they also passed a Legislative Branch Appropriations bill (H.R. 5882) that would keep congressional office operating budgets the same as last year. The same? No cuts, even while Americans all over the country have to cut back their office operating budgets? Can our representatives really be this out of touch?

COMMENTS

  • notpropagandized

    But can you or somebody give some analysis? What’s going on? Who’s responsible for these serial outrages.

    My analysis of your synopsis is a range of 106 to 184 voted for cutting. Who are they? Tea Partiers?

    Please follow up. Very interested in this issue…

  • JimmyGee

    HELL YES! They have no clue. They prove just how clueless they are everyday they are in Washington. We need to re-structure the way Congressmen get paid.

  • http://conservatisthandbook.blogspot.com cjd87

    Once again the only way to ever control government is to make sure none of them are there for very long. Kick them all out and start over with term limits.

  • gekster

    We call them ‘elections’.

  • acat

    We already see too much of a revolving door – congressman X retires, the staff go to work for congressman Y, sometimes it’s even bi-partisan.

    Term limiting congresscritters would make this worse as the staff know they just have to wait….

    Mew

  • uncmike

    To do that, they have to keep feeding the beast and scratching the back of the lobbyists who provide more of their campaign war chests. The leadership is in particular need of being removed. Term limits is just what we need. I don’t see the staff issue as a real problem. If we send conservatives up to do the right thing, they won’t be run over by staffers.

  • mkozikowski

    The constitution does not allow for salaries for the elected Congressmen (and women). It does, however, provide for costs of getting to and from their homes to the Capital.

    We can go a long way by removing their salaries. Then, you will have people running for the positions that really want to make a difference to the country, not their own pockets.

    This will result in persons in government who have a ‘Day Job’. If they get rich, then we know they are either doing really well at their day job, or they are taking money one the side.
    If the latter, we can then easily locate the crooks and put them in jail.

    Also, their help must not be paid either. If they have a staff, that staff better have a day job.

    Let’s face it, no matter how much we pay them, crooks can be bought.

  • bdirks

    Where do I begin? How about everywhere?

    -Section 6. Clause 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (no mention of travel costs, but thankfully Congress has had the sense to appropriate those funds.)

    -A substantial number, if not the majority of Members of Congress leave jobs that pay higher than $172,000 a year. Those jobs also don’t typically involve renting an apartment for at least $1000 a month in a city where you sleep maybe 150 nights a year. The base salary isn’t bad, but its not the prime motivation even for the crooks.

    -It sounds great to make these guys have full time jobs, but all you are doing is opening a Pandora’s box of conflicts of interest. I know your solution is to wait until we catch them and arrest them but I think prevention is a better method.

    -Removing all the staff would only ensure less communication with the Members and their 750,000 constituents, and the policy role they play would be filled by lobbyists to a frightening degree.

  • Kyle-MI

    It is the voters of their district. The pork is for the voters. It is to keep them employed and blissfully unaware.

  • votemout2012

    Proud to have a congressman that when along with all these bills except one. He is serious about stopping the spending. I hope he wins Primary in MO we could use his votes in the senate.

  • repealthe16tha

    Justice John Marshall had established the case precedent that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues, issues which Congress cannot justify under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

    “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” –Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    So given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 are defense related, and given the Department of Defense (DoD) budget for 2011 was $600+ billion, and given waste and fraud which are synonymous with the federal government spending, I will generously round the DoD budget up to $1 trillion as a rough estimate as to how much Section 8 should actually be costing taxpayers per year.

    In other words, we shouldn’t be seeing the multi-trillion dollar federal budgets that the liberal media, including Fox News, is reporting without bringing Section 8 into public policy discussions.

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    …regarding the party platform (and also requesting money). In the entire production, there was not one question or reference to the ONLY important position – cutting spending and reducing the size of government. I noted that on the survey and sent it back – without a donation.

    Are any of you clueless RNC people reading this?

  • commonsenseobserver

    Same old rhetoric, balanced budget amendment, bla bla bla. The party platform is not a manifesto, which is why for policy, we’d be better off creating a new Contract or Pledge.

  • renny

    but there is hope: The Sen. is going to vote on ending a program to inspect cat fish.

  • uncmike

    When the lobbyist for big Pharma gets your Congressman to help push Obamacare through, even against the wishes of most of his constituents, that’s not pork for the voters. Most K Street lobbyists aren’t lobbying for the guy on the street–they’re looking for more corporate welfare, usually to the detriment of the voters.

  • Kyle-MI

    These are the congressmen who didn’t vote for a single spending cut on these eight votes:

    Alexander
    Barletta
    Bass (NH)
    Capito
    Diaz-Balart
    Dold
    Emerson
    Gerlach
    Gibson
    Grimm
    Hanna
    Kelly
    King (NY)
    LaTourette
    LoBiondo
    McKeon
    McKinley
    Meehan
    Miller, Gary
    Paul
    Rehberg
    Reichert
    Rivera
    Ros-Lehtinen
    Runyan
    Shimkus
    Stivers
    Turner (OH)

  • Kyle-MI

    I shouldn’t need to remind you that not a single Republican in the House voted for Obamacare.

  • Kyle-MI

    Voting against and not voting were both considered as favoring spending.

  • uncmike

    to what I had to say about lobbyists. Republicans vote for many things that are little more than corporate welfare and which cut against their constituents.

  • uselogic

    Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen. Squishy as they come.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    voted against ALL of the cuts.

    I wonder how much he had in earmarks in the bill.

  • tnguy

    ….of the failure of voting for spineless republicans. We’ve done more harm than good in voting for the people on those lists.

  • aesthete

    He voted the same way on the FTAs that passed under the Bush and Clinton administrations.

    Let this be a lesson for people who make the perfect the enemy of the good.

  • acat

    before, you know, when he was stuffing bills with pork for shrimpers?

    Mew

  • codenametimna

    Establishment Republicans such as John Boehner, and yes, Eric Cantor etc., have a mindset that is contrary to the wishes of the American people in many cases. Scott Walker, bless his heart, showed to Democrats and to the whole world, that tough mindedness and a determination to do the “right thing” in the face of opposition and effectively deal with the BIG issues facing Wisconsin and the country, brings bountiful rewards. And with the help of other fiscally responsible politicians the hope will be that the eventual salvation of the United States of America from the fiscal tailspin toward bankruptcy and financial ruin under the money grubbing Obama administration, will have been averted and the country saved, along with the freedoms and liberties that have made America great.

    Establishment Republicans are in many cases NO better than their Democratic Party counterparts. Sad, but true. Once politicians get in office they see the “perks” and ‘business as usual’ mentality that pervades much of Congress, and Washington D.C. in general, and they too get “sucked in” to the debauchery and decadence that is sending the United States of America off a fiscal cliff even as we speak. The “excesses” become too hard to resist and it becomes “ingrained” in their subconsciousness, and the ‘drug’ called money takes over their lives and corrupts their morals because of a thing called – the almighty dollar – which apparently they start to love more than anything else. Along with power, which comes in a close second.

    Loving and worshiping money, even at the peril of their very own country, which provided them the opportunity to excel in life and prosper above and beyond 99% of the rest of the world’s population. Who would likely give their right arm or some other bodily appendage to make what US Congressmen and Senators and the President makes each and every year while in public office. Whilst in contrast, hundreds of millions of people all over the world currently live in squalor and where owning more than one pair of shoes is considered a highly prized luxury in life.

    Once the almighty dollar and other “perks” of public office get a hold of politicians, it doesn’t matter whether they’re Republican, Democrat, Independent or Bozo the Clown – which many of them seem to act like. It’s basically too late at that point and the ONLY way to get rid of the cancer(s) inhabiting the halls of Congress and/or the White House = IS TO VOTE THE BUMS OUT!!! And then vote in respectable candidates who still have a conscience and are determined to duplicate the successes of Scott Walker in Wisconsin and/or the fiscally conservative Sarah Palin in Alaska or the fiscal hawk Mitch Daniels of Indiana, etc., etc., etc.

    Not every Republican is out to rake the American people over the coals needless to say. Just as not every Democrat is out to rake the American people over the coals. Although the ratio is considerably higher on the Democrat side to do so unfortunately. Regardless, the American people vote politicians into office to “serve” the people and to keep America free of harm from enemies both here and abroad. That also includes fiscal harm as much as it does physical harm too, by the way.

    If Republicans refuse to buckle down to try and reduce spending and limit government and to save the country — then they DON’T deserve another term in office, even if their name does have an “R” beside it or their last name is Boehner or Cantor or whoever.

    It goes BEYOND party boundaries needless to say.

    WE THE PEOPLE who love America and democracy and the Constitution and liberty and freedom – are the ONLY ones who are going to ‘save’ America from the reckless spending that pervades the halls of Congress and Washington D.C. With God’s help and the sheer determination of patriotic Americans everywhere, we shall succeed.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    “If we should vote next week on whether to begin producing cheese in a factory on the moon, I almost certainly would oppose it…On the other hand, if the government decided to institute the policy, it would be my objective to see that a Texas contractor builds this celestial cheese plant, that the milk comes from Texas cows, and that the Earth distribution center is located in Texas.”

    No one is pure on turning crap sandwiches into ham sandwiches by larding them with pork because quite honestly the voters reward this behavior.

  • aesthete

    Honestly, earmarks don’t bother me, in Ron Paul’s case or in anyone else’s.

    The other stuff about Ron Paul (foreign policy, some economic ideas) rankle me much more.

  • acat

    It’s the hypocrisy about earmarks.

    Mew

  • 10ab

    “fiscally conservative Sarah Palin”

  • gekster

    Iv’e seen your posts.
    You are a moby, playing conservative but you being a liberal..
    Why don’t you see we can’t see that.

  • mixplix

    How many friends and family do you think are hidden within this listing? I’ll bet there’s some here you never heard of….give it a look and be surprised.
    http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

  • gekster

    From being responsible for themselves, or dependent on the government for what they have.
    If they are dependent on the government, then they don’t have to be responsible for themselves. just like the libs want it to be.You’re a dependent idiot, or just a government dependent who wants more from government.
    Which ows are you subscribed to.

  • stumpy

    It is loaded with special rules, shelters, credits and loopholes that the lobbyist have bought over the years. The average congressman owes so many people, they will not cut anywhere.

    We need a flat tax, simple tiered tax, fair tax, whatever. I’ll support anything that is simple and doesn’t raise the total government intake. Until we take away the candy bowl, our congressmen will keep passing out treats.

    The second thing is to budget from last years numbers, where a cut is a cut and an increase is an increase. By baselining with preset increases, we never cut anything, only slow the growth rate. There is no reason the federal gov can freeze spending for several years. Many states have and made it just fine. It actually forces needed reforms and inreased efficiencies that wouldn’t get done in the good times. This is true even for businesses. Those that survive usually emerge leaner and better.

    Our third problem is an uninterested, ignorant electorate. I’m afraid the sheeple will not wake up until we really hit hard times, from which we might not fully recover.

  • 10ab

    Why are TP members so thin skinned when it comes to Palin? And why do TP members always resort to calling another with whom they disagree the “L” word?

  • gekster

    have read your previous posts.
    Where did I mention the TP.
    It is you who are wrong in your assumptions.
    And you are a proven idiot.
    Show me where I am wrong.
    What post has shown you to be a conservative, and not a moby on this site,
    C;mon homer, waiting to what post you have made that is ‘conservative’.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    out of my wallet.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    Palin spent more money and increased the Alaska budgets every year of her very short reign. Her actual fiscal conservativeness comes well after she left office.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    we know for certain that what we have now is not working. I am willing to try term limits along with some other procedural remedies.

    The problem is they all have to be done with a constitutional amendment.

  • Kyle-MI

    Obamacare obviously does not qualify as no Republican voted for it.

  • gekster

    but it;s not like I raad it, or again I cold have missinterpred it.

  • 10ab

    And when you get upset you are extremely rude to others.
    I don’t know what a moby is…if you have read my posts you would know that I have long been a Romney supporter and I will readily admit I am not a social conservative. Your tag line references TP, so I “assumed” you were a TP member.

  • gekster

    But I stand by what I said.
    And I am not the only one to notice.

  • edintexas

    Our “…uninterested, ignorant electorate.” is by design. Our children have not been properly taught what we used to call “civics” for decades. And most of the politicians like it that way.

