GOP budget cuts for 2011 could cost up to 1 mil jobs

[nathanm]

Cuts won't and don't have to be catastrophic.  What's our alternative?  Keep printing money or borrowing it from countries who don't like the US?  Keep raising taxes on productivity which helps stifle economic growth?  At some point, we all need to get used to the idea of less reliance on the government in our day to day lives.

How about we kill off the foreign adventures and stop cutting taxes? At some point, we need the security apparatus to stop sucking up vast sums of capital and blaming the red ink on social programs and research. (it would also be nice if they'd stop funneling half their budget to cost-plus contractors who deliver less bang for the buck than in-house employees)

[Conan71]

How about we kill off the foreign adventures and stop cutting taxes? At some point, we need the security apparatus to stop sucking up vast sums of capital and blaming the red ink on social programs and research. (it would also be nice if they'd stop funneling half their budget to cost-plus contractors who deliver less bang for the buck than in-house employees)

Agreed.  I don't think we need any tax cuts right now.  Cut spending, pay down our debts and maintain a safe balance for unforeseen emergencies.  I'm still a major fan of the fair tax primarily because based on the way it is written with "pre-bates" based on income it's not regressive.  It also gets rid of billions in loopholes which increases collections.

I suspect that if we started cutting back on all our largesse other countries might fill that gap. It would also help starve factions who profit from corruption which results from aid we give to other countries.We also need to quit trying to be the world's police force at every single turn.

Initial reports that Mubarek's wealth was in the $70 bln range really got my hackles up considering we've been funneling $1.3 bln a year to their military.  We've also gotten really zero return out of all the money spent in Iraq.  We should be getting tanker load after tanker load of cheap oil, yet my understanding is, China is who is getting cheap oil from Iraq.

[carltonplace]

I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but this list seems very slanted. I don't see a lot of republican preferred programs here (defense, oil subsidies).

Quite a few of the items on this list are projects with the potential to move us forward and to create jobs and industry (high speed rail).

If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.

[nathanm]

If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.

I can live with that so long as the aforementioned giant elephant taking up half the room isn't exempt as he has usually been throughout the years.

[carltonplace]

Funny that they had to raise their own hand/trunk and volunteer.

Elephant: "Uh, Hi! I didn't see us on your fancy list, but we have several billion that we don't need"

Congress: "ssshhhhhh!!!"

[Conan71]

I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but this list seems very slanted. I don't see a lot of republican preferred programs here (defense, oil subsidies).

Quite a few of the items on this list are projects with the potential to move us forward and to create jobs and industry (high speed rail).

If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.

Actually, if you didn't catch it in my earlier post, the Pentagon is taking cuts as well.  Looks like department of energy and energy related areas are taking cuts (of which the oil business is regulated by it).

I'm on Rep Cantor's email list for the "You Cut" program.  I realize the majority of what he's putting out is partisan, but I do like a summary statement he makes that the debate used to be on what to spend now it's on what to cut.  That kind of dialogue is going in the right direction.  I don't necessarily agree with every cut and the partisan nature of some cuts, but we've got to start somewhere.

This week, the House is considering the largest single non-security discretionary spending cut in American history. This historic legislation, H.R. 1, will cut spending by at least $100 billion over the next seven months.

These are not easy cuts, but it is time for Congress to make the same tough choices that every American has already had to make in their own households and businesses.

Our purpose is clear – we aim to restore certainty, first by reducing spending, so that entrepreneurs and small businesses will be empowered to grow the economy again.

I want to make sure that you know how important you and the entire YouCut community have been to this debate. When we first began the YouCut program, Washington was arguing over ways to spend more of your money – now, the debate is over how much should be cut.

You should also know that this legislation includes several ideas proposed and supported by the YouCut community. For example, it eliminates funding for new federal buildings, terminates funding for NPR, and prohibits those promotional stimulus road signs. In total, this legislation completely eliminates 150 federal programs.

Click here to visit the YouCut website to learn more about H.R. 1 and then take a moment to let your family and friends know more about this historic legislation.

This is only the beginning.

Regards,

Rep. Eric Cantor
Majority Leader

P.S. This week, the House will be debating the largest spending cuts in modern history. Click here to learn more about this historic legislation.

[Gaspar]

I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but this list seems very slanted. I don't see a lot of republican preferred programs here (defense, oil subsidies).

Quite a few of the items on this list are projects with the potential to move us forward and to create jobs and industry (high speed rail).

If congress is serious about this process they should cut equally...and not just pick items that are the other guy's bailiwick. No protection for anyone, all departments get to make do with less.

Show a single example, anywhere in the US, where high-speed rail is profitable.  I think that was the gist of the cuts.  Look at programs with the lowest returns and cut or eliminate them.  Unfortunately most liberal programs produce the least return.

A better way to understand what is happening is to think of it this way.  All of these wonderful programs are not being cut today.  They were impacted back in 2009 when hundreds of billions of dollars was spent on a garbage truck of projects under the guise of stimulus and bailouts.  Projects that had less than a measurable effect on unemployment.  

This is simply the shifting of funds.  The administration shifted these funds from the above programs to pay union salaries, and bury "shovel ready corpses" (the new term for infrastructural projects with no future maintenance budget).

The cuts only represent a small fraction of the money already spent by the administration.  Agricultural Research will have to sponsor a few less grants to pay for the new sidewalks in Hulbert, and the new ADA crosswalks on the outskirts of Enid.  The EPA will probably need to cut workforce to pay for new bridges North of Des Moines, IA.  The Minority Business Development money was already spent on new carpet and light fixtures for the federal court house in St. Louis.  The GSA, NIH, Amtrack, HUD, Office of Science, and Smithsonion can sleep well knowing that their budget was spent paying union salaries for GM.

The easy decisions (to spend) have already been made by the president.  Now someone has to make the hard decisions.  With the release of the president's budget this week, it is apparent that he does not intend to address this.

[guido911]

Yeah, all those teachers, cops weathermen, air traffic controllers and soldiers just suck. Can them all. Damn freeloaders.

These teachers are swake.

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_16aacec2-39d8-11e0-af3e-001cc4c002e0.html

I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.

[Gaspar]

These teachers are swake.

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_16aacec2-39d8-11e0-af3e-001cc4c002e0.html

I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.

With teachers like that, I'm convinced that the children benefited more from the lack of school that day than they would have if school were in session.

Thank God that doctors aren't union yet!

[Townsend]

I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.

I rarely heard that anywhere I lived.  It was almost always about teacher pay.  I can understand that.  I'd never want to be a teacher unless money was there and the support of parents/community was there.

[nathanm]

Show a single example, anywhere in the US, where high-speed rail is profitable.  I think that was the gist of the cuts.  Look at programs with the lowest returns and cut or eliminate them.  Unfortunately most liberal programs produce the least return.

Show a single example, anywhere in the US, where a state's road system is profitable. Government is not a business, and should therefore not be run like a business nor use the same metrics of success as a business would. That said, our longer term goal should be to balance the books. Thankfully, we're already on track for that, even without this red meat for the base.

The funny thing is that the Republicans, while claiming they want to balance the budget, are working furiously to make the long-term outlook worse by repealing health care.

(I make that caveat because Acela service turns a profit, as do a few toll roads, but in both cases the system as a whole loses money)

[we vs us]

These teachers are swake.

http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_16aacec2-39d8-11e0-af3e-001cc4c002e0.html

I don't ever want to hear how its "about the kids" any more.

Nice.  You should make sure to include the context for these strikes, which is that the Wisconsin Governor (a new Tea Partier) has decided to essentially cancel all bargaining rights for public employees and call out the National Guard as a preemptive move against "unrest."

"In an interview with the Associated Press, Scott Walker proposed stripping nearly all government workers of their collective bargaining rights. And as a warning shot across the bow, he told Wisconsin reporters Friday that he's alerted the National Guard ahead of any unrest, or in the event that state services are interrupted. Under his plan, which he'll include in his forthcoming budget proposal, most state workers would no longer be able to negotiate for better pensions or health benefits or anything other than higher salaries, which couldn't rise at a quicker pace than the Consumer Price Index.

According to the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer "The proposal would effectively remove unions' right to negotiate in any meaningful way. Local law enforcement and fire employees, as well as state troopers and inspectors would be exempt."

He also says this plan is non-negotiable -- as in, he's cut off negotiations with prison guards, teachers and other state workers."

[TeeDub]

Show me a job in the private sector where I get the same benefits as a public sector worker. 

Whining about getting too little money as a teacher when you knew what wages were going in is ludicrous.   Also, pensions where you can retire at 50-55 are almost unheard of in the private sector anymore.

[Conan71]

I guess I've always looked at teachers who complain about pay as being akin to the people who move in under the flight path to an airport which has been around 50 years then complain because of the noise.  I had higher income aspirations than I could make as a teacher.  I knew teaching was a lower paying profession than I wanted to be in.

[nathanm]

You forget that teacher pay has failed to keep up with inflation (as it has in most non-managerial positions in the private sector). So yeah, they're getting even less than what they signed up for, as are most of us.