Skip to main content

So the latest great spending cut by the House GOP is a symbolic measure to cut House staff by 5%, which will save a whopping $35 million.  That's a dime for every American!  Yippee!

Meanwhile, I've heard nothing about how they're going to deal with our mammoth $895 billion defense budget.  (That's with a "B" for all you Constitution scholars at home.)

This isn't cutting waste.  It's not really cutting spending, although there will be some jobs that get killed as sacrificial lambs to our corporate overlords.

This is simply cutting corners.  It's a thoughtless, reckless, careless approach to governing.

Another great example of Republican hypocrisy comes in their new "Cut-Go" rules, where they claim to propose cutting a dollar in spending for every new dollar in spending.  This sounds like a smart idea on paper, but it will do absolutely nothing to hold the line on spending or control our trillion-dollar deficits.

It's especially hypocritical of Republicans when you consider that they are getting set to "Repeal Obamacare".  According to research from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office letter to Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID),

Finally, you asked what the net deficit impact would be if certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that were estimated to generate net savings were eliminated...If those provisions were repealed, CBO estimates that there would be an increase in deficits similar to its original estimate of $455 billion in net savings over that period.

Again, to reiterate, using the words of White House staffer Stephanie Cutter:

As we say, we commend the Senator for his genuine concern for America’s budget deficits, a concern we have all clearly shared. We invite him and any others in Congress who opposed reform and who share that genuine concern to now embrace the Affordable Care Act as one of the most important deficit reduction laws in recent memory, which it clearly is.

The Affordable Care Act is already strengthening our health care system. Small businesses are eligible for tax cuts to help provide coverage to their employees, eligible seniors are receiving $250 checks to help with the cost of their prescription drugs and new consumer protections that put the American people in charge of their own care take effect in less than a month.  Further, the new law strengthens the long-term viability of Medicare that millions of seniors depend on, by cutting waste and fraud, and increasing efficiency.  It is also improving quality of care and giving consumers new benefits. But repealing the law means a larger budget deficit, and a health care system that gives insurance companies all the power.

As the CBO has once again made clear, we can’t afford to go back.

So, even though the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would cost hundreds billions of dollars, the Republicans are ready to vote on Eric Cantor's idiotic dog-and-pony-show bill, but in the process they will raise deficits by $455 billion and do nothing to offset that in terms of spending cuts.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Republican Party.

Update 3:05 PM CST:  And here is the Republican response, via Joan.  Responding to a CBO report that repealing Obamacare will cost an eye-popping $145 billion over 10 years (and 0.5% of GDP per year after that), Boehner basically shrugged it off.  "They're entitled to their opinion," Boehner told CBS.

Originally posted to Benintn on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:35 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They're show dogs (4+ / 0-)

    without the dogs

    •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

      The reason to show dogs is to determine who is the best representative of the breed in form and function; can it do what the breed was bred to do? Does it conform to the breed standard? Which dog is going to improve the breed if it is bred?

      The Republican show is more like an effort to find out who among them is the WORST of his breed.

      Living kidney donor needed; type B, O, or incompatible (with paired donation). Drop me a note (see profile).

      by Kitsap River on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 07:59:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would like to see Obama and Dems... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, stillrockin, bythesea

    attack that mammoth $895 billion defense budget.

    But alas, they have not.

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
    - George Orwell

    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:48:08 AM PST

    •  So would the Republicans. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Notice: This Comment © 2010 ROGNM

      by ROGNM on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:49:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  True that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ROGNM, bythesea

        I suppose not being branded "weak on defense" and getting elected is more important. Perhaps someday we'll see someone with the courage to take on the MI complex and make drastic cuts. But sadly, I predict the end of our republic before that ever happens.

        During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
        - George Orwell

        by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:54:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  drastic cuts will come (8+ / 0-)

          20-30 years from now, the Military budget will simply collapse under its own weight.

          Britai n built a world-wide empire for several hundred years, but REALLY did it in the years 1815-1840, when it ran about 30% of world economy because it was the ONLY industrialized state.

          It reached its peak at about 35% of world ecomnomy in 1860. and started down as The United States and Prussia (Later Germany) challenged it in Economic prowess.  The strain of maintaining a worldwide empire built  when it had nearly half of world economy gave britain a series of fatal heart attacks in 1880-1900, 1914-18, and 1939-45.  By 1947 it started retreating.  It could be argued that Britain's international history from 1870 to 1970 is one long, slow, unstoppable decline in power and prestige.

          Similarly, the United States industrialized rapidly, and was an economic superpower by 1900.  Its ecomoic might turned the stalemate of 1914-1917 into an overwhelming victory in 1918, but retreated into isolationism.

          In 1945, America had an even greater economic victory, and in 1945, because the rest of the world was pounded flat, it had 50% of world economy, and still had about 45% in 1956.  With this much muscle and power, we replaced the ailing British with a world-wide empire.  Our Empire was on military power projection and forward bases rather than colonies, but its still an empire.

          By 1987, the US had already declined to a still-massive 25% of world production, but the strain of the obligations taken on when we were 50% were showing.  Now the US is down around 20%, and the strain is even higher.  With China set to pass the US at #1 around 2015-2020, by 2025-2030 we will face a crisis like the British did in 1900, when their economy had slipped from #1 to #3 in 30 years.

          with an economy a still-respectable 15% or so of world economy, and between #3 and #5 overall (China, the EU, India, and Japan the other big economies) the US will still be a major an influential world power, but not #1.  If we scale well back from out world-power obligations, we can settle in as a middle-of-the-road World Power and last for CENTURIES there.  If we try to maintain a world empire, like Britain did in the 20th century, Or Spain did in the 17th Century, we will suffer a similar and dramatic fall from world power status to become a plaything of the real world powers.

          Spain was a superpower in 1600, but overcomitted itself and by 1700, it was the plaything of the Real powers in the War of Spanish Succession.

          Britain Tried to hold on to Empire, and was humiliated in 1956 at Suez.

          Austria, by comparison, Scaled itself back after its failure at European Hegemony at the end of the 30 Years War in 1648, consolidated itself and remained a major world power for the next 300 Years, only finally falling apart in 1918.

          Which road the US will follow?  Who knows. But I'd rather be an Austria than a Spain.

          We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

          by ScrewySquirrel on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 07:54:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So would a lot of Americans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        just like most want us out of these wars of choice.

        Are you saying that Dems shouldn't touch the ridiculous defense budget because the Republicans will be mean to them if they do?

    •  even small cuts get pushback (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HairyTrueMan, bythesea

      Obama asked Gates to find $100 billion over five years, and that hit pushback.  

      Some things Gates agreed on, a couple of weapons programs, hit pushback because the MIC has cleverly spread the contractors out across the country and every congressperson fights to keep the piece that is made in his or her district.  Cut backs in a duplicative civilian/military posting for certain military services was protested because it meant the loss of jobs in Virginia.

      The Republicans want no cuts in defense spending, they have overlords with expectations, and the Democrats are not far behind, though most of them at least pay homage to saving jobs rather than telling the truth.

      If such modest cuts haven't been implemented in the last year plus, what hope is there that anything real will be done.   The MIC is real and it owns the budget process.

      •  How about the people? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What do the people want?

        •  the American people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          those ones that no longer count, they want a more rational defense spending ratio, still not huge cuts, we're paranoid by 60 years of training, but something more rational than what we have now.  We want defense cuts before we want Social Security cuts, we want taxes for the rich too.

          We don't matter.   We don't matter until every eligible voter starts to show up, starts to dig for the truth that is hidden by the modern media, start to vote out every one who has sold out to the monied class.   And since 'we' apparently can't figure that out, we will continue to not matter.

        •  The American People want to vote for public (0+ / 0-)

          officials who will talk about cutting the fat while bringing nice fat pork programs into the district.

          The reason why defense spending won't be cut by anyone is because these people live off the public dole and support the candidates who will continue these programs under the guise that it allows private business to create jobs. Never mind that these jobs are all created because of federal contracts, and never mind that this money could be better spent on other programs.  

          "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

          by blueintheface on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 10:40:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  $100 Billion over 5 years is chump change. (0+ / 0-)

        And President Obama even took the time to take a Bushesque trip to Afghanistan to tell the troops that they would be getting pay raises, unlike the other government employees. Even our great leader does not have the intestinal fortitude to take on the MIC or the perception that he's doesn't "support our troops".

        Perhaps the Democrats give slightly better lip service on military spending cuts, but they are not far from Republicans on the actual policy.

        During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
        - George Orwell

        by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 07:57:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course it is (0+ / 0-)

          that's why I pointed out that even small changes can't be accomplished.   And some of the reasons why they aren't being accomplished.

          But I don't agree that the Republicans want cuts, maybe they want Obama to propose more of them so they can sling more mud, but given the popularity of the idea of military cuts, I don't really believe that is their political strategy.

          They have made their strategy clear, talk about discretionary domestic spending and only discretionary domestic spending as the evil doer.  

          Until the media puts up pie charts daily of the federal budget and US military spending vs the rest of the world, and people start to realize you can't cut spending by only touching domestic discretionary spending and that the pie chart of military is as big as Social Security (which is paid for by its own tax) so the spending cuts need to and should come from military, we don't stand a chance of making a dent.

          But to say this is an Obama only problem is to underestimate and misdirect attention from the roots of the problems.   Obama isn't the solution and that makes him part of the problem.  But changing out Obama for someone else also won't fix the problem.  I am not saying absolve him, but don't focus all the attention on him as if he is the whole problem.

