House GOP spending plan falls short of promises

February 7, 2011. Washington. Republican House leaders unveiled their F2011 budget plan while critics complained that it falls embarrassingly short of their 'Pledge to America' promise.

In September 2010, in what Democratic Party spokesmen called an election eve stunt, Republican Party leaders released their 'Pledge to America'. Among many promises was a pledge to, "Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels (will save $100 billion)". However the plan put forth by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will only cut approximately $32 to $35 billion, well short of the $100 billion promise.

Symbolic of America's financial woes, Chairman Ryan attempted to explain away his budget cap not as a broken campaign promise, but instead using mathematical terms. The only problem - his math doesn't add up. That's not a good quality in the person who was just put in charge of the nation's finances.

For starters, the U.S.'s entire budget process is in shambles. Our Federal government has been functioning on one temporary spending band-aid after another. The current temporary plan expires March 4th. If a budget or another temporary spending bill is not passed by then, the Federal government will be forced to shut-down until one is passed. In reality, America has been operating without a fiscal year 2011 budget since the budget cycle began last October.

With Republican leaders and staffers referring to the eight remaining months in the budget cycle, they claim that if prorated, the $32-$35 billion in cuts is in line with the original $100 billion pledge for the full year. If you do the math however, with two-thirds of the cycle to go, two-thirds of $100 billion is $66-$67 billion. It appears the GOP missed their promised cuts by 100%. Either Congressman Ryan and his staff are terrible at 4th grade math or they're already being dishonest with the American people right out of the gate.

With Democratic Party operatives taking advantage of the GOP stumble, they are already calling attention to the broken promise in the Republican's 'Pledge to America'. In response however, some GOP spokespeople are claiming that the $32-$35 billion in cuts satisfies the spirit of the promise because it's actually $74 billion less than the amount President Obama had asked for. That's a political tactic called 'bait and switch' and it still falls short of the pledge.

Ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was quoted as saying, "The House Republicans' proposed drastic cuts in funding for the current year are a step in the wrong direction at the wrong time". With a number of Senators from both parties in agreement and staunchly refusing to support any cuts in spending below 2010 levels, it appears the nation is in for one heck of a budget battle. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) gives hope however, "I'm a realist. I think we're going to end this year with some spending cuts. Let's do it in a sensible fashion so we don't kill the recovery and we don't stop the basic functions of government".

Now, the important part everyone is waiting for - what programs are cut? The answer to that is yet to be decided. For now, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) has left it up to the 12 Appropriations Subcommittees to delegate specific cuts. As a starting point, here are the cuts Chairman Rogers imposed to meet Chairman Ryan's $1.055 trillion spending ceiling.

Digging themselves a hole right off the bat, the committee recommended increasing spending for Defense by 2%. That flies in the face of many critics who argue that America already spends as much as four times more on defense than the next two countries combined. At the beginning of 2010, the U.S. spent roughly $663 billion to China's $98 billion and Britain's $69 billion, the two highest spenders after the U.S.

The brunt of the cutbacks were targeted at the Department of Transportation with a 17% cut. Housing will also see a 17% cut. The Commerce Department and the Justice Department will each see a 16% reduction. The Agriculture Department will see a 14% cut. Being spared somewhat were the State Department, Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Department of Education - which would each see a 4% cut to their respective budgets.

Fairing by far the best was coincidentally enough, the Legislators themselves. Leaving hefty increases to their own personal budgets in place, they will only have to cut their personal spending by 2% - the smallest cut of all. That announcement enraged taxpayer advocacy groups nationwide. "They're protecting their bottom line while slashing everyone else's" said Steve Smith of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

It appears to be a valid argument when you consider that if the law takes effect, it will guarantee the lay-offs of tens of thousands of Federal employees, not to mention the ripple effect causing lay-offs throughout the states and municipalities. America's poor will see large cuts in heating and housing subsidies. Schools will see an instant reduction in funding and grants. Law enforcement agencies will be forced to take officers off the street. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission will have to cut back on inspections at a time when the universal opinion is that they can't protect the American people with the limited resources they have now. Even revenue-generating agencies like the IRS will have to make due with fewer employees.

And while the rest of the country takes a 17% hit on top of the 30 to 50 to 100 percent hit they've already taken depending on their individual circumstances, our elected officials in Congress have offered to take a whopping 2% cut. To most Americans, that's not an offer. That's an insult.

If you'd like to receive this daily column in your email inbox, simply click on the 'Subscribe' button above and enter your email address. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any time.

We welcome all questions, comments and suggestions. Email illinoisindependence@yahoo.com