Redstate

Please tell Congressman Wilson that I appreciate his efforts to get this bill passed.

when the Republican's can take it for you? Idiot Republican's have failed to to their job and now have missed out on an issue to campaign on AND given the Dem's something to half heartedly jab at them with.

it's the nature of the cuts that is being objected to--by Dems and GOP alike.  Clinton was terrible for the country, but he did reduce the size of the federal budget.  And he didn't do it by cutting food stamps, medicare, and college grants.

We as Republicans need to get our head on straight about WHAT to cut.  And we can start with the ridiculous amount of wasteful pork--not with food stamps to poor people.

the reason these RINOs are balking at this bill is because many of these provisions will be political suicide in liberal ad campaigns against them in 2006.

And it doesn't need to be that way.

It seems to me this is a failure of the GOP house leadership. If Tom DeLay was still the majority leader I believe this bill would have come to a vote, and would have likely passed.   I hope Mr. DeLay is acquitted soon so he can return to his post, today's events demonstrate that he is sorely needed.

and then we'd have a tiny reduction in spending, followed by massive tax cuts, an overall increase in the budget deficit.

And we would still get liberal attack ads about the deficit.

AND on top of that we would get attack ad after attack ad telling voters we took food out of the mouths of poor children, medication out of the cabinets of the elderly, and college opportunity out of the hands of achieving youth.

Not a good deal...not a good deal at all.

What we need is a REAL spending cut bill the removes hundreds of billions of dollars in pork and special giveaways, like Amtrak subsidies, Ted Stevens' bridge, bailouts for airlines, farm subsidies for mega-farms, tax breaks for Exxon, and all the rest.  Things that everyone--Democrat and Republican--can get behind.

The simple rebuttal to the typical Dem lies is that the GOP increased spending on welfare program X, just not as much as those irresponsible tax and spend Dems would have liked. That's not too complicated an argument to make, it just takes some spine and common sense to make it, 2 characteristics that are in short supply apparently on the GOP side of the aisle.

What a disgraceful week for the GOP.  Is there anyone in the GOP in Washington that has any leadership capability?  Hastert and Frisk can't coordinate a joint letter to announce an investtigation.  Sen. Robinson is calling for a delay of a major leak of CIA activity.  The President is MIA to the point that the White House is comatose when it comes to offering any response to any criticism.  And now this nonsense on a measely $50 Billion cost reduction.  I thought Pelosi and Reid were the pits; they look like stars compared to our Lott.

Goverment spending is obscene and reducing $50 billion from the current budget is not that impressive (while it does represent a good start).  However, if fiscal conservatism is to succeed, we must go after the $$ that average people from all political persuasions can see is clearly being misspent.  I for one loved Tom Coburn's suggestion to use the $400 million Alaskan bridge money to help offset hurricane Katrina costs.  I wouldn't miss Amtrack or airline bailouts either.  Why do the airlines get bailed out every few years while their service and dependability decline annually.  

I know this came up a long time ago, but what happened to the line item veto authority for the president?  Couldn't he just veto parts of a bill?  And if he doesn't have that authority, let's get it so that he can take responsibility for re-introducing fiscal conservatism to congress.

that talk about how Clinton slashed welfare and cut the budget?

The graphs are pretty damning.  The fact is that we need to make cuts all right--but not these cuts.  These cuts are suicide.

I mean, this is ridiculous.  How are we supposed to refute moonbat attacks of republicans only caring about corporations and not people, when the only cuts we can make are to food stamps and college grants, and NO cuts to corporate welfare?

It looks bad.  Real bad.  And we're going to get creamed in 2006 if we don't do something about it.

They're gonna get slammed no matter what they do, what they cut. And the MSM will pile on.

