GOP Budget Cut Battle Shows Party Health

January 25, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (3)

In the campaign that recently ended, the House Republicans made—as part of their “Pledge to America”—the promise that they would cut $100 billion out of the federal budget over the course of fiscal year 2011.

It's a promise that has created some trouble for them. The U.S. fiscal year begins in October, meaning we're almost a third of the way through it, a fact that has led some GOP leaders to redefine the number downwards.

This has not gone over well with the Tea Party movement and other economic conservatives, who believe the promise is not being kept. Unfortunately for all concerned, it's a matter of definition. The GOP leadership seems to believe it is keeping faith with its promise, while any number of the activist groups that propelled them into the majority think they were promised $100 billion in cuts, and that anything less marks the return of “business as usual.” [See a roundup of political cartoons on the economy.]

Stepping into the breech is the House Republican Study Committee, a group of the party's more conservative members, who last week wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, urging him to kep the promise.“The first step in restoring the trust of the American people and rebuilding the American economy is, simply, to do what we said we would do during the campaign,” they wrote. That means, the letter—signed by 90 members of the House GOP Conference—says, “We still must keep our $100 billion pledge to the American people.”

“These $100 billion in cuts to non-defense discretionary spending not only ensure that we keep our word to the American people; they represent a credible down payment on the fiscally responsible measures that will be needed to get the nation's finances back on track.” [Take the poll: Should the GOP's $2.5 trillion in suggested cuts become law?]

New Jersey Republican Scott Garrett, the chairman of the RSC's Budget and Spending Task Force, sees the issue as an important one. “The message from the American people in November was loud and clear. They want us to put an end to the spending binge in Washington, D.C., and return to an era of fiscal responsibility,” he said in a statement that was released at the same time as the letter. “It's imperative that we live up to the promise we made in the 'Pledge to America' to cut $100 billion in spending by returning to 2008 spending levels. These cuts represent the first step, not the last, toward addressing the looming debt crisis facing our country.”

Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, chairman of the RSC, tossed in his two cents, saying, “Every dollar we do not spend today reduces the debt our children will have to repay tomorrow. The future of American prosperity rests on whether Washington confronts the growing debt crisis with necessary spending cuts. Now is the time to show our resolve and begin to cut spending immediately.” [Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

It's an important fight, but one that speaks to the health of the new majority rather than to its weakness. Whether or not they are able to actually cut $100 billion from the FY 2011 budget, the pressure the RSC is putting on the leadership means the debate over spending cuts will remain at the front of the line, right up there with the need to take actions that facilitate rather than retard job creation.

Tags:
Jim Jordan,
Tea Party,
Congress,
Republican Party,
John Boehner,
deficit and national debt,
federal budget,
unemployment,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The alleged Jefferson quote, while reflecting some of his sentiments, is not authentic. It is not found in any of his writings, nor in the writings of his contemporaries. The terms "inflation" and "deflation" had not come into use in reference to economics. "Inflation" is documented first in 1838, 12 years after Jefferson's death. "Deflation" first appears in 1920.

Mac of AL 1:41PM March 10, 2011

Anyone who thinks cutting government spending is the answer to our economic problems does not know or understand our debt-based monetary and banking system. We have a severe debt problem because the federal government fails to exercise its sovereign authority to issue our nation’s money.

The failure is not new. This year is the two hundred years anniversary of a great constitutional battle with the banks, a battle started and lead by Thomas Jefferson and championed by, then President, James Madison. Congress refused to renew the charter of the first central bank of America on the grounds that the constitution gave the power and authority to issue the nation’s money to congress, not to a privately owned banking corporation.

On the topic of money creation, Jefferson wrote, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

But we have not listened to Jefferson. The Federal Reserve and the banks that make up the monetary system are an assemblage of privately owned corporations that create 99.9% of our money as the principal of loans. Every dollar, with the exception of coins, is borrowed money, and it all must be repaid with interest. Since no one creates the interest, there is always an inherent shortage of money in our system. Furthermore, as we payoff debts without replacing them with new ones, we reduce the amount of money in the economy. If we paid off the national debt, the nation would have no money. The simple fact is, if there were no debt; there would be no money.

Only government can solve our economic problems. If our government issued our money as a public utility, we would not have a national debt, we would not pay a huge amount of our tax revenue to the banks as interest, we would not have a scarcity of money in our economy, we would not have to slash needed government services, or need an income tax.

BILL PARKS of MD 10:16PM January 25, 2011

I understand the problem but that has always been the problem. Time is of the essence. Don't have full year. We have been hearing military cuts are on the table. Go there.

Let it be said we went to the waste and began demolishing what barry hath brought us. Gave America government friendly for jobs.

If we fail, let it not be for us not trying. Let the people see who stopped us.

Bill Hedges of MO 2:27PM January 25, 2011

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement