« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Republican Message on Spending Matters

By: hogan (Diary)  |  February 10th, 2011 at 11:56 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Rumor has it that House GOP freshmen and the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) led by Jim Jordan beat the snot out of House Republican leadership and that the leadership is working on getting to $100 billion in cuts.

If that happens, it is great news – but there remains a big problem.

The problem is that by being so timid, Republicans are making their overall fight to cut spending all the more difficult. We all know that any cuts proposed will be painted by Democrats and a willing media as draconian and unfair. The poor will be out on the streets, food will be taken from children, etc…

That is why it was (and remains) so critical that Republican leadership get on the offensive immediately. They need to make the case for spending cuts, and that the $100 billion is nothing more than a first step of many more to come. To do otherwise means that we are going to just have more of the same – token cuts to pacify the base, or the Tea Party folks – but no real commitment to changing the culture of reckless spending that permeates Capitol Hill.

The American people gave Republicans license to cut – but Republicans will have to work very hard to do it and explain why it’s important as time goes on. The message is simple and goes something like this:

$100 billion is nothing more than a down payment as we begin the real task of getting our fiscal house in order. It reflects only about 7% of the $1.4 trillion deficit we have to close for starters… We cannot sustain this level of reckless spending and continue to mortgage the future of America. To do so continues to undermine our economy and will guarantee that the poor remain poor and that the jobless remain jobless. The government does not create jobs, the American people do. The government does not create wealth – it takes wealth. We promised to cut spending – and we are going to do just that. If President Obama and Senate Democrats want to stand in the way of fiscal responsibility, then they can answer to the American people.

It is time for Republicans to lead – and the $100 billion issue is but step 1 of literally hundreds more steps they need to take. They will never get there if they try to cut corners rather than standing up and doing what the American people asked them to do.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • NRPax

    “If President Obama and Senate Democrats want to stand in the way of fiscal responsibility, then they can answer to the American people.”

    That NEEDS to be said openly, publicly and without apology. It’s long past time for folks to go on the offensive stop worrying about hurt feelings.

    • kestrel

      cut things that their own president said should be cut. Sen. Coburn wrote a devastating op-ed on this recently, and re-reading it makes me wonder anew why Republicans think they can’t do more right now. From Coburn, who says “We could cut $200 billion from the budget and no one would notice”:

      “Last year, and in many previous forums, the president pledged to go through the budget line by line, and eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs. The president listed programs for termination in his budget but not a single member of the president

      • NRPax

        That should be made into a campaign commercial. But as long as the Republican Congresscritters are acting as if they are too scared to offend anyone, it will be tough to get things done.

  • ciscoguy

    Meek attempts to straddle the line will only cost us votes. More importantly, if the best we can do is save a few bucks here or there, all we’re doing is just going bankrupt at a slower rate. $100B is chump change these days. If they complain that it’s too painful, remind them that it is only a $100 down payment on a $14,500 loan. The GOP needs to make these unreal numbers real to the average American.

    • YnotNOW

      And tell all the children – sorry, you can’t have your candy (taxpayer subsidies) until you clean your room (get back to Constitutional priorities)!

      And don’t sugar-coat the medicine – tell them it will taste bad! Cuts will be painful for certain constituencies – grow up! We must get away from the terminology of “cutting the waste” and “bridges to nowhere” when the real budget cuts must go way beyond the easy pickings and start to eliminate things that are really, really “nice” to have – sorry, not going to pay for it anyway!

      Only if the voters are encouraged to grow up, will the fiscal health of our country be restored.

      • rsturm

        ..But maybe the Rep Congressmen are simply UN-united!! Last year, Dems voted in lock-step on ObamaCare, e.g., because Pelosi kept them (with the facts.. or otherwise) united. In fact, some Dems seemed honestly surprised, once they returned home, to find constituents did NOT want nationalized healthcare at all.

        So maybe these conservative bloggers need liasons ‘inside the beltway’ to keep our guys informed, because they certainly won’t get the facts from the media there, and unless Boehner or Cantor call closed-door meetings (as Dems did) to tell them what Republicans out here actually want, then maybe they’re just left to the mercy(haha) of Liberal influences there.

        And secretaries are no substitute for a research team to keep them up-to-the-minute on facts from back home, as they keep their budgets tight… just sayin’ !!