    The very notion of our country has changed, thanks largely to the “Progressive Movement”. I was reading an article by a US Army officer, written prior to the Spanish-American War. I was struck by the grammatical construct referencing the country “The United States have…”. This officer recognized the country as a Union of States, not a massive Federal entity superior to all the States and citizens. Today any Army officer writing an article which referenced the country would write “The United States has…”, referencing a singular entity.

  • bobguzzardi

    Not a single member of the Pennsylvania House Delegation, Democrat or Republican, voted against re-authorizing the Export Imports Banks’ mega corporate welfare to mega billionaire big business corporations.

    Barletta, Gerlach, Meehan are all from Pennsylvania and appear to be very loyal to Leader Boehner.

    thanks this is very useful information

  • bobguzzardi

    Not a single member of the Pennsylvania House Delegation, Democrat or Republican, voted against re-authorizing the Export Imports Banks’ mega corporate welfare to mega billionaire big business corporations.

    Listing the votes on key amendments is very useful information

    Please follow up. FYI The Pennsylvania Delegation is “reliable” :-(

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    You can’t possibly be serious. You think that because a staff member worked for another Congressperson, that means the Congressperson is not making the decisions?

    Defend that thesis. With examples. Of STFU, because it’s genuinely a stupid argument otherwise.

  • richtfan

    this is what’s gonna happen to the leadership and the RINO types who are standing in the way of real progress in making actual “cuts” to spending. i’m not talking about reductions in the rate of increase, but real cuts. this means we spend less next year than we are spending this year. that is a cut.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Newt Gingrich is the only House Speaker in my lifetime who succeeded at cutting spending and producing fiscal sanity.

    He’s still available to be drafted for election, if I recall correctly. Will somebody please get him on the phone and draft him for a replacement for John Boehner, who is clearly not up to the job? Please?

  • rivlax

    There’s more going on here than just Republicans voting against cuts and Democrats voting for them. My Republican House member, for instance, voted for some of these and against others. Obviously there is more going on here than just being against cuts.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    “Until we really hit hard times?”

    We’ve been there for a decade.

    We’re not about to hit hard times; we’re about to fall over a cliff and die.

  • acat

    Go read how his staff got caught inserting language into bills on ol’ Phil’s behalf that Phil *never even knew about*.

    Mew

  • acat

    is devolving the power of the Federal Government back to the States.

    As long as there’s an overabundance of power in D.C., it’s going to draw dishonest men.

    Mew

  • funwithknives

    that simple discourse is not a taught subject unless you join a debate team. Relativism prohibits actual ‘winners’ and IMHO this leads to ‘us vs. them’ screeching , now in abundance.Not enough participants means very few get educated.
    Let’s not even discuss talking politics in mixed company, here and now. This has actually become an “8th dirty word” around many households,Not To Be Spoken.
    * How many consider a subject perceived as ‘filthy’ is something to be avoided? {Perception as Reality}
    How many do not vote and skip the entire subject for this reason?*

    Call me a naif, but I suspect *this* is a very real blockage to increased participation.

    That many people just can’t be layabouts, can they…?

  • kdenton

    I think you are right – most bills are so laden with riders and earmarks, that defeat is virtually impossible. Until this is changed, we won’t see any significant impact on spending other than the occasional grandstand bill that gives RINO Boehner a sound bite opportunity.

  • hidlins

    go to: http://www.congress.org/news/megavote-june-11-2012/
    sign up for your state and they’ll keep you informed once a week. It’s a great tool for all citizens to keep track of what their elected officials are doing, House & Senate!

  • rightlane1111

    Democrats don’t understand THE DEBT CEILING
    Republicans don’t understand THE DEBT CEILING
    Liberals don’t understand THE DEBT CEILING
    NO ONE understands THE DEBT CEILING
    SO – Allow me to explain…

    Let’s say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in
    Your neighborhood.
    Your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
    What do you think you should do? Raise the ceilings or pump out the ****?
    Your choice is coming in November. Don’t miss the opportunity.

  • benson1

    because they are clueless sheep who watch a few political ads and vote accordingly. It’s the politicians in the districts who benefit from and keep track of what their elected Federal official sends back home who influence and help pay for the support that official receives for re-election. You can probably count on one hand the number of voters who know how their representative in Congress voted on any issue. The politicians local, state and Federal control who gets nominated and elected, voters are just along for the ride. Of course some of this is changing aka the Tea Party, but that’s been the norm for a long time.