          Unless of course, you don't really want to solve the problem.  Then, of course, its beneficial to point the finger at Obama.

          •  Barack Obama is the President. (0+ / 0-)

            Here's my logic flow:

            1. Money that we don't have in the general tax fund is spent on a ridiculously large military budget.
            1. The Federal Government borrows money from the SS Trust Fund (funded by payroll taxes) to pay for part of this bloated budget.
            1. Baby Boomers retire en mass, requiring us to dip into the SS Trust that has been spent on other things: namely the military.
            1. Our President proposes cuts to SS benefits in order to pay for the "shortfall" while giving little more than lip service to ANY cuts in military spending.
            1. Poor people suffer while the budget continues to spiral out of control.

            I understand completely that Republicans will not even propose any cuts to military spending; I'm sure they want to increase it. But right now, the power lies with President Obama with his bully pulpit and his veto pen. And he'll use neither one to cut military spending. And that's why I say he is the same as Republicans on the policy.

            I am confident, however, that he will not start needless wars to further balloon the defense budget, unlike his predecessor.

            During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
            - George Orwell

            by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 08:58:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the President's budget (0+ / 0-)

              presents the cuts, then Congress can put them back, and even increase spending, which it proposed. More importantly, Congress never got the budget passed, we're working on resolutions.

              So yes, the President can propose, he can argue and he can veto.  Obama has been hamstrung, again for multiple reasons, including his own doing, but ultimately, you won't get a budget out of Congress period.  So we keep spending under continuing budget resolutions and never take on the problem.

              Its complex, its messy, and it takes fixing lots of moving parts at once.  Its not as simple as Obama vetoing a budget since there isn't one.


              •  I know it's complicated. (0+ / 0-)

                But ask yourself this question: Is the President doing ANYTHING to reduce the size of our defense budget? Is he spending any political capital to take on the MIC? Do you think it'll be part of Obama's stump in 2012?

                During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
                - George Orwell

                by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 10:34:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  ask yourself this (0+ / 0-)

                  is anyone doing anything, is it having any effect, and if Obama did spend some political capital, and he has on just his $100,000,000,000 that has gone nowhere, would it change the outcome?

                  Sometimes I blame him when I think he could make a difference.  Sometimes I realize its spitting against the wind in a hurricane.

                  He knows no one has his back on this in the government, regardless of voter sentiment.  And the voters aren't going to the mat on defense spending, either.

                  But mostly, he could pull out all the stops, be Nikita Kruschev and pound the table with his shoe, and it won't get a budget passed.

                  Now, could he make Americans more angry with Congress if he were so inclined, yes, but what would that buy him?  Because he can't point at only Republicans on this, its everybody.

                  Your focus is so narrow, you're asking for less than we need to be working on.

  •  Don't call it the "Defense" budget. Call it the (6+ / 0-)

    "military" budget.  If you call it defense, they win.

    Besides, the military is not about defense, it's about world domination.

  •  Just heard this morning (0+ / 0-)

    Health care repeal will be exempt from 'cut-go'.

    So - that's their second walk back and only the second day on the job. The first being the $100B in cuts, well, will be much less than that.

    Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

    by Unforgiven on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 07:36:46 AM PST

  •  Because that is how they roll. They (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    D in Northern Virginia

    can win elections then they don't know how to govern except with a sledgehammer or really a weapon of mass destruction. They don't know how to do anything else. OOps except to blame the Dems, unions, the President, the dog ate my homework.

    They will also cover up and enable big oil, wall $treet, big pharma, whatever big so that they can get elected again with the profits from their enablers.

    Repblicans don't care about spending until they aren't in charge. Or when they are they want to steal our stuff.

    I say them first. Give up your Obamacare. No, ok then STFU.

    Evil rotten radical R's...evil flourishes because good people did nothing or were duped.

    Tax cuts create votes not jobs.

    by OHknighty on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 07:38:53 AM PST

  •  Republican have already violated thier pledge (0+ / 0-)

    They will not cut the budget as must as they pledge and lots of you bit their  hook ,hook line and sinker,government will continue to grow until politican    have the courage too do something about it,

  •  Thank you for this, you title is terrific! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm using it in all my IRL discussions.

  •  "...thoughtless, reckless, careless..." (0+ / 0-)
    Sounds like standard GOP behavior since Reagan.

    Carry on.

    "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." Ed Brayton -7.75/-6.05

    by QuestionAuthority on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 08:56:22 AM PST

  •  What concerns me is that (0+ / 0-)

    when public workers are squeezed or let go, the ability of the government to function is reduced.
    You could have the most progressive consumer protection laws on the planet, or the most stringent workplace safety laws. It doesn't matter if there aren't any staff to enforce the laws and investigate law-breakers.

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 08:57:01 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site