        • kestrel

          sounds like a unity problem for budget cutters. From Hugh Hewitt:

          “Why the refusal to cut? According to Politico’s David Rogers, the new Republican Chair of the Appropriations Committee had this set of warnings for his caucus:

          ‘Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) warned his colleagues that to cut more now, risks forcing layoffs of federal employees at a time when both parties say their priority is to reduce unemployment.

          ‘For example, Rogers said the necessary cuts in the DEA

          • YnotNOW

            1) Keep the pressure on our representatives to follow through on the spending cuts that we elected them for.
            2) Participate in the Precinct Project, to become a member of the party so that we can nominate the replacement if they don’t follow through.

            Oh, and a third long-term strategy of influence on the culture so that these policies will actually be suppored by the people and therefore be an electable position!

  • zroxx

    They need to draw a tangible connection between reduced government spending and increased citizen prosperity. I’d like to see them directly connect the reductions in spending with in-kind reductions in taxes.

    If we trim $100BB in spending, then it stands to reason that approximately $100BB no longer needs to be collected from citizens. It could be argued there should be no reduction in taxes until the decrease in spending results in a balanced budget. But I’d at least like to see the difference split because it’s critical that people are able to directly measure a positive result to reinforce this principle.

    Get the concept of “reduced spending = greater wealth” fixed in the minds of the citizenry by leaving more cash in their pockets and you’ll grow the demand for even more reductions.

    • wennejunk

      If we keep tax revenues the same and decrease spending, we will simply go in debt slower.

      If you first eliminate the deficit entirely through spending cuts and begin to have a revenue surplus, then you can decrease taxes.

      The problem has been that both sides have fought over tax increases and decreases, but no one has seriously addressed the spending side.

      It appears the current crop is reluctant to do so as well.

      • zroxx

        It’s been argued, including on this site, that reducing taxes will ultimately increase “revenue” (ahem) for the government because of the growth it stimulates at least up to a certain point. If this is true, then cutting spending by 100, and reducing taxes by 100, but accruing a gain from economic growth of 10, still results in a net decrease in the deficit. Do you support or oppose the claim that reducing taxes results in more “revenue” to the government due to economic growth? Or do you feel taxes are low enough now that a decrease would not produce a “revenue” boost?

        But what I also said was I’m not opposed to splitting the difference and for example cutting spending by 100, reducing taxes by 50, and paying off debt with the other 50. That’s fine with me too.

        Either way, I’d prefer to leave people with a tangible positive end result in the form of more cash in their pocket that they directly associate with the reduced spending. Partially in the hope that this illicits further demand for additional reductions in spending and convinces citizens that they have much to benefit from when government focuses narrowly on its proper duties. I think that’s better in the long term than cutting by 100, and putting the entire 100 toward eliminating the deficit.

        We’re arguing about good versus better. I’m not interested in more tax cuts without in-kind reductions in spending.

        • YnotNOW

          that we have already gone beyond the ability to pay down the debt in the short run. We have to cut spending by over a TRILLION dollars to even get close to breaking even. While I would love to reach that magic balanced budget and start reducing the debt that our grandchildren will have to pay off, it is not realistic to think it will happen soon.

          For now, cut spending. Cut and slash. Deep cuts. Did I say cut?

          • zroxx

            I’m all for deep, gouging, raking, slashes in spending. Did I say slash? Did you say cut?

            But I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing that they can and should be accompanied by some corresponding reduction in taxes. Are you? And if so, why?

        • wennejunk

          We’re not arguing at all, actually – I agree with most of what you say.

          I was correcting the implication that reducing spending would correlate to a reduction in required taxes.

          I agree with the knock-on effect of increased tax collections from lower rates, but this will only to contribute to a reduced deficit – a reduction in the rate at which we become further indebted.

          These are all good vs. better, yes, but still not sustainable. To address the kind of reform needed will destroy either party, whichever attempts it.

          ‘We the People’ will not accept the kind of cuts that have to be done to get fiscally sound. Those on the left will cry as loud as those on the right and in the middle.

          The fact that the GOP house is now wavering indicates this is so.

          It will take a leader in the White House and leaders on both sides of Congress to come together to fight the problem – all while willingingly subjecting themselves to criticism without regard to furhtering their political careers.