So they may as well do what they think is right.

so stop calling an increase a cut. 7% more than last year is not a cut.

do you really think that the GOP would get slammed for:

1. Eliminating airline subsidies?
   
   
2. Eliminating Amtrak subsidies?
   
   
3. Eliminating Ted Stevens' bridge?
   
   
4. Eliminating massive pork projects?
   
   
5. Slapping a profits tax on Exxon?

No, I don't think we'd get slammed for that.

but it's a reduction, comparatively.  I think it's appalling.

didn't "cut" or "slash" anything until the GOP controlled the Congress, and he was dragged kicking and screaming along to do it. And most of the "reductions" if you could call them that, came from the military, which as it turned out was a pretty dumb move.

To be honest, I don't even really care about what the democrates have to say about this issue.  By virue of holding majorities in both houses of congress and the presidency, what they have to say about these issues is immaterial.  I think that cuts that the average person would support and see as neccessary could include sacred cows like food stamps.  While many people do need them, many people receive them who don't truley need them.  I look the  success of "welfare reform" as proof that you can cut some entitlement programs - given that you do it as part of a comprehensive overhaul.  If you just slash budgets, then indeed you risk political backlash.  But if you are smart and have a "roadmap" to reducing govement spending by making it more efficient and effective, then everyone will support you - and the whines of "Moonbats" will be ignored like they usually are.

but if that's true, why are we having such dang hard time now that we have majorities everywhere?

if we want to KEEP those majorities, what they have to say matters plenty.

The GOP controlled congresses are more likely to reign in tax and spend Dem administrations. It is a natural political control. Congress in general is a limit on WH spending as it writes the checks.

With Bush in the WH, however, there is no reason for such discipline as the Congress knows it can spend as much as it wants on its projects and the WH knows that it can get Congress to agree to spend as much as it wants on its pet projects. So they do.

Also, if Bush had vetoed a spending bill or two, or been a deficit hawk, things might be different.

it's a GOP majority, but not a conservative majority. That means the RINOs have to be purchased with their welfare so they can go back home and say "Here's your free money! Re-Elect Me and I'll bring back more!"

However, I am really just restating that if cuts are done in a smart way that offer cost-reduction with increased efficiency of money spent, then even things like food-stamps and other sacred cows can be trimmed.  That said, of course it makes the most sense to go after obvious pork projects and unsympathetic media boogymen like the oil industry first.

Where's the *gosh-darn* line item veto?  Does the president have that authority?

The answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, and no.

Congress runs on pork. You can't single out a congressperson's pork. That is a cardinal sin. Besides, all the pork, as frustrating as it might be to see, does not add up to much.

The Democrats are freaking out right this minute because Gunn was fired from Amtrak for not being willing to adopt real change there. Real change meaning turning Amtrak into a working (still publically supported of course) project by abandoning it's cross-country operations.

The windfall profits tax is about the worst idea ever. It is way up there with the states looting the tobacco companies and the wage and price controls of the 70s. No doubt you could get the MSM and the Democrats on board with that. I would be horrified however.

There is no line item veto. Personally I don't see it ever happening either. Congress would have to agree to give up that much power to the executive. They are not going to do that.

What's appalling?  Allowing a program to grow at more than twice the rate of inflation is appalling?

I believe the bill only cuts $53.9 bn over 5 years.  The comparison to $2.4 trillion annual budget actually makes its impact seem larger than it is.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6845/house.pdf

Part of the difficulty in passing this cut, seems to me to be the intent to also pass $70 bn in additional tax cuts.

Tom

I don't know who's at the helm right now.  Congress hasn't done anything to impress me in a long time.  They can't even get some measly reductions through, and the splitting of the 9th Circuit is also stalled now.  The only thing the Republican leadership has done that I've been happy with in the past year is the confirmation of John Roberts and the nomination of Sam Alito.

Republicans are not far away from being thrown out of Washington on their keesters.  They need to reduce spending, cut pork, repeal the death tax, split the Ninth, and confirm some decent Supreme Court justices soon, very soon, or they'll be the ones in the minority in 12 months.


Change, 2005 vs 2006 Budget, Source OMB



Discretionary budget authority:

Department of Defense ........................................... 400 419 19

Homeland Security (non-Department of Defense)...................... 31 32 1

Other Operations of Government .................................. 394 388 -5

Total, Discretionary budget authority ........................... 825 840 15





Budget Totals:

Receipts ................................................. 2,140 2,273

Outlays .................................................. 2,472 2,613

Deficit ................................................... -333 -341





So you tell me, where is the problem? I'm sure there is some waste in the
non-defense discretionary spending, but eliminating it entirely will
only just put the budget in balance. Every 10% cut in non-defense
discretionary spending results in an overal reduction of only 1.5% of the
total budget.



Would someone please stand up to the interest groups and lobbyists and make
some real cuts to the other 85.2% of the budget?


(ps - I hope this formats ok, it does in the preview)



It's peanuts, and you see how much trouble its causing. That is why we MUST push a term limit amendment through. It is the only thing that might put a damper on this runaway spending. Hell, a term llimit and a balanced budget amendment. Why not a new bill of rights?

"he did reduce the size of the federal budget"

The total amount spent by the federal government rose from 1992-2000.

The Republican Congress did a great job in holding down government growth and Clinton did his part too, but federal government grew the whole time.

The President does not make the law. It violates separation of powers.

If you do you not know how to be fiscally responsible and act to protect this country from our enemies AND get re-elected; get the hell out of office.

shots at the Democrats?  What happened to the glorious Majority, faster than a speeding bullet, able to ram through any bill in a single bound?

but i don't think anyone here dares criticize military spending for fear of getting their account revoked.

in CA makes a lot of sense. Cutting corporate welfare is way more popular than cutting the other programs.

I am in no way defending airline subsidies--they are bad, bad, bad. We need a plan to eliminate them. But really, think about the potential short-term fall-out. I guess all the major carriers would face bankruptcy. Perhaps the Southwesterns and such could fill the void, but the short term disruption would be pretty severe. It would have a pretty big impact on lots of people. And remember, over the life of the industry, it has not ever been profitable.

are rising faster than 7%, just check your statements

medicare is in the same leaky boat

You're implying here that roughly 85% of the federal budget (so-called "entitlement" programs) should grow without bound, forever, unchecked.  In fact, you're apparently "appalled" by any suggestion to the contrary.

That being the case, could you explain how you would ever get to a balanced budget if you plan on leaving 85% of the budget - the fastest growing parts, by the way - to grow unbounded in perpetuity?

Thanks for your efforts.  Against a $2 trillion+ budget we're talking about, what, .025% of a cut.  And even that can't get passed.  We should start talking about greed, real greed, here.  The sort of greed that doesn't relate to one's own efforts or to one's own bank book.  A much worse greed than that, the greed for other peoples money, the greed that wants to succeed and even live off a part of other peoples lives, the greed that makes its adherents turn into no better than parasites.   The word has been misused and misapplied for to long.  The people who labor and produce and question tax policy are faced with this insult used by others who would and do applaud travesties like this, a definite inverted morality.   I note my percentage used above is in error, too lazy to correct but the story remains the same.

That makes much more sense.

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers.

...that the words "windfall profits tax" are making a comeback.

It was tried once and was a miserable FAILURE.

Is everyone in Washington afflicted with a memory that doesn't go back beyond 5 years??

... on to your colleagues in the caucus.

Message to GOP Leadership

The Anchoress speaks the anger and frustration a lot of us feel.

Is this the "New Republican Majority" that we all wanted so badly and had so much hope for?

I know the Democrats have fought you at every turn.  Progress is hard.  But we didn't work and pray and sweat for twenty-five years in order to see this current crop of feckless and self-serving pseudo-conservatives (present company excepted) throw it all away.

There isn't much time left.  If there isn't an energetic bounce off the bottom for this congress, there won't be a Republican majority in next one.  Maybe there shouldn't be.  