  • rightlane1111

    GREED…PERKS..and it is all on our dime. Richfan…I like your remark also…it is called primaried and it is time that some of these people in our…NOTE THAT WORD…OUR Congress understand that they are there to do the people’s business…not their own.

  • rightlane1111

    Remember Tom Daschle?

  • acat

    (the problem is too much power concentrated in D.C. … Charleston WV ought to be just as infested with lobbyists … is it?)

  • benson1

    and Gingrich was the only one with actual plans to return power to the states in education and other ways. He should have been the nominee but it was obvious his idea of change would have changed the status quo that the majority of the Republicans establishment love.

    This was just one more example of the politicians owning the message. No one was as feared by the establishment as Newt. If you look at his plans and programs which he clearly outlined you can see why they hated and feared him.

    Heaven forbid we have someone who so clearly outlines problems and solutions that Americans of all persuasions politically can understand and support them. Add to that determination, courage and intelligence.

    He can articulate with understanding more in one newsletter than Romney could say in all the speeches he’s given or will give.

    If Newt was speaker again Romney would be forced to veer right and we could expect the real changes conservatives desire. There would be a balanced budget, the EPA and other programs would either be eliminated or controlled and the American people would be informed about what was happening because Newt not the press would control the message. So I would say this is not a bad idea.

  • davidfreedomcare

    This information is very unsettling. We need to better define our arguments for accountability when we contact our representative and deciding our vote prior to the November election.

    Of these bills, why were they defeated? Are there reasons beyond cost savings as I smell the stench of partisanship and outside self interest groups..

    Please apprise us of the sources of reliable information.

  • UpLateAgain

    Absent term limits, coalitions are formed to keep everyone’s job, and they NEVER work to the citizens’ advantage.

    The argument that we have term limits in the form of elections would be a lot more valid if enough of the citizenry actually paid attention to politics to make informed decisions.

    During the Miss USA beauty contest recently, 5 of the 11 participants asked could not name the vice president.. Watching Hannity’s periodic man in the street interviews, that number isn’r peculiar to beauty contest participants.

    I’m 100% down for term limits for all of Congress.

  • ihateliberals

    On the one hand if it were reported the GOP might actually start to cut spending which isn’t what the Democrats or the MSM want. On the other hand it might come out just before the election to be used against the Republicans. Timeing is everything.

  • poppog

    The only problem with your idea is that Congress thinks this way.
    We could spend 3 or 4 trillion this year, but we are going to cut this amount to only 1.5 or 2 trillion. We will pay for the 1.5 or 2 trillion with the 2 trillion we saved by not spending 4 trillion. Therefore we are cutting the deficit by 2 trillion!

  • rightlane1111

    for leaving him with the tab. Does he not know how much money he has spent in his own administration. I think that Holder should be fired and Obama ought to check himself into a nuthouse…because the man does not live in the reality of his own actions.

    When I watch him…I think I am living at Disney World’s Theme Park…where everything is just a fantasy. That was tonight on Fox

  • politics101

    Had he put his weight and support behind any of those amendments, they would have passed. He didn’t because he isn’t serious about cutting the federal budget.

    I knew the moment he became Speaker, ridding the crest of a Tea Party wave that he did not help generate. One of the first things he did was start appointing old-guard Republicans and cronies to plumb committee chairmanships. The selection of Upton (man who killed the light bulb) and Rogers (big spender) to head Commerce and Appropriations, showed me then that Boehner was not sincere.
    Boehner will recruit Democrats to defeat his own party every time the Tea Party freshman get a block of their fellow Republicans to go along with actual cuts. Why would he do such a thing? Simple, he’s spender. Despite his allowing a vote on Paul Ryan’s ‘Cap, Cut and Balance’ budget, Boehner was never serious about supporting it, even though majorities of people polled like Congressman Ryan’s plan. That Budget Control Act was a joke that did nothing but more of the usual baseline budget gimmicks that past Congresses have used.
    John Boehner cut spending??? John Boehner won’t even cut NPR!
    He needs to be sacked along with Cantor and the rest of those pretenders. We need a serious person in that position like Jeff Flake or Peter King. We need an honest leader who is willing to fight. John Boehner is neither.