“Revolt” over: House GOP leadership agrees to caucus’s demands to cut spending by $100 billion

posted at 7:48 pm on February 9, 2011 by Allahpundit

The “revolt” ends in triumph according to Roll Call, as quoted by K-Lo at the Corner:

House Republican leaders have agreed to a key conservative demand that they make good on their campaign pledge to reduce fiscal 2011 spending to $100 billion less than President Barack Obama’s budget request, GOP aides said Wednesday.

According to a GOP leadership aide, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and other leaders are working with Republican appropriators, the Republican Study Committee and other conservatives on a “unified” strategy to reduce spending beyond the $74 billion in cuts they had already planned. The cuts, which would only apply to non-defense discretionary spending, would come as part of a continuing resolution to fund the government between March and the end of the fiscal year…

It remains unclear how Republicans will make the additional $26 billion in cuts.

Consider this a correction of my earlier post, where I said the GOP had initially proposed only $58 billion in cuts. If you’re wondering what the extra $26 billion means in practical terms, let’s bust out the calculator and do some math. Assuming CBO’s projected deficit this year of $1.5 trillion, i.e. $1,500 billion, we’re slipping $4.1 billion deeper into the budgetary hole every single day. Note well: That’s not federal spending per day, that’s what’s being added to the deficit per day. Cutting an extra $26 billion will thus erase a little less than … one week of new liabilities. That’s what the big “revolt” is over.

Via RCP, say it with me: The deficit is too damn high.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

good news, what is going on here?

rob verdi on February 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Kick some ass, Tea Party caucus.

trapeze on February 9, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Hey, no better way to neuter the Lee debacle.

Game over, moving on!

singlemalt 18 on February 9, 2011 at 7:52 PM

If they need help, I’ll sit on a death panel for budgetary programs that are no longer needed.

SouthernGent on February 9, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Chump change.

Get serious GOP people.

davidk on February 9, 2011 at 7:53 PM

O/T
====
From the Intel Services of the SarahCudian
Revolutionary Voter Guards!(snark)
==================================

Lamestream!

US Weekly Presents Satirical Sarah Palin Story As Real
7:37 pm, February 9th, 2011
——————————

Score one more for Sarah Palin in her fight against the “Lamestream Media”: Celebrity gossip source Us Weekly published a story about the former Alaska governor that included quotations originally fabricated for a satirical news piece.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/lamestream-us-weekly-presents-satirical-sarah-palin-story-as-real/

canopfor on February 9, 2011 at 7:54 PM

House Republican leaders have agreed to a key conservative demand that they make good on their campaign pledge to reduce fiscal 2011 spending to $100 billion less than President Barack Obama’s budget request, GOP aides said Wednesday.

Are you kidding me? Thats not even enough to pay for interest on the national debt owed to China every year. It’s not even enough to pay for that part of the interest accumulated during the George W years. It’s a pittance.

bayam on February 9, 2011 at 7:55 PM

To learn more about Mitch Daniels, first forget about social issues.

MadisonConservative on February 9, 2011 at 7:55 PM

$100 billion today, $100 billion tomorrow, $100 billion the day after that, $100 billion the day after that, and $100 billion every day until it’s not fun being a politician anymore…!

Seven Percent Solution on February 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Oh yeah….$100 Billion? A good start. Don’t stop.

…and Mitch Daniels? Seriously?

trapeze on February 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM

So danials is running as the “the rent is too damn high party” ?

LOL I bet he gets about the same amount of votes as the other guy got.

unseen on February 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Somebody please convince me that we NEED a federal government bigger than the one we had in 1970. And it was too damn big then.

trapeze on February 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

canopfor on February 9, 2011 at 7:54 PM

By next week, it will be heralded as a truth as obvious as the sun is hot.

turfmann on February 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

How about cutting $100 billion a month? That’s what I’d call a “good start”. Then, we could do some real cutting.

TXUS on February 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM

This was a calculated revolt to try and keep the masses happy.

The GOP is going to eff it up too, just at a slower pace than the ‘rats.

Bishop on February 9, 2011 at 8:03 PM

An Uprising eh!!(sarc).

canopfor on February 9, 2011 at 8:04 PM

canopfor on February 9, 2011 at 7:54 PM
==========================
By next week, it will be heralded as a truth as obvious as the sun is hot.

turfmann on February 9, 2011 at 7:58 PM

turfmann:True Dat!!

canopfor on February 9, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Two things. First, stop acting like it’s not worth doing. Second, why is Defense or any other non-discretionary spending off the table? Everything needs to be cut. EVERYTHING!