Most of the commentary on the budget here misses the point.  And by by a mile, no less.

The 20-25 House GOPers who decided that they were unable to support the Deficit Reduction bill do not represent "Red State Org districts" for lack of a better term.

Most of the commentary here (General Grant is only a convenient example of MANY) is sorely mis-placed.

House GOPers from the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Industrial Midwest do NOT represent congressional districts where clearly conservative politics (fiscal, social, or otherwise) represents more than 50% of the voting electorate.

Indeed, in some of these Congressional districts, the GOP segment of the voting electorate is the SMALLEST slice of the pie.  These GOPers usually win by forming a coalition of GOPers and Independents, while holding off the Democrats.

And, that doesn't even begin to describe how much of a burden GWB's 35% approval rating these days becomes for non-Red State conservative House GOPers.

(Sidebar: without these 20-25 moderates, there would have been no House GOP majority for the last 4-6 years; for some here at Red State, that may be preferable;  I happen to think that POV is silly and short-sighted, but there would not even have BEEN a Majority Leader Tom DeLay without these House GOPers, and that's a stone cold hard fact that can't be rebutted.)

So, how do they survive in office?  They do so by balancing a very conservative House GOP Leaderaship and its policy agenda against their districts.  But, that's nothing new.  It's been happening for more than 200 years.

In the meantime, most of you folks are talking nonsense.

Sure, the Budget Deficit Reduction plan is a winner in a conservative GOP district, most likely in the Deep South or Western US.  But, not in the Mid-Atlantic area, Northeast, or Industrial Midwest.

The sooner Red Staters begin to UNDERSTAND this dynamic, the sooner possible solutions may arise.

But, if you guys want to form Circular Firing Squads, and aim at other GOPers (like the fool who wants to run primary challengers against these House GOPers.  That would GUARANTEE House Democrats winning these seats next November) go right ahead.  That sound you hear in the backgrond is the DCCC and DNC cheering you on, as they fully appreciate how much they would benefit from what you talk about...

Most of you speak of what you do not know about modern-day Congressional GOP dynamics.  Sometimes its funny. Today, reading your commentary, it's laughably sad.

I am conservative as they come, but I agree.  It is really bad politics cutting food stamps.  

Those so-called moderates are going to cost the GOP control of the House.

If they won't step up to the plate on this, conservatives won't step up to the plate next year.

IOW, if they continue to oppose fiscal discipline, they're likely to lose anyway (unless they switch parties which, going into next year, we should be on guard for) one way or the other.

This is shaping up into a perfect electoral storm. No one will want the GOP in control of Congress, especially not conservatives...

to gripe about Red Staters not understanding a dynamic, and therefore getting in the way of "possible solutions" without suggesting yourself  what any of those possible solutions might be.

From my naive perch it looks like you either spend with reckless abandon or show some capacity for fiscal restraint (the bill that was pulled today). What's your third way?

BTW, maybe you don't understand the dynamic of gerrymandering- you might want to look into how many House incumbents lose their seats each year. Very few Reps. are remotely at risk of losing their seat for voting in favor of this cut.

"You've had Dems and a compliant national media slamming "cuts" in Medicaid and all the bill does is slow the rate of growth from 7.3% to 7.0%. That's not a cut!"

If you aren't actually cutting anything how are you saving any money?

would be to rename the bill?  After all, the common meaning of "Deficit Reduction" would be to reduce the deficit.  My understanding is that this bill increases the deficit by offsetting the modest spending cuts with larger tax cuts.

The bill could more appropriately be called the Deficit Increase Act or, if one wanted something more palatable at the expense of being a bit misleading, the Spending Decrease Act would be technically accurate while still achieving the Act's apparent goal of allowing the federal government to run up more red ink.

Another possibility would be to split the bill into two -- the Spending Reduction Act and a separate Revenue Reduction Act.  It's not at all clear from this diary whether the moderates are objecting to the spending cuts or the tax increases, or the combination of the two in a single bill.  But whichever it is, it's likely that the other half would pass.

Finally the GOP takes a small step toward fiscal discipline and the RINOs come out of the woodwork "to Bork" the bill.  I'm not surprised.  We are going to get crushed next year at the ballot box.  That's my prediction.  

Powder Blue Report

He had to step down as Majority Leader because the Rs have stronger ethics rules than the Ds (specifically Rs require anyone indicted to step down before they get to defend themselves in court).

The spending bills have passed for next year including a 7.3% increase.  This bill would roll that back to 7%.  Call it whatever you want.

to politics,or rather political survival. Great post.  I'll re read and see if I can find a crumb of principle other than a modernized bread and circuses approach.  Or is it tax tax, spend spend, elect elect.  But then they're both the same aren't they.  Unlimited increases and a endless horizon, something to die for.  And we needn't ask where it's taking the country,what enervating prospects such a policy and government hold for the future,and what a permanent class of money grubing pols do to the fiscal and political process.  We may also cast aside any questions of federal power, after all it's OUR goverment, and power must only be discussed in benign terms if at all.  Humorously sad or sadly humorous, I can't make up my mind.  The fiber of a nation, the ethical and moral relationship between a people and their government and it all come down to self preservation of a class in power.  Like I said,great!

Are in safe districts. Both of those MN districts are pretty conservative. Ramstad is totally safe but he is a RINO when it comes to spending. He has never seen any kind of subsidity or pork that he doesn't like.

If I was in that district I would not be voting for him any more. Better to let a Democrat have the seat for a term and come back with a real candidate next time.

The RSCC coming in on the side of Lincoln Chafee against a primary challenge is a example of the pathetic strategy currently in operation.

His point was we need to cut the non-discretionary spending that comprises 85% of spending and is automatically increased every year, not that we should cut Defense spending.

As far as I know the Supreme Court has never opined on it and it would be their call.

Where Republicans are term-limited they usually like to go out in a blaze of wasteful spending. So I'm not sure that is such a good idea.

This is non-discretionary spending. The spending and increases are on automatic pilot.

What new tax cuts are included in this bill? Do you have a link?

He's not really all that far off base.

It would be one thing to scream at the moderates if the Republicans in control of Congress had actually been fiscally conservative over the past several years and we still had fiscal trouble.

But we've been on an orgy of spending for all sorts of incredibly stupid big government programs for the entirety of Bush's Presidency.  It was one thing to increase government spending during the Clinton years, but once Bush took over, there should have been some restraint.

I agree that we had to spend money on Defense and Homeland Security.  We had to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and I support the spending there.

But the Farm Bill?  The Energy Bill?  The Medicare Bill?  All the new discretionary spending in Education, HHS, Commerce, almost every cabinet agency?  We've significantly exceeded the inflationary rate for domestic spending every year, that needs to end.

The Budget bill reduces $57 billion over 5 years.    So it's something like $11 billion a year.  In a $2 TRILLION budget

Whoop de fricking do.

Then, factor in the reality that the Senate ain't going to go higher than their $35 billion Budget bill.  It just ain't gonna happen.

So we make 20-25 Members in marginal seats take very tough votes on issues where the media is lined up to attack them, knowing that in the end the Senate won't let the House do it anyway.  It's political suicide for nonsensical reasons.

To govern is to lead, but it is also to make sure that people will willingly follow.  Neither the House nor the Senate leaders get that.

Tom DeLay's deathbed conversion to fiscal sanity rings hollow.  Wasn't he the guy who thought there wasn't anything left to cut in the budget?  When did he change his tune?  Oh yeah, right after he got indicted.

We need new leadership in the House, Hastert and Blunt need to go.  We need folks like John Boehner, Tom Reynolds, and Eric Cantor (or others) who know how to lead, know how to govern, and know how to get people to follow them.  Where are the coherent arguments for these budget cuts that reach out to moderates and independents?  Where's the explanation for the food stamp cut?  The student aid cuts?  The moderates are going back to their districts and getting the snot beat out of them by their voters because the MSM is bemoaning the poor travails of this sweet mom on food stamps who's going to starve because of the evil republicans.  Our members should have a ready strategy to defend against that or explain why that's not true.  But it's not happening.

While I'd agree that the moderates need to get on board, I'd also argue that the rest of the party really needs to examine all of the other spending and really figure out how to tighten the belt.  We can't just ask the moderates to feel the pain, we need to share it everywhere.

1) The thrust of IJB's comments are so silly, I'm not sure where to start my response.  Today, there are about 228 House GOPers.  A simple majority in the House is 218, 50% plus 1 out of 435.

The GOP has controlled the House via its majority PRECISELY BECAUSE there are anywhere from 20-30 moderate Huose Republicans.  They come from states like NH, upstate NY, CT, DE, NJ, OH, WV, and PA.

The GOP controls the House because of these moderates, not in spite of them.

In case you were wondering, GWB lost most of those states.  Being a GOP in these states requires something other than "blind loyalty" to GWB and/or the Republican Party's conservative policies.

These House GOPers do not get elected by virtue of simply being a Republican in a Republican congressional district.  That's true in the South and West.

They get elected by building a coalition of more than 50%, which includes GOP votes, independent votes, and perhaps some Democratic votes.

2) To Shaggy Dog's comments, it's not clear to me what the "answer" to the House GOP's dilemma is right now.  But, to those at Red State who speak encouragingly of running conservative primary challengers against moderate House GOPers, I know for sure that's the WRONG answer.

Here are three suggestions that are based upon the REALITY of the House GOP Conference today(not what RedStaters WANT it to be):

a) a smaller deficit reduction package, somewhere below $45 billion.

b) a more broad-based approach to spending reductions.  To the extent that the reductions are broad-based (i.e., every Federal program and department faces cuts), the reductions are smaller.  To wit: Both the Defense Department and Homeland Security Department must be included in budget reductions.  So far, they have been excluded.  That's almost $500 billion in annual Federal spending that's not on the table, but should be on the table.

c)a smaller package of tax reductions,with the bulk of tax relief going to lower-income and middle-income families, not the high-end wealthy.

c) Finally, to whomever said incumbent House GOPers cannot lose (safe seats), that's not true in most of the districts that we're talking about here.  These seats are not rock-solid GOP seats.  They are located in states where GWB lost twice, with a few limited exceptions.  GWB's approval ratings today are less than 40%.

If the RedState POV carries the day, these House GOPers can easily lose to Democratic challengers next November, thereby giving control of the House to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.

Surely there is no one at Red State who thinks that's a better state of affairs?

"Most of you speak of what you do not know about modern-day Congressional GOP dynamics.  Sometimes its funny. Today, reading your commentary, it's laughably sad."

Actually, I don't believe most of us really care about modern-day Congressional GOP dynamics. I know I don't. I also know that many of us don't care about preserving a self-serving majority that panders to special interest groups at the expense of the budget, the economy, and the future. That message perfectly embodies the lack of courage within the walls of Congress and the staggering disconnect between the GOP and the American people.

It's time to tell people the truth. If Bush and the GOP tell people we can afford the prescription drug bill -- we can afford anything, we'll borrow from the future without consequences -- then people will start to believe that.

If Bush and the GOP tell people the truth -- that we can't afford everything, no matter how much they want it, that it's time to choose between waste, pork, entitlements and your own children's future, then people will choose their own children's future. Every time.

You say that these 20-25 GOPers who can't support modest reduction of the budget by restraining -- even very slightly -- growth in entitlement spending don't represent "red state districts."