          This also implies that both sides can come to agreement on the problem and the solutions.

          I am not confident this has more than a 1% chance of occurring proactively.

          • zroxx

            It is possible that the situation is hopeless and that the hole dug is too large, but it was only some 15 years ago give or take that we last saw a surplus. America didn’t collapse, further I’d suspect we could find data to show overall prosperity and happiness was good during that period of time.

            While it is harder to become more financially disciplined that to become more financially reckless, it doesn’t seem impossible to me that we can reduce government spending back down the mid 90′s level. But the longer we wait the more difficult it will become to revert back.

            I grant you that right now there seem to be very few (R)’s who are willing to give up the good times they created for themselves at our expense in the mid 00′s. The current direction of change is positive but the magnitude is very weak. So, we’ll see!

  • mbauer

    What is our yearly expenses? 4 trillion if I recall. Well then a 10% slash would be 400 billion. Seems like a much bigger step in the direction of a balanced budget. Would a 33% across the board cut to balance the budget be too much to handle?

    How about this, bring a bill to the floor with a 33% across the board cut, and only allow exemptions when another program is offset deeper to balance the net savings. Have the house GOP pledge to pass NOTHING, until this is done.

    If we are to squeemish to stand up for cutting specific programs. Lets cut everything, and call it everyone pulling their share of the load.

  • antisocial

    I love it when our representatives keep their pledge. Miles to go… but a good start,

    • lineholder

      They go into it tentative, and we say, “you can do this…we’re counting on you”, so they become a bit bolder, moving the direction of actually keeping a promise…that’s encouraging.

      • antisocial

        There will always be squishiness. But if they can ultimately come back and realize that the promises need to be kept. We just need to keep doing it. Pressure, cajole, encourage, remind…. it does work. And if we can keep the cleansing operation on every 2 years at least for a decade, that will change the culture.

        • YnotNOW

          but it is still disappointing that we have to fight the leadership in our own party first, before we can even engage the Dems.

  • gwalt

    ……a willing media as draconian and unfair. The poor will be out on the streets, food will be taken from children, etc

  • unclefred

    If your rep is a Republican, help them. Give them ammunition. Call, email, write, visit. Do the same for the leadership. If they are ACTIVELY on the right side of this thank them. If they are quite PUSH them for deeper cuts. Tell them that if they stand up and work for deep cuts, you and everyone you can line up will be there to support them, when the press turns up the heat.

    The congressional staff is like a massive coffee klatch. The buzz that overwhelming pressure generates, can stiffen the spine of all but the squishiest RINOs.

  • whiskey_sierra

    Just cut 33% across the board, there is no way you can be said to be playing favorites then…. of course then they would have to cut Farm Subsidies, Ethanol, Big Defense Contractors, pork barrel projects back home etc..

    What it comes down to is that the Republicans are just not serious about it, and not much of an alternative to the Democrats when it comes to spending this country into collapse. The Republicans are showing their just as unwilling to give up their pork as the Democrats are to give up their socialist programs.

  • gamechange11two

    What’s the worst that could happen?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI

  • demsareliars

    for at least trying to make a stab at lowering the debt and keeping their word. Even if they had to to get the snot beat out of them. I like Jim Jordan he’s been on my radar screen for quite awhile. Hopefully, they see that when we said stop the spending we meant just that. I think the new ones will set the example for the established Repubs, the ones that have been going along to get along. IMHO.

  • popster

    I still like the $500 Bil. number, it makes a lot more sense and the percentage is better.

  • redpenny

    Seems like a simple three letter word is so difficult for some to understand.The Repubs are nibbling around the edges,apparently afraid to take a big bite of the pie.Repub leadership best “Man Up” and get with the program or they’re going to have “SOME SPLAINING” to do.

  • megsmom

    You must remember that there are so many old timers in Congress that they no longer think about doing what the voters want them to do, they know best.
    That is way we need to get term limits and all new younger representatives in office now.

    • kestrel

      This photo and caption tells the whole story:
      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49156.html

  • megsmom

    You must remember that there are so many old timers in Congress that they no longer think about doing what the voters want them to do, they know best.
    That is way we need to get term limits and all new younger representatives in office now.