I suppose this was to be expected.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) on Friday evening introduced a revised 2011 government spending bill that the GOP said will cut at least $100 billion in spending this fiscal year, bowing to demands by Tea Party-backed House freshmen.
The continuing resolution funding the government after March 4 cuts deeply across all areas of domestic spending (pdf) and singles out many programs for complete elimination.
In the CR $81 billion has been cut from non-security programs, and security-related programs have been reduced by $19 billion, compared to Obama’s 2011 budget request.
The legislation will increase funding for the Department of Defense by 2 percent over last year’s level.
The Department of Defense never gets a haircut.
Sen. Inouye told them to go fly a kite.
“It is clear from this proposal that House Republicans are committed to pursuing an ineffective approach to deficit reduction that attempts to balance the budget on the back of domestic discretionary investments, which constitute only a small percentage of overall federal spending. The priorities identified in this proposal for some of the largest cuts – environmental protection, healthcare, energy, science and law enforcement – are essential to the current and future well-being of our economy and communities across the country,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said in a statement.
“I am disturbed that some Republicans have indicated a willingness to allow a government shutdown. No responsible elected official should even consider such an option,” he added.
The Republicans made a lot of promises they can’t keep. Most of them, it is irresponsible to even attempt to keep. In any case, they feel like they have to humor their unhinged freshmen and their lunatic base, so they’ve introduced armageddon as their first offer on the Continuing Resolution. We may not have to wait for the fall to get a government shutdown. This proposal is so far removed from anything rational that it cuts transportation spending by nearly a quarter. Its cruelty is detailed in the cited article. Its job-crushing idiocy must be described elsewhere.
Sen Inouye, during the Iran Contra hearings that Iran Contra was it’s own large shadow government. The Republicans shouted him down.
The budget cuts are a sign of hatred. It’s the vulnerable people that get hurt. Reagan may be dead in body, but not in spirit.
I am really worried about this. The tea bagger primary threat against any republican who dares cross them creates a new dynamic that makes pure insanity that should be clearly impossible quite possible. They were all weaned on the “drown gov’t in a bathtub” teat and “government is the problem” rhetoric and many would see collapse as a necessary step to achieve their goals.
I agree. The republicans have no motivation to compromise. They’ve learned that the tea party will punish them for any deviation from a hard right line. In contrast, they have nothing to fear from the electorate as a whole, which won’t punish them at all for bringing down the country. It’s hard to see how this ends well.
I certainly have no idea what will remain of the Republican Party after Nov, 2012.
But, if they force a Gov’t shutdown, and it appears they are on the path to doing that in less than a month, I suspect more than one R to D transformation in the House among those R’s who actually do want to be re-elected. I also expect a bunch of teabagger R’s to be seeking employment (and health insurance) elsewhere in less than two years.
Would be sorta cool to see Minority Leader Pelosi emerge as Majority Leader before Jan 2013
They are not interested in passing any legislation. This is going to turn into a circus about whipping up their base to try and raise money. My hope is the the Republicans nominate and adult and the tea-baggers run their own renegade candidate and split the right.
Booman, Johnathan Bernstein says he can imagine three possibilities for House Republicans:
1 – “they believe, as a matter of negotiating strategy, that the best thing to do is start off as far to one side as possible, because negotiators inevitably wind up splitting the difference between the two opening positions”;
2 – “whatever the rank-and-file believes now, once things get going (and after they record their initial votes for their preferred policy) they will be willing to go along with whatever the leadership tells them is possible”; and the truly dangerous scenario…
3 – “there are a very large number of Members who for reasons either of political calculation or true belief will always find “reject Washington deals” to be the best course of action.”
If Republicans choose door #3, then they’ll confront the painful fact that one president has more power (and a more unified message) than 250+ members of Congress. They’ll also run the risk (I predict) of looking like the political equivalent of George Foreman in the 8th round in Kinshasa, 1974.
Hopeful that ineluctable will morph into unelectable.