That may be so, but do you think the voters in these districts support things like having jobs, getting raises, providing for their own families, paying less than $3 dollars a gallon for gas? Do the voters in these districts want to be left alone by the government? Do they want an economy that grows, where their children can find jobs, save and invest and create wealth for their familes?

These "non red state" voters are, presumably, familiar with Europe. Are they, then, clamouring to have a system of government that stifles growth and employment and imposes crushing tax burdens on its people?

Are the voters in these districts sure that all 2.5 trillion in the federal budget is well spent? Do these voters believe there is nowhere to cut, even in the most well-intentioned social programs. (Are they happy that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used by Katrina victims to pay for liquor and lap dances?)

The truth is, the "moderates" in those states want to live in a prosperous economy. They want to invest and save for retirement and their children's education. They don't want to work hard and take care of their families and save for their futures then be forced to turn around and pay for someone else's irresponsibility. They don't want to live in Europe. If they did, they would have voted for a Democrat.

It's so beyond time for Bush and GOP leaders to stand up and fight, to say wait, this is not a tax cut for the wealthy, this is a tax cut on investment, which more than half of americans participate in, which has spurred economic growth and job creation for two years. And to say this is not a cut in Medicaid, this is a cut in the unfettered growth of Medicaid, which is unsustainable. And its time for the GOP to realize the consequences of inaction aren't good for them.

And, honestly, I think it's you who are missing the point on the budget. The point is that this money the GOP is spending so freely is not theirs, it's ours. And that which is not ours is China's and Japan's and will not be issued to us forever, in unlimited supply.

We can pretend that huge deficits and entitlements aren't a problem and that voters can have anything they want, but there is a limit to the amount of money we can borrow.  There is a point (coming soon) where service on the national debt plus other entitlements will require every tax dollar taken in. If we get to that point without reform it will mean the largest tax increase this country has ever seen. Is that what these "moderates" are voting for?

the Line Item Veto Amendment now more than ever.  See HJR 71 and SJR 25.

What happens to those so-called "moderate" Republicans if/when the GOP loses control of the House?

I'll give you a few minutes to chew that over...

   I voted for GWB in the last election, even though I live in N.Y.Now, I thought that being a republican meant that you were for a small central gov, not giving the gov. to the rich and wealthy while the people that make up the majority of the citizenery suffer. I wouldn't mind the cuts in the proposed budget so much if we(the republican party) weren't giving away soo much in tax breaks to companies that simply do not need, and by the way do not deserve. yes, i speak of oil co.'s. they have posted record profits quater after quater, and yet the prices continued to rise. until just recently have they come down.How long are we going to continue to enslave ourselves to oil and all the hardships that it creates?

and further, my  main point is we are chasing around trying to cut the same

small piece of pie (non-defense discretionary).  I worry that we get to the point

where we are tossing away some good things because we don't have the fortitude

to address the main problem which is the non discretionary spending.  Our

so called 'leaders' like to get their face in front of the cameras claiming what

a great job they have done to cut wasteful spending and its a joke.  50B over

5 years or whatever the last number was.  

A 2% across the board cut in discretionary spending combined with a 7% cut in

nondiscretionary spending would total ~$125 billion per year.  Yet

nobody is willing to stand up and take the heat to do this.  Not to mention

re-working the entitlement programs to prevent run away growth.  

Combined with currently increasing tax receipts and an eventual winding down of

large commitments in Iraq this would push the budget very close to balance.

Would we lose some races if we did this? Yes, certainly.  Would it be worth it?

I sure think so.  There would be noway for the Dems to reverse it without

either a) putting us back in large deficit or b) a massive tax increase.  

Neither would play well except with the very far left and so their hands would be

tied to a large degree.

IJB:

Ok, I'll play along.

I don't know what happens to those Moderates.

Why don't you tell me?

But, let's be clear: The primary reason that the GOP has controlled the House is the 20-30 Moderates.  Not the other way around.  And, they don't get elected by blindly supporting FisCon policies.

So, tell me: what happens?