![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Incoming House Speaker John Boehner has made it very clear: When he takes control of the House, slashing the federal budget by $100 billion will be priority number one.
The stakes are high.
Republicans view their midterm electoral victory as a mandate to cut spending, and cutting $100 billion from a $3 trillion federal budget sounds like a reasonable goal.
But GOP leaders say they will focus only on non-security discretionary spending, and won't slash funding for defense, Social Security or Medicare.
That makes their task a lot harder.
Cutting non-security discretionary funds by $100 billion means a 21% annual reduction in the part of the budget that includes funding for education, health and human services and housing and urban development, among other things, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank.
In other words, the sacred cows of domestic Democratic policy.
Asked which programs will be cut to get to the $100 billion target, Boehner did not offer specifics.
"But I will tell you," he told reporters earlier this month. "We are going to cut spending."
The Washington Punch List
Republicans point out they have already voted to ban earmarks -- money appropriated by a member of Congress for a special project -- within their own caucus.
The problem is that earmarks aren't additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount lawmakers have agreed to spend for a given year.
Net savings: Zero.
Still, Boehner already has his starting point picked out: reducing Congress' own budget.
"We'll start first by cutting our own budget. It will be one of our first votes," Boehner said earlier this month. But the savings available there are paltry. The total budget for the legislative branch was $4.7 billion in 2009.
That leaves the GOP with a lot of ground to make up.
The Republican outline for cuts
Republicans offered some clues as to how they might cut discretionary spending in the party's Pledge to America document and the YouCut program introduced earlier this year.
The Pledge to America is short on specifics. Among its proposals: cap discretionary spending, freeze hiring of federal workers and cancel unspent stimulus funds.
"I think getting control of the discretionary accounts is a great first step," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a leading Republican economist and former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
The YouCut program actually put some GOP ideas to the test. During the last Congress, Republicans took 14 ideas to cut the budget and brought the items to a vote in the House. If they had all passed, more than $120 billion would have been cut from the budget.
Problem: Not one measure passed.
It's unclear how much easier it will get. In 2011, Republicans will control the House, but they will still face a slight Democratic majority in the Senate and, of course, Obama in the White House.
Tougher decisions ahead
"The president is still the one setting the agenda," said Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum.
Boehner wants to start cutting right away, saying that Republicans want to roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels as "soon as possible."
The gathering storm
Democrats, knowing the fight was ahead, tried to nail down funding through October 2011.
In the last days of the current Congress, Democrats pushed for a massive $1.1 trillion budget extension that would have locked in spending at current levels for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
But Senate Republicans killed the measure, instead forcing Democrats to settle for an extension that will keep spending at current levels until March 4.
That sets up a battle royale for early next year as Republicans seek to kill signature Democratic legislative victories, some of which -- like funding for health care and financial reform -- remain unfunded.
Holtz-Eakin thinks the most likely scenario is that Congress will pass another short-term fix that will fund the government until October, and that the real fight will be over the 2012 budget.
"There will be some cuts [in fiscal 2011] and then they will turn to 2012, and that's where the rubber hits the road," Holtz-Eakin said.
Source
The stakes are high.
Republicans view their midterm electoral victory as a mandate to cut spending, and cutting $100 billion from a $3 trillion federal budget sounds like a reasonable goal.
But GOP leaders say they will focus only on non-security discretionary spending, and won't slash funding for defense, Social Security or Medicare.
That makes their task a lot harder.
Cutting non-security discretionary funds by $100 billion means a 21% annual reduction in the part of the budget that includes funding for education, health and human services and housing and urban development, among other things, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank.
In other words, the sacred cows of domestic Democratic policy.
Asked which programs will be cut to get to the $100 billion target, Boehner did not offer specifics.
"But I will tell you," he told reporters earlier this month. "We are going to cut spending."
The Washington Punch List
Republicans point out they have already voted to ban earmarks -- money appropriated by a member of Congress for a special project -- within their own caucus.
The problem is that earmarks aren't additional spending -- they're a portion of the total amount lawmakers have agreed to spend for a given year.
Net savings: Zero.
Still, Boehner already has his starting point picked out: reducing Congress' own budget.
"We'll start first by cutting our own budget. It will be one of our first votes," Boehner said earlier this month. But the savings available there are paltry. The total budget for the legislative branch was $4.7 billion in 2009.
That leaves the GOP with a lot of ground to make up.
The Republican outline for cuts
Republicans offered some clues as to how they might cut discretionary spending in the party's Pledge to America document and the YouCut program introduced earlier this year.
The Pledge to America is short on specifics. Among its proposals: cap discretionary spending, freeze hiring of federal workers and cancel unspent stimulus funds.
"I think getting control of the discretionary accounts is a great first step," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a leading Republican economist and former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
The YouCut program actually put some GOP ideas to the test. During the last Congress, Republicans took 14 ideas to cut the budget and brought the items to a vote in the House. If they had all passed, more than $120 billion would have been cut from the budget.
Problem: Not one measure passed.
It's unclear how much easier it will get. In 2011, Republicans will control the House, but they will still face a slight Democratic majority in the Senate and, of course, Obama in the White House.
Tougher decisions ahead
"The president is still the one setting the agenda," said Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum.
Boehner wants to start cutting right away, saying that Republicans want to roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels as "soon as possible."
The gathering storm
Democrats, knowing the fight was ahead, tried to nail down funding through October 2011.
In the last days of the current Congress, Democrats pushed for a massive $1.1 trillion budget extension that would have locked in spending at current levels for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
But Senate Republicans killed the measure, instead forcing Democrats to settle for an extension that will keep spending at current levels until March 4.
That sets up a battle royale for early next year as Republicans seek to kill signature Democratic legislative victories, some of which -- like funding for health care and financial reform -- remain unfunded.
Holtz-Eakin thinks the most likely scenario is that Congress will pass another short-term fix that will fund the government until October, and that the real fight will be over the 2012 budget.
"There will be some cuts [in fiscal 2011] and then they will turn to 2012, and that's where the rubber hits the road," Holtz-Eakin said.
Source
That's more than the GDP of Chile. Just in overruns. Not the budget, just contractors comining back and saying "hey, yeah, that bid we gave you, that was too low, we need more money". Not something any normal business would but up with from a contractor, but the government always opens up the the wallet...
The overrun itself is more than the entire defense budget for the entire European Union.
But even touching anything even vaguely defense related, nooooooooooooooooooo.
If you want to cut $100 billion Boehner, cut it from our Defense budget and we'd still be outspending every other nation on our military.
Regardless of what they cut, $100 billion won't make too much of a difference when our deficit is like 3 trillion.
Hell, it's not like cutting $400 billion would matter. We'd still be able to flatten anybody except for China, Russia, or the EU. What happens if we get in a war with any of them? Nukes fly, and we're all boned, whether we spend $750 billion or $250 billion a year.
Because how else will the folks in the top be able to manufacture....boot straps!?
If you're dead set on not cutting defense, Sir John of Mangerine, I have some suggestions for how particular government employees (you refer to them all as your "friends", in case you need a hint) are overpaid, get pensions, and get government health care. Why don't y'all show how much you really care about the troops, and you can get paid the same salaries they do?
Or, if you don't like that, you can get paid hourly. And guess what, schmoozing, tanning, and golfing don't count as WORKING. I mean when you have your ass planted in your seat, LEGISLATING. That'll save us a metric fuckton of money, since most of y'all never do a goddamn thing.
This.
And what you said.
Anyone else want Obama to pull a Jed Bartlet and "shut it down" over the budget? Because I kinda really do.
I want the Democrats to impose a hard ceiling on the defense budget and refuse to pass anything more than that. Vote among the caucus what it should be, and then impose it on the GOP.
They could have done that during the Bush years with the filibuster, but Democrats have no spine.
jfc it really is not that difficult.
100 billion in non-defense cuts along with defense cuts and rescinding all the tax cuts may come a lot closer to balancing the budget.
... because the American military budget has nothing to do with security! Actually, we'd be a lot more secure with a lower military budget -- since there'd be a lot fewer radical Muslims that hated us.
"But I will tell you," he told reporters earlier this month. "We are going to cut spending."
LOOKS LIKE A PLAN TO ME.
2. Reverse tax cuts for the rich
3. Stop throwing money at banks and let the 'free market' do its job
4. Stop using 'defense' as an excuse to throw money at corporations you have a stake in
Lower the age at which you can collect full Social Security to 60 or even 55 to open up more jobs for younger people.
Have the government hire people to fix the infrastructure and develop green technology.
Have the government give money to states and municipalities to hire more teachers at better salaries to improve education so Americans are more employable.
Encourage universal unions so wages elsewhere are more in line with wages here.
Open the borders so more workers pay taxes and Social Security.
Raise the income tax to pre-1980 levels.
Close tax loopholes that encourage investing and siting corporations abroad.
Reduce military spending by cutting out outdated and unwanted equipment. Remove unnecessary bases, particularly in other countries.
Establish true single payer, universal health care to keep health care costs down. It can reduce expensive malpractice suits, reduce malpractice insurance and reduce unnecessary tests. Encourage healthy living with more subsidies for truck farmers and fewer for corn and tobacco farmers.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head. Many are not politically feasible and some would take some time to bear fruit.