And so it begins...

[TampaYankee]

Republicans map out their agenda of less

By Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, November 6, 2010; 12:33 AM

Republicans are mapping an agenda for the new Congress that calls for a radical reduction in government spending, a hard-line stance against new taxes and a "sustained" battle against federal regulators - all aimed at easing the concerns of voters desperate for jobs and anxious about the soaring national debt.

The path charted in the party's "Pledge to America" and in a new blueprint released this week by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 Republican in the House, is certain to provoke clashes with the White House. It is already stirring dissension among Republicans who say it doesn't go far enough. Less certain is its ability to make progress on the nation's top economic priorities, particularly job creation.

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate was stuck at 9.6 percent for the third month in a row, although job growth accelerated in October. Employers added a total of 151,000 jobs - more than double analysts' expectations. Gains were concentrated in the private sector, where 159,000 new jobs offset the loss of 8,000 government positions.

It was the strongest job growth since May, and a welcome sign that the recovery may finally be strengthening. Still, many economists see the need for further government spending to bring down unemployment. This week, the Federal Reserve announced plans to pump $600 billion into the economy through massive purchases of Treasury bonds to fuel the recovery.

Republicans reject the notion that government spending can spur prosperity. Instead, they favor keeping tax rates steady by extending Bush-administration tax breaks that are set to expire this year and repealing President Obama's health overhaul. Republicans also want to restrain government regulators and are looking to require congressional approval for any new regulation that imposes costs on the private sector in excess of $100 million a year.

On Friday, Cantor even rejected President Obama's call for additional tax breaks to spur hiring, such as a proposal to let businesses deduct their expenses more quickly.

Republicans offer "a disciplined approach to removing uncertainty and to allowing the private sector to regain its footing and begin to grow again," Cantor said in an interview. "Trying to prod business to do what Washington wants is not what is needed. We need to rein in this desire of Washington to tell business how to grow."

That hands-off strategy - combined with GOP plans for an immediate and dramatic reduction in government spending - would do more harm than good, said Bill Gale, a senior fellow in economics studies at the Brookings Institution.

"I don't get what they think they're doing to stimulate the economy right now," Gale said. "I can understand that people are angry or upset about the economy. But I can't understand how that anger and anxiety has turned into this set of legislative proposals."

To make good on their campaign pledge to reduce the size of government, Republicans say they are planning a series of quick moves to slash spending soon after they take control of the House in January. Among the likely options: a massive rescissions package that aides said would slice 20 percent from most domestic agency budgets and enact $160 billion in additional cuts endorsed by visitors to Cantor's "YouCut" Web site.

Such a package would trim more than $260 billion from this year's $1.1 trillion budget for most government operations - the biggest one-year reduction at least since the military drawdown after World War II, budget experts said.

Because Republicans propose to exempt the Pentagon, veterans programs and homeland security from these cuts, liberal analysts said the reductions would decimate education funding, the National Park Service and other worthy programs.

For the remainder of this article see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507092.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010110502343

[lookin]

Because Republicans propose to exempt the Pentagon, veterans programs and homeland security from these cuts . . .

I wonder why? If ever a budget needed a closer look, it's this one:

source: Wikipedia

Even a 2% reduction could fund the National Park Service in its entirety. A 10% reduction could more than pay for recently enacted health care reform. To not even consider a reduction in U. S. military spending seems foolhardy in the extreme.

And the fact that we can afford to cover 40+ percent of the world's military spending without being able to afford universal health care for our own people shows a disregard for our citizenry that beggars belief.

If you ask me, we threw out the wrong bums.

[TampaYankee]

I wonder why? If ever a budget needed a closer look, it's this one:

Even a 2% reduction could fund the National Park Service in its entirety. A 10% reduction could more than pay for recently enacted health care reform. To not even consider a reduction in U. S. military spending seems foolhardy in the extreme.

And the fact that we can afford to cover 40+ percent of the world's military spending without being able to afford universal health care for our own people shows a disregard for our citizenry that beggars belief.

If you ask me, we threw out the wrong bums.

It is ideology, it is payoffs to the military industrial lobby and it is preservation of home state jobs, whether or not specific items/programs are useful to the defense goal. In other words it is politics at the basest whether there is a deficit and over spending or not. Sacred cows cannot be touched.

As the lapdog of big business the GOP is nearly monolithic in worshipping this sacred cow. Many Democrats, seeking political contributions and preserving local jobs, also are also to blame in this travesty. There is blame to spread in many quarters. That is why base closures require an independent comission to make cuts that Congress and the President cannot tinker with but only vote up or down.

This will never change as long as big buiness and labor unions remain significant contributors to the political process. That is just the fact, free political speech platitudes notwithstanding.

[lookin]

I'm not sure what part of the budget 'sacred cows' represents, and what part is represented by wars we could limit by engaging in more skillful diplomacy. In my opinion, it's at least worth bringing in to the national debate. Ideologies can shift when that happens.

I also believe we should have some public discussion of our role as financier of 43% of the world's military spending. By my calculation, even dropping down to 40% would save us close to fifty billion dollars.

Imagine how many good teachers that would pay for.

[Lucky]

I'm not sure what part of the budget 'sacred cows' represents, and what part is represented by wars we could limit by engaging in more skillful diplomacy. In my opinion, it's at least worth bringing in to the national debate. Ideologies can shift when that happens.

I also believe we should have some public discussion of our role as financier of 43% of the world's military spending. By my calculation, even dropping down to 40% would save us close to fifty billion dollars.

Imagine how many good teachers that would pay for.

Would that they all were as good as Mr. Kotter... who still denies diddling Vinnie.