There's, no doubt, some wasteful spending in the federal budget. That's just the nature of the beast. But this "We're so outraged
at government wasteful spending" shtick the GOP has got going is just a
big joke. Try this: Ask them, specifically, what they would cut and
how much it would save.
You'll end up with something as stupid as this:
to a challenge from President Obama, House Republican leaders on
Thursday unveiled a plan to slice $375 billion out of the federal
budget over the next five years. The proposal seeks to accomplish this
by capping non-defense spending at the rate of inflation and requiring
that any bailout money repaid to the Treasury be dedicated to deficit
reduction.
Aside
from those two big-ticket items, House GOP leaders came up with less
than $25 billion in actual program reductions and terminations over the
next five years, or about $5 billion in cuts per annum -- less than a
third of the $17 billion in program reductions and terminations that
Obama has proposed for the fiscal year that begins in October. (Link)
Now,
keep in mind, the FY2010 budget is $3.5T. The Republicans spent two
months working on their big budget proposal and came up with savings of
$375B or 0.66%.
Now, if you really want to get into the weeds here -
the $375B budget cut the Republicans proposed two primary ways to trim
the budget. The first was to cap discretionary spending at the
inflation rate. Now, that might be the smart thing to do for some line
items, but stupid to do across the board. Which is what the GOP
proposed. Without any specific detail the $317B forecasted to come
from these cuts will never get through Congress.
The second part
of the GOP proposal calls for using repaid TARP funding to pay down the
deficit. Nice try guys, but that's already in the budget the Obama
Administration sent to Congress. That's $45B the Republicans can't
claim for their budget reduction.
That leaves a grand total of $23B over five years, or about $5B in savings per year. That amounts to 0.14% savings per year.
What a joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment