Deficit-Minded Republicans Eyeing Entitlements

[Rose Siding]

snip>
Gregg said he believed lawmakers were more serious about deficit reduction than at any time in recent years, because they had heard an earful from voters about runaway red ink.

"This is going back to our roots as the Republican Party," Gregg said. "A lot of the people who support us expect us to be fiscally responsible."
...
Gregg said he planned to attach language to this year's budget resolution instructing the committees with jurisdiction over some of the entitlement programs to cut them. The committees' cutbacks would be packaged in a single "reconciliation" bill, so-called because it reconciles those spending plans with the budget resolution.

The procedure could make a big difference in what legislation Congress enacts.

Senate Democrats can filibuster ordinary legislation, and the Senate's 55 Republicans are not enough to produce the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and force legislation to a vote. But congressional budget rules dictate that a reconciliation bill cannot be filibustered.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-budget23jan23,1,3879589.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true

[napi21]

1. Both sides should CUT OUT the Pork!

In both Personal and Business situations when money gets tight, the first thing you eliminate is luxuries. In gov't, that should be ALL pork projects! Sure, it's nice to fund pet projects for your home state. Helps get you re-elected! But when funds are tight, there should be NO monument building, researching of wild animal habits, etc.

Look at the omnibus bill that was recently passed. It's listed on cspan's site. There's lots of crap in it that could easily be eliminated and hurt no one.

That's where you start! If that isn't enough, then you look at options that would harm the least. Letting tax cuts expire comes to mind.

What the Pubs are doing reminds me of the Company who instantly looks to cutting people to reduce their P/R costs, only to seriously damage the heart of the Company in the process.

[TygrBright]

2. Oh, cool! You mean all those entitlements like...

...obscene subsidies to corporations to enable them to avoid actual competition in the world marketplace?

...Like tax money foregone to "incentivize" corporations to do things they should damn' well be doing anyway, like implementing pollution-reduction measures?

...Like "entitling" the offspring of the wealthy to hang onto every dime daddy & mumsie left them, including the three condos in Colorado, the Caymans, and Key West, as well as the house in Connecticut and the flat in New York City?

...Like the entitlement of every American to keep 100% of their unearned income acquired through stock dividends and capital gains?

...Like the entitlement of gigantic mega-corporations to horrifically inflated purchase prices on goods and equipment for military uses, not to mention obscene amounts of dough to "research and develop" fabulously useful shit like Star Wars missile defense?

THOSE kinds of entitlements?

Ending them?

Cool!! I'm all for it!

It'll save us a BUNDLE, and we can sure use it elsewhere-- like, maybe, getting Americans some frickin' HEALTH CARE for a change, hmmmmm?

Go for it, guys.

sarcastically,
Bright

[yinkaafrica]

3. They don't even bother with smoke and mirrors anymore

They just say it:
All money for the rich; nothing for everyone else.
This blows my mind.

[bearfan454]

5. Exactly

They're not even trying to hide it any more.

[UL_Approved]

4. Cut through eliminating social programs

They are going to try to eliminate all spending except for the military appropriations. This should be very blatant. I just wonder if we can dump enough letters, e-mails, and protests in the streets to stop this from happening.

[AndyTiedye]

12. They Want To Force The Poor into "Faith-Based" Programs

No hosannah, no food for you!

[UL_Approved]

6. Link requires a password and user name

Since when did this become necessary to get articles from the LA Times?

[depakid]

7. Amazing headline, No? LA Times' editors do it again.

It's really depressing how far this paper seems to have fallen.

How ANYONE with ANY INTEGRITY could after the last 4 years even print the words "deficit minded" and Republican" in the same sentence is beyond me- and this statement is just straight up dishonest:

The battle to control the federal deficit is shifting ground, ever so slowly, to Social Security, Medicare and the other giant benefit programs that account for a growing share of spending.

Gee- borrow 2 TRILLION to privatise social security- and giveaway hundreds of billions to the pharmaceutical industry in a phony medicare benefit meant to be a poison pill (and lie to Congress about the the true costs)- and that's related to deficit reduction?

What an embarassment this article is- both to the reporters and to the Times's Editors- not to mention insulting to its readers.

[many a good man]

8. Entitlements ARE NOT PART of the budget!

SS and MediCare are self-financed through payroll taxes and have their own budget OUTSIDE the discretionary budget that takes care of govt operations, the military, and pork. I'm surprised normally-intelligent DUers fall for this line of crap.

Leave entitlements alone and figure out how to finance the rest of govt responsibly. (Well OK, SS needs a little help and Medicare a lot-- but that has nothing to do with the deficit)

Cutting out pork won't do squat to fix the budget problems. It burns me up when people make a big deal out of $2 million for some stupid project or another. This is chump change compared to the military budget. You can cut out ALL pork and still barely make a dent in the total deficit. Government is grossly underfunded and neither party will take responsibility for it. The elephant in the room is the Pentagon budget: do we really need to spend as much on the military as THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED???

[TahitiNut]

11. Two elephants: Defense and Interest.

All the rest is noise.

[w4rma]

9. Pravda. (nt)

[nannah]

10. funny how yesterday's paranoia becomes today's reality

when the cabal assumed power in 2000 it was recognized (by people marginalized as extreme) that there was an agenda to bankrupt the government so social program spending could be eliminated and government spending focused on military and policing funtions.

at the same time, financial responsibility is being shifted firmly on to the backs of the working class, blue and white collar, red state and blue. the next stroke is eliminating any whisp of separation between SS taxes and the general tax fund. that effectively doubles the tax burden of the working class who earn under the social security tax obligation.

only the most pessimistic of my friends saw this coming....

[struggle4progress]

13. Bush will seek budget savings from Medicaid

By ALAN FRAM - Associated Press Writer - 01/22/05

WASHINGTON — President Bush is readying a new budget that would carve savings from Medicaid and other benefit programs, congressional aides and lobbyists say, but it is unclear if he will be able to push the plan through the Republican-run Congress.

White House officials are not saying what Bush's $2.5 trillion 2006 budget will propose saving from such programs, which comprise the biggest and fastest growing part.

But lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, say he will focus on Medicaid, the health-care program for low-income and disabled people. Medicaid costs are split between Washington and the states. <snip>

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/01/22/national_top/a01012205_04.txt


They're planning a similar game with Social Security: rack up big deficits then cut benefits ...