Kudos to House Republicans
February 2, 2013 at 1:02 pm in News by Tea Party Patriots 30 Comments
On this blog, we rightly spend a great deal of time criticizing those in Washington who fail to address our nation’s coming fiscal crisis. However, on Thursday, Politicopublished an article worth praising:
On a hot July night six months ago, 89 House Republicans joined more dovish Democrats to do the unusual for Washington: cut $1.1 billion from the GOP’s proposed budget for defense in 2013.
Then came Hurricane Sandy and the New Year’s Day tax bill, and as many as 157 House Republicans voted Jan. 15 to endorse a much bigger cut, taking nearly $10 billion from the Pentagon to help pay for disaster aid. It was a huge swing by any measure and one followed this week by a Monday night Senate vote in which the overwhelming majority of Republicans endorsed their own across-the-board defense cut worth tens of billions of dollars over the next nine years.
Defense has long been a “sacred cow” for Republicans, sometimes for good reason – it’s a major target of cuts by Democrats, even though it is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that drive our long-term spending problems. Additionally, national defense is one of the few enumerated powers of the federal government. However, this does not excuse the department from being held accountable for taxpayer dollars.
Interestingly, defense hawk Senator John McCain (R-AZ) accidentally provides reason to cut defense spending, even while opposing it. From the article:
“You have a number of conservatives who are in favor of cutting defense. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. It is what it is,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO. He himself felt caught up in the moment Monday, first voting for the cuts and then pulling back and changing his stand to be with his ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
“I voted aye because it was [to] pay for [Hurricane Sandy relief]. Then I talked with Lindsey,” McCain said. “If we’re going to make cuts in defense, I just don’t think they should be across the board.”
“We are seeing in the Republican Party what we have seen for a long time to some degree. Isolationism. Fortress America. Don’t spend money on defense, and part of that is a backlash against waste and mismanagement.”
Of course, isolationism is very different than not spending money on the massive level of waste and mismanagement in the Department of Defense. In opposing those who want to cut defense spending, Senator McCain just gave us ammunition.
Is this a sign of the times? Are more Republicans getting serious about the national debt, albeit more slowly than is necessary? According to this Forbes column (hat tip to Ohio Tea Party Patriots State Coordinator Marianne Gasiecki), the answer is yes, with emphasis on the seriousness of Speaker Boehner’s willingness to stand strong on sequester.
Again, cutting defense is not even close to the spending discipline needed to balance the budget and reduce America’s federal debt. It’s not even enough to modestly dent long-term deficits. But with the Republican willingness to vote for budgets that implement changes to Medicaid and Medicare, and now defense spending, the influence of the Tea Party is begininning to be seen in Washington.
WOW, NOTE SENATOR GRAHAM VOTED TO GIVE THE F 16S AND TANKS TO EGYPT, NO LONGER OUR FRIEND. A WASTE OF RESOURCES TOO !
I’m sorry, but I have to strongly disagree that this proposed budget cut to military spending to reserve it for disaster spending is anything to celebrate. The whole reason we are having fiscal problems in the first place is that too many American believe that the US Treasury is there to bail them out of every conceivable problem under the sun, and it amounts, in effect, of claiming that their financial betters or their neighbors ought to pay for their mistakes and for what ever disaster happens to strike them. It is NOT the job of the US Government nor The American People to bail you out of your financial troubles, not matter where their roots reside. It is the job of a proper government, which America used to have, to protect and to defend individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — NOT to bail out banks and NOT to bail out Sandy disaster victims.
And notice that it was DEFENSE* that was cut, and not any sort of welfare or bail-out funds cancelled, as they ought to be.
When the Republicans begin to understand the proper role of government I might decide to re-affiliate myself with their party. As it is, I have changed my political affiliation to “No AFFILIATION” out of utter disgust at how the Conservatives refuse to defend our proper rights.
Kudos on the “No Affiliation” thing, I myself I little love for our political parties and the nation needs more independents.
But rather than complain about what is and isn’t being cut I say just cut all of it: defense (conservatives will hate this), welfare (liberals will hate this), and bailouts (no one will hate this…except of course the banks getting the bailouts but they made bad decisions, they couldn’t weather the recession without help, the free market has no concept of “too big to fail” last time I checked).
As for the Sandy thing well the Dems should have passed a bill with all 60+billion dollars going straight to Sandy victims (as opposed to Alaska whatever), and the house Reps should have amended the pork right out of the bill (a house majority means they should be able to do that sort of thing easily) in at most a couple of hours rather than debate and complain for a couple of weeks.
Thomas – I agree, we need defense spending to create new technologies and jobs. Military research is responsible for many new technologies from the microprocessor, Internet, GPS, satellite communications, advanced jet engines, nuclear power, etc…
Cutting military spending to prop up the Social Security and Medicare entitlements will destroy this great country. The way I see it, hand outs to our retirees is not an investment to our economic future.
“The way I see it, hand outs to our retirees is not an investment to our economic future.”
You’re right, Hellfire! The stipends currently being received by retirees are NOT handouts. They are my government’s fulfillment of an obligation that was made 50 years ago. It is an obligation to which I contributed for a period of 45 years. It is the return to me for the seniors of the past that benefited from my contributions.
Further, they are NOT investments in our economic future. They are returns to me for the investments I made to the program for 45 years.
With that haveing been said, I am still willing to allow them to make minor adjustments to the program IF and ONLY IF it (1) extends the life of the program; (2) makes it possible for my kids to have some semblence of security in their old age; and (3) doesn’t destroy my current standard of living. I don’t have a whole lot of room in my budget to lose too much income, but I can still afford to make some adjustments.
If you are talking about ajustments to Social security as an “income” the only reason it was labled as Income by Clinton was to tax the tax benefit. Its not income its a benefit. Yes you are right you deserve it and played by the rules to get it but things being what they are the government like the auto industry coercively agreed to pay more than is sustainable and will go bankrupt. Now rather than look at that reality they are looking to magic to fix it.Keep playing their shell games if you wish I dont believe in quantitative easing, bailouts, and subsidies. So far the only cuts have been to our military as the administration looks and sounds like bagdad bob telling us how much safer we are as the islamic elements run across africa claiming more ground waiting for our exit from Iraq and Afghanistan to resurface. It is becoming obvious that national security will rely on the individual citizens to reverse their governments direction ASAP.
I think some of you are missing my broader point, and that is that NO the Federal government (nor any government for that matter) ought to be involved in welfare schemes or retirement schemes. Leave all that open to the private market, where one can by insurance of all types — including unemployment insurance and job insurance and disaster relief insurance. While it is true that one is forced to pay into the Federal Retirement Scheme (social security), it is a well-known fact that NO it is not run like some sort of savings and investment plan, and those getting back far more than they pay into it are not getting a return on their investments, because our government did not invest a dime but rather spent it all.
I keep pushing this essay, but seem to get few takers on the idea of the proper role of government, but here it is again:
http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/the_argument_for_freedom.htm
I agree 100%. It’s about time those in government recognized that the military is one of the very few legitimate functions (along with the Courts) of the government of a truly free country (which, clearly we are not any longer).
The Sandy relief bill was largely another pork bill. The victims of Sandy are still without shelter or power or both in many cases due to local unions and local governments ineffectiveness. McCain and others get suckered by the big union/big government approach of, “How can you be so hearless!” when money is going to enlarge government, buy vehicles, subsidize fisheries in Alasksa 3000 miles from the storm-damaged areas, etc. The Republican reading of the Constitution when Congress opened was not well attended by Congressmen and very few act as if they were ever instructed in its content and the meaning so “enumerated powers” does not slow them down much as they can claim ignorance without fear of contradiction.
IF the Sandy Relief Bill was clean and honest, there would be no reason to cut defense to pay for it. It was THE PORK that drove up the cost. Sixty percent of the bill was completely unrelated to Sandy. So, all we saw was yet another ploy to sanitize another pork filled scam on the American people. Nothing noble about that!
Yes there is pork in the bill, but the money is nothing compared to the Social Security and Medicare entitlements. All I see is people crying about gov’t waste which is mere peanuts compared to these programs.
Cut everything except my Social Security and Medicare because I deserve it!
You’re damn right! I paid for it; I fulfilled my part of the contract, now it’s time for the Government to recipricate.
Joe, Please accept my apology. I did not mean to offend you. I know you are Vietnam Veteran and deserve my respect. I have read your past post and agree with most of what you write.
There is no “contract.” Look, I understand you need your checks, but just take them. Don’t pretend that this is a legitimate, moral program.
First of all the only entitlements in Social Security and Medicare are the illegal aliens receiving unearned benefits. Those of us who have paid into these programs all of our working lives do not view them as “entitlements” but a return on our investment. Second if the republicans had stuck to their guns and told the democrats to stick it where the sun don’t shine we would not be having the issue we do today. Boehner should have let the government shut down – he is becoming way too moderate for my taste. The bill for Sandy relief should have included the stipulation that these fat cat insurance companies HAVE to pay the benefits to their policy holders immediately instead of holding up or refusing payments. I agree with Frank.
Resenting the use of the word “entitlement” – strike one
Calling a wealth redistribution program an “investment” a la Obama – strike two
Use of the term “fat cat” – strike three
YOU ARE A LEFTIST. STOP PRETENDING TO BE A TEA PARTIER, YOU SELF-LOATHING TROLL.
Denise – the numbers don’t add up. Most people get far more than they ever put into the system. Even if we got rid of all the illegals the programs would still be in the RED! You people want to cut everything except your entitlements! You are the 47% Mitt was talking about!
Most insurance companies don’t cover flood damage so most people need Sandy relief.
There’s a marvelous product on the market available precisely for such circumstances. It’s called flood insurance. If a person chooses not to purchase this insurance, then they can’t expect me and the rest of America to cover their losses when they are flooded out. I’m all for helping people in need as I can afford it, but I resent being forced at gunpoint to do it. What do I mean by forced at gunpoint? When the government spends, in this way, the tax money it collected from me, that is precisely what is happening. Because all taxes are collected under threat of arrest if you refuse. How are you arrested? At gunpoint.
@Oeberon: What if they can’t afford it and are hard working struggling individuals struggling from paycheck to paycheck? What if the flood insurance in question denies an legitimate claim due to some obscure loophole? Could you tell them, straight to their faces, “too bad, I could help you out but than I would have less money”?
*sigh* Sandy’s a bit of a sore subject for me, but caring more about money than the life of another is selfish and it’s un-American.
Sorry for going off topic people.
@Hellfire: How would one cut entitlements, expand military, and avoid being in the red. I’m worried that wouldn’t solve any problems, a LOT of money is spent on the military and military jobs are effectively government jobs are they not? A lot of money is also spent on entitlements and I’m willing to bet that a large chunk of the military/entitlement spending is going nowhere useful. Wouldn’t cutting spending everywhere be a better option to close the debt?
William,
I would suggest that hard working individuals struggling from paycheck to paycheck should not buy anything they can’t afford to protect or lose. To the best of my knowledge, flood insurance is provided solely by our Federal Government. Why would the government deny a legitimate claim due to some obscure loophole? It is well established that Americans are far more generous than any other people in the world. We give freely to those suffering because of events beyond their control. That is quite different from bailing out people who live beyond their means. Being good stewards of our money should be respected, not chastised.
William T. the answer was shown and given by R.W. Reagan and is called a peace dividend. Wars cost money. If you have a backbone and mean what you say as was demonstrated by Reagan droping a bomb down Khadafys chimney you can go from a Jimmy Carter Malaise to a real recovery with a peacetime dividend that peacefully removed the Berlin wall. Reagan lived in realitiesville Obama lives in Frankenhororland
Peace dividend: The reallocation of spending from military purposes to peacetime purposes, such as housing, education, and social projects.
That’s the definition Google gave me anyway…so I guess reallocation isn’t a bad idea? I’m a little bit confused by what you’re trying to say.
Also thank you for the answer Wasilla, much appreciated.
Timeing is everything if the peace dividend was a result of not needing M.A.D. mutually assured destruction after we backed away respectfully with trust but verify we may well have realocated funds from the millitary. I dont know how old you are but I remember these things growing up during them. Google wasnt born yet. The bible in eclesiastes says their is a time for every purpose under heaven.Reagan first prepared for the worst while negotiating for the best .Alot was spent to build up a military specifically air superiority and nuclear arsonal more Im sure Im leaving out. Even at the expense that was paid it was much cheaper and more effective fore both countrys since neither of us suffered a nuclear war. Once it was decided to work together Reagan told Gorbechev to tear down this wall(condensed history) It was after the expensive effective arms race that there was able to be a peace dividend. Carters way was to capitulate. Carter gave away the panama canal without treaties to protect US interest as a result we now pay China to pass in our own back yard.
There are many reasons why the numbers don’t add up. Social Security isn’t an entitltment to me – it is the Government keeping their promise! It is a welfare program for those that didn’t pay into the system; It is a welfare program for those on AFDC; and it has been robbed for many years by Congress.
No, I AM NOT one of the 47% that Romney talked about! I, for one, will never give my vote to a person or a party that insults me with some “talking point” generalization!!!!!
List of offending presidents to the Soc. Sec. Adm. 1st president to raid SS for a non retirement benefit. FDR a democrat. brought us the welfare state. 2nd Jimmy Carter payed out benefits to immigrants who were retirement age who never paid into the system.3rd Wild Willy Clinton who taxed SS as an income and since he got away with that he raised the tax on the taxed benefit. 4th under Obama we now watch as adds are run in some state to encourage people to enrole for food stamps and subsidies of various kinds. ( also ran during the end of the Bush presidency but entitlements are a liberal gov. entity.)Bush called for entitlement reform and was parodyed as a granny over the cliff with him pushing the chair. Not wanting to live in realitiesville has many who stay out of the the uncomfortable debate but are too uninformed to see whats right and they buy the magic tricks.
According to the 2012 Social Security Trustee’s Report, 2010 was the first year that more was paid out than brought in with the Payroll taxes and when the interest on the $2.7 TRILLION in the Trust Fund is added, there remains an EXCESS and the Trust Fund continues to grow. They project that the Trust Fund will survive for at least another 20 years. While some reforms may have to be made to keep it viable in the long run, we achieved our first Trillion Dollar Deficit in 2009. The claim that SS and Medicare is driving the Deficits is totally BOGUS. They may represent a problem in the future, but they are definitely NOT the problem today. Our Representatives should focus on the causes of TODAY’S problems or the COUNTRY will go bankrupt before SS does.
Marvin Wade,
Thanks for your efforts. Hellfire caused me to discover the CBO shows similar data. They show OASDI (Old Age and Suvivors Insurance) Trust Funds income exceeding outgo through 2021.
Social Security added $165 billion to the deficit in 2012. What about Medicare? Prescription Drug plan is a huge expense.
You do not belong in the Tea Party, if you are even in it. The Big Three entitlement programs are half the budget and have nowhere to go but up as a percentage of the budget as the number of retirees increase and the younger population does not. Your defense of SS on questionable arguments about its solvency are unethical. You should not be defending the redistribution of wealth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/08/21/think-social-securitys-trust-fund-is-a-scam-medicare-has-one-too/