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Whatever the reason, thanx…

Gohawgs on February 9, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

QOTD by our own CM.

John the Libertarian on February 9, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Keep in mind that much of fiscal year 2011 is already allocated and spent thanks to the continuing resolutions. The 2012 budget will be the first that Repubs have full control over.

Missy on February 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

If you are trying to lose weight you can do it a little every day or just have someone wack off everything from the bellybutton down.

Limerick on February 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Why don’t we cut the funding for UN entirely?

promachus on February 9, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Then follow it up for rescinding the aid to Palestinians that Barack promised. There must be little things like that everywhere. Cut all of them.

promachus on February 9, 2011 at 8:16 PM

The headline sounds like something out of Egypt.

I think the more the letter of campaign promises are kept right now the better.

The contrast between Republicans and Obama could not be starker, as long as Republicans remember the lessons of the past two years they will be fine in 2012.

And stupid things like sex scandals will get far less traction.

petunia on February 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Two things. First, stop acting like it’s not worth doing. Second, why is Defense or any other non-discretionary spending off the table? Everything needs to be cut. EVERYTHING!

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Yes, yes, yes! (as in When Harry Met Sally). It’s so damn simple. Across-the-board cuts “hurt” every hog at the trough equally, while targeted cuts means you’re picking winners and losers. Just slash, say, 8% off everything, and go enjoy a nice dinner at The Palm.

TXUS on February 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM

$100 billion?

That’s like, what? 1/7 of the Dept. of Agriculture?

Or an EPA.

If you junked Ag, Ed, Energy, EPA, FCC and a few other choice places you are starting to hit above $1 trillion. And you are wiping out the chaining regulations on our industrial base.

Amazing that all of that junkola is ‘discretionary’ and they can’t find the discretion to not fund them. That seems pretty indiscrete to me… haven’t they looked at unemployment and base employment numbers lately? They aren’t good at all.

The message needs to be repeated: STOP THE SPENDING.

ajacksonian on February 9, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Two things. First, stop acting like it’s not worth doing. Second, why is Defense or any other non-discretionary spending off the table? Everything needs to be cut. EVERYTHING!

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Agreed, and that is the only way it will be fair and politically palatable to all.

petunia on February 9, 2011 at 8:19 PM

I wish they would stop saying they can’t touch SS. It is only people who are now retired or near retirement who think it can’t be touched.

Raise the age. That panel had good suggestions and it wasn’t drastic. If we do nothing it is far more drastic.

Grow up and do the hard stuff.

petunia on February 9, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Two years ago the Democrats had no problem launching into a radical liberal agenda, the opposite direction most of America had in mind, spewing verbal attacks at anyone who dared dissent using corrupt means to achieve corrupt ends, the GOP can at least do the cuts We the People have in mind.

I guess that’s why I’m not the king, I can find some spectacular cuts to make. The IRS, the EPA, every “civil rights” organization, wouldn’t that be fun?

So many brains to boggle so little time, so many jobs to boost.

Speakup on February 9, 2011 at 8:24 PM

The GOP keeping their promise to reduce fiscal 2011 spending by $100 billion will be a good campaign point in 2012. It’s nice to be able to say that you kept your word.

scrubjay on February 9, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Two things. First, stop acting like it’s not worth doing. Second, why is Defense or any other non-discretionary spending off the table? Everything needs to be cut. EVERYTHING!

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Even if you cut everything, except entitlement programs, we’ll still be in debt.

Every time we cut stuff, everything except entitlements gets cut first.

Get rid of all entitlement programs and then we’ll really be on the road to economic recovery.

Conservative Samizdat on February 9, 2011 at 8:29 PM

G’night ALL. I C Allah is back.

OmahaConservative on February 9, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Oh yeah….$100 Billion? A good start. Don’t stop.

…and Mitch Daniels? Seriously?

trapeze on February 9, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Yup it’s a start …only !! And no not serious,

F Mitch D

cableguy615 on February 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Two things. First, stop acting like it’s not worth doing. Second, why is Defense or any other non-discretionary spending off the table? Everything needs to be cut. EVERYTHING!

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 PM

I’m cautious about putting defense spending on the table until Democrats are willing to address the biggest problem: Entitlements.

I’m not going to support offering up constitutional spending on national defense while Democrats refuse to cut even a penny from extraconstitutional spending on welfare.

Otherwise we’ll offer up defense spending and other necessary funding, and Democrats will return with “see? a lot can be cut from discretionary. let’s see what else we can trim before we touch grandma’s prescription coverage. think of the kids.”

amerpundit on February 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM

If you are serious about reducing deficits you need to reduce spending AND increase revenues.

lexhamfox on February 9, 2011 at 8:36 PM

They are playing a game that’s designed to stop us from demanding serious cuts. This way you’re supposed to see 100 billion as some victory that required a lot of arm twisting. We need to demand 1.5 trillion dollars in cuts or we’ll throw the bums out.

Buddahpundit on February 9, 2011 at 8:37 PM

OmahaConservative on February 9, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Is that a good thing?

G’night.

John the Libertarian on February 9, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Agreed, and that is the only way it will be fair and politically palatable to all.

petunia on February 9, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Except we end up like Dick Lugar, thinking his capitulating on liberal judges means liberals won’t block conservative ones.

Not gonna happen.

We’ll offer up defense spending and Democrats will counter with “more”. Then, when we’re done, Democrats will ask how much more can be cut if even Republicans were willing to concede such large cuts. Surely a less hawkish person can find more to cut.

And so we’ll spend capital and time fighting over relatively small discretionary spending…and nothing of any substance will result. Because the real problem — entitlements — will still be considered off limits.

Let’s understand this now. Democrats aren’t interested in fair cuts. They’re interested in protecting the entitlement dollars they rely upon for votes. And they’ll gut everything else to do so.

And mark my words: It’s more politically palatable to protect grandma’s prescription drug benefits than a fighter jet.

amerpundit on February 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM

amerpundit on February 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM

They are all too busy storming the Bastille, amerpundit. They’ve come for the king and that is that.

Limerick on February 9, 2011 at 8:42 PM

And mark my words: It’s more politically palatable to protect grandma’s prescription drug benefits than a fighter jet.

amerpundit on February 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM

Our country’s financial future is at stake. This is a battle the GOP must have NOW if they want to save our nation.

I want the GOP to wage an WWIII on entitlements and use every option including the nuclear option to make drastic cuts on entitlements.

If we don’t cut entitlements, we’re screwed.

Conservative Samizdat on February 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM

They are nibbling around the edges of the problem, but it is a start. I have a suggestion. How about rescinding the ‘doc fix’ for Medicare/Medicaid? After all, one of the ways the Dems justified OCare was by telling the CBO to not include those costs.

Sure, docs will flee Medicare like Waxman running from a rat trap, but that is the point. OCare was, and is, a lie. So prove it. Stop supporting their lies. Play the game the way they do.

Oh, and Go Tea Party!

GnuBreed on February 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM

No one has cut anything yet. No one has even stated an intention to cut anything yet.

Giving Bambi $100B less than his wish list is a “cut” only in Washington, D.C.

Bugler on February 9, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Are currently held federal jobs “entitlements”?

GaltBlvnAtty on February 9, 2011 at 8:50 PM

amerpundit on February 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Like I said earlier, my husband was a Logistics Manager for DOD. They would get memos that said they were getting 5% (for example) less money than they got last year, deal with it. They did not have the power to reduce staff and they still dealt with. Democrats always try to make us believe that they can right the SS/Medicare/Medicaid sinking ships by getting rid of fraud and abuse, it would certainly help and not giving them as much money is a good first step.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Here’s a handy article and chart showing how a single mom with two kids, working for minimum wage, can have more net income to spend than the same family making $30k or even $60k. It’s a little dated, from December 2010.

One thing jumps out at me from this. The earned income tax credit pays the first two income levels a lot more than they paid in. Somewhere else, I saw that the EITC will cost around $50 billion this year alone.

Talk about no skin in the game. How about anti-skin?

GnuBreed on February 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM

2011- $100B in cuts, should be more, but it is a start.
2012- $1 T in Draconian cuts, however that comes out. Don’t really care as long as the US is still adequately defended at the border. Pass a balanced budget amendment, including at least 5% of the debt to be paid every year against the US credit card.
2013- Something wonderful happens, the economy roars, the US runs a surplus, and the debt starts coming down.
2014- Unemployment under 6% for the first time in years. DOW at 20,000.

AZCON on February 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM

G’night ALL. I C Allah is back.

OmahaConservative on February 9, 2011 at 8:31 PM

OmahaConservative:Nite OC:)

canopfor on February 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I’ll give you another example. I got laid off in March. My contribution to the budget was considerably more than 5% and we have dealt with. If citizens of this country have had to tighten their belts from either job loss or inflation, it’s a lead pipe cinch the the United States Government can suck it up.

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Can we get away from the whole “it’s a pittance” argument for one second? What are we wanting here? Would we be happy if they went ahead and did what everyone wants and cut everything now, full-board, no BS?

Of course that’s what we want, but it isn’t going to happen like that and you know it. So the solution is to what? Bitch about starting to cut since its not enough?

The Democrats and Liberals didn’t get the huge government, the welfare state and the dependent class all at once. But you don’t see them bitching about it. You see them working at continually expanding it.

We are in this for the long haul.

catmman on February 9, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Can we get away from the whole “it’s a pittance” argument for one second? What are we wanting here? Would we be happy if they went ahead and did what everyone wants and cut everything now, full-board, no BS?

Of course that’s what we want, but it isn’t going to happen like that and you know it. So the solution is to what? B!%ch about starting to cut since its not enough?

The Democrats and Liberals didn’t get the huge government, the welfare state and the dependent class all at once. But you don’t see them b!%ching about it. You see them working at continually expanding it.

We are in this for the long haul.

catmman on February 9, 2011 at 9:15 PM

GnuBreed on February 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Yep, EITC is just another form of welfare, another way for the progs to transfer wealth around to satisfy their perverse notion of ‘social justice’.

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM

How much more can we save by eliminating the FTC, FCC, and FDA? Anyone know what useful function they perform?

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Chump change. Yeah, we all want to ditch the Department of Education, but let’s not pretend we’re doing it for the “deficit”. There’s only ONE way to cut the deficit: ENTITLEMENTS – cut the hell out of Medicare and Social Security.

rock the casbah on February 9, 2011 at 9:39 PM

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I believe they are to suck money from the taxpaying public but I could be wrong. How about Dept. of Ed in what universe does it make sense to send money to D.C. to support a huge bureaucracy only to have a miniscule amount of money and a boatload of regulations make it’s way back to the states?

Cindy Munford on February 9, 2011 at 9:44 PM

If you are trying to lose weight you can do it a little every day or just have someone wack off everything from the bellybutton down.

Limerick on February 9, 2011 at 8:14 PM

If you are really trying to lose weight you don’t say to yourself, “I can keep overeating but just not as much.”, and expect to lose weight. Of course if you are a fathead , well, you know….

P. Monk on February 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM

End social security today. I mean pay benefits for those that have reached retirement. Refund everyone else all the money they have taken from them. No more social security. Of course this will cause a temporary bump in debt as we pay of the exisitng benefits and refind everyone their money, but once we get past those debts, there will be no more.

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:51 PM

11 eleven active aircraft carriers? Why not seven? Would that leave three in each hemisphere and one in retrofit at all times? One would think you could rotate three between deployment and home port.

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Keep buying ammo while a dollar is worth something.

BowHuntingTexas on February 9, 2011 at 10:00 PM

End social security today. I mean pay benefits for those that have reached retirement. Refund everyone else all the money they have taken from them. No more social security. Of course this will cause a temporary bump in debt as we pay of the exisitng benefits and refind everyone their money, but once we get past those debts, there will be no more.

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:51 PM

This would make sense in the real universe, but in Washington World, they use the money they collect from all of our paychecks for SS to pay for much of their government programs. I still think the federal government needs to sell much of the hard assets it owns to fund these liabilities it has. That would help get rid of the debt quicker than confiscating people’s incomes or printing more money.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM

11 eleven active aircraft carriers? Why not seven? Would that leave three in each hemisphere and one in retrofit at all times? One would think you could rotate three between deployment and home port.

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The military is actually in the constitution. Entitlements are not.

I’d like to have an army strong enough to make our enemies think real, real, real hard before going to war with us.

Conservative Samizdat on February 9, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I still think the federal government needs to sell much of the hard assets it owns to fund these liabilities it has. That would help get rid of the debt quicker than confiscating people’s incomes or printing more money.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Agreed. I recently saw a map showing federally owned land in each state as a percentage of land area. Astronomical especially in the western states. The sale of this land would generate Gazillions easily.

chewydog on February 9, 2011 at 10:57 PM

This may be symbolic, but, it IS a start, and a fulfillment of campaign promises. Remember, Obama has the veto pen, so all of this criticism is futile. Joe Amtrak Biden wants to $53 billion for high-speed rail that goes 82 mph. See what we/the are up against?

sybilll on February 9, 2011 at 11:02 PM

I still think the federal government needs to sell much of the hard assets it owns to fund these liabilities it has. That would help get rid of the debt quicker than confiscating people’s incomes or printing more money.

txmomof6 on February 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Agreed. I recently saw a map showing federally owned land in each state as a percentage of land area. Astronomical especially in the western states. The sale of this land would generate Gazillions easily.

chewydog on February 9, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Yep, here it is: Federal Lands in the US

I agree, the US should own the land under federal buildings, military bases, and a very small number of federal parks. For starters we need to sell off the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument reserve in Utah that Billy created to increase the value of the Riady brothers holdings, who were big campaign contributors.

slickwillie2001 on February 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Reduce the federal workforce by 5 percent per year for 10 years. Eliminate entire agencies and departments; Dept of Ed, Dept of Ag, Dept of Labor, FCC, EPA, etc.

Dasher on February 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM

End social security today. I mean pay benefits for those that have reached retirement. Refund everyone else all the money they have taken from them. No more social security. Of course this will cause a temporary bump in debt as we pay of the existing benefits and refund everyone their money, but once we get past those debts, there will be no more.

paulsur on February 9, 2011 at 9:51 PM

So where would these refunds come from? You are talking something like $50 Trillion.

Dasher on February 9, 2011 at 11:58 PM

chewydog on February 9, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Not to mention the trickle down benefits of that land being used to be productive. It’s really simple, but most everyone is twisting this like a Twizzler.

SouthernGent on February 10, 2011 at 12:44 AM

I’d like to have an army strong enough to make our enemies think real, real, real hard before going to war with us.
Conservative Samizdat on February 9, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I agree with you there.

But, one part of having a military that strong is being able to afford to use it.

With a $14+ trillion debt, we gotta make cuts everywhere, including the military. Maybe that means closing some foreign bases, or scaling back on current commitments. Certainly there’s fat in that part of the budget we can trim, for sure. Who knows where else we can save some money within our defense budget?

$100 billion in total cuts, while not much in the grand scheme of things, is a start. Can’t walk a mile until you take that first step, as they say.

Let’s take that first figure, but make our representatives understand we do in fact demand more.

Badger State Dave on February 10, 2011 at 3:28 AM

Dear Washington GOP insiders:

$100 Billion is still $1400 Billion more than you have. You are 1/15th of the way to your goal.

Keep cutting.

Wino on February 10, 2011 at 3:53 AM

How about cutting $100 billion a month? That’s what I’d call a “good start”. Then, we could do some real cutting.

But the apron on, pick up the cleaver and get bloody.

When you hit $500 billion I’ll know you might be serious.

gdonovan on February 10, 2011 at 5:57 AM

100 Billion doesn’t even cover an entire month’s worth of deficit spending.

tommyboy on February 10, 2011 at 7:04 AM

Until and unless they deal with entitlements they will not balance the budget. They could shut down the Dept of Education and the Dept of Agriculture and still have a debt.

Terrye on February 10, 2011 at 7:21 AM

Is this $100 billion of cuts from the last budget, or $100 billion in cuts from automatic growth and/or Obama’s proposed new spending?

If it is the latter, that is not a “cut”. That is just increasing spending a little less. And, somehow, I bet that is what we are really talking about here.

Don’t get me wrong, it is better than anything the dems would ever do – they only ever increase spending. The idea of cutting spending is anathema to them. They would happily keep increase spending and borrowing while we go bankrupt. See Obama’s state of the union for conclusive evidence. But this still is not enough.

Monkeytoe on February 10, 2011 at 8:27 AM

There is such a simple way on SS, I worked for a large bamk in payroll before retirement and handled the people making the big bucks.
Raise the ceiling limit on wages, most of the people I handled reached the limit by march or april. but even raising it 10% wouldn’t hurt these people and would bring in a lot more money.
Make all Gov. employees contibute to SS also not collect their pensions from the taxpayers, see it’s so easy.
To bad I’m to smart to work for the government:):):)

concernedsenior on February 10, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Sorry Bank OOPS!!!
Guess I’m not as smart as I thought I was.

concernedsenior on February 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Until and unless they deal with entitlements they will not balance the budget. They could shut down the Dept of Education and the Dept of Agriculture and still have a debt.

Terrye on February 10, 2011 at 7:21 AM

You could shut down every single department such as the Department of Defense, State Department, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, EPA and etc…

…and we’d still be in debt.

That’s why eliminating entitlements has to be the first step. Then we can talk about cutting other programs.

Conservative Samizdat on February 10, 2011 at 11:14 AM

The deficit is too damn high.

EconomicNeocon on February 10, 2011 at 11:36 AM