I think the Speaker of the House has actually lost his mind. The Washington Times -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DeLay declares 'victory' in war on budget fat By Amy Fagan and Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published September 14, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget. Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible. "My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing. Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good." Congress has passed two hurricane relief bills totaling $62.3 billion, all of which will be added to the deficit. Republican leaders have been under pressure from conservative members and outside watchdog groups to find ways to pay for the Katrina relief. Some Republicans wanted to offer an amendment, including cuts, to pay for hurricane spending but were denied the chance under procedural rules. "This is hardly a well-oiled machine," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. "There's a lot of fat to trim. ... I wonder if we've been serving in the same Congress." American Conservative Union Chairman David A. Keene said federal spending already was "spiraling out of control" before Katrina, and conservatives are "increasingly losing faith in the president and the Republican leadership in Congress." "Excluding military and homeland security, American taxpayers have witnessed the largest spending increase under any preceding president and Congress since the Great Depression," he said. Mr. Keene said annual nonmilitary and non-homeland security spending increased $303 billion between fiscal year 2001 and 2005; the acknowledged federal debt increased more than $2 trillion since fiscal year 2000; and the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill is estimated to increase the government's unfunded obligations by $16 trillion. Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), said if Mr. DeLay wants to know where to cut, "there are plenty of places to reduce." His group soon will release a list of $2 trillion in suggested spending cuts over the next five years, and he said Congress also could cut the estimated $20 billion to $25 billion in pet projects that make their way into must-pass spending bills each year. CAGW and the Heritage Foundation also suggest rescinding the 6,000-plus earmarked projects in the recently passed highway bill. But Mr. DeLay said those projects are "important infrastructure" and eliminating them could undermine the economy as Congress tries to offer hurricane relief. "It is right to borrow to pay for it," he said. "But it is not right to attack the very economy that will pay for it." Mr. Schatz, though, said the highway bill included projects such as flowers for the Ronald Reagan freeway in California, which he said aren't essential spending. Mr. DeLay said the budget this year was pared down and 100 programs or offices were eliminated in this year's spending bills. "We have been doing that for 11 years," he said. He said it's an "ongoing process" that will be more complete after this year's budget process, which calls for cuts to Medicaid and other entitlement programs. Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican, agreed that Republicans "have been more fiscally sound than the Democrats were in their decades in the House." He acknowledged that "we're still trying to improve," and noted Mr. DeLay is leading the fight to reform the budget process. "We've had a good start, but many of us want to see the government be more fiscally sound and conservative in the future," Mr. McHenry said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050914-120153-3878r
If Tom DeLay is re-elected, Sugarland should be fenced off and quarantined from the rest of the city.
Earmarked projects jumped from around 8000 in 2003 to 14000 in this budget with an increase of 7.2 BILLION dollars. DeLay is now fiscally r****ded to match the rest of his intellect. SugarLand citizens need to find a fiscal conservative for their Repuiblican candidate in the next election (or as soon as the Hammer is removed after his indictment.)
In a semi-serious answer to your clever retort, I wish. I would really LIKE to see Republicans in Congress that are fiscally conservative. I mean come on, the GOP used to complain about the TAX and SPEND Liberal Congresses. At least the Liberals got the money BEFORE they spent it. These guys are REFUND and SPEND.
This is all a joke. So is there a viable political entity that fiscal conservatives should support? The Democrats can make huge inroads here and steal some of the GOP base if they play their cards right. This and immigration.
To those calling for fiscal conservatives, you're thinking of the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, that does not jive with big military spending, interventionist foreign policy and government intrusion into private lives for whatever purported reasons (just off of the top of my head), all of which cost taxpayer money that a Libertarian is probably not willing to spend. It also does not jive with abortion ban, taking away gay rights, and forcing (Judeo-Christian) religion down everyone's throats because Libertarians believe a small government has no business trying to set rules for morality (meaning more bureaucrats and more buildings to house them and more $400 toilets seats built with $100 hammers for the said bureaucrats to take a dump in). Sounds pretty sweet to me, but it never picked up any steam.
While that is a pretty big number, you can't just compare it with number of projects and dollar figure. When it comes to spending, it should be compared with the country's GDP and tax revenue. I don't doubt that it is an increase from 2003 to 2005, but it is not as dramatic as you think. In addition, just because you are fiscally conservative, doesn't necessarily mean you will be spending less money. In 2005 alone, U.S. has dramatically increased subsidies to businesses (a lot of which I don't agree i.e. airline industry, hopefully the subsidies go away after Northwest and Delta file for bankruptcy). If the government is investing on the economy (lower taxes or providing subsidies), it will eventually lead to a rise in GDP and tax revenue, thus it will balance out at the end. Just my two cents.
I think it is dramatic, especially given the fact that the President vowed to get Congress to cut the fat. They clearly didn't listen. I agree that the increase may not look big compared to total spending, but that is not what I am talking about. There was already a vast amount of pork and a Republican controlled Congress manageed to add even more. It is significant.
But if you also consider the cost of the war and tax cuts and ballooning and deficit and inflation which negates high GDP and tax revenue so it is dramatically higher.
To use the fat analogy... both fat and muscle is going make you weigh more. Looking at the weight itself is not going to determine how healthy you are or how good you look. Cutting fat does not equate to lower overall spending, it means curbing the bad spending and allocating resources to better projects. If the goal was just to curb spending and increase surplus, it'll lead to economic deflation in the long term.
Deficit spending is ok as long as GDP increases are matching up to it. Here's a website that explains it better than I can: http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/
OK, let me expound on your fat analogy. DeLay seesm to think the nation is in excellent cardiovascular shape and that the nations BMI is around 19. In reality, the nation has so much fat around the middle that the BMI actually started around 25 and has increased to 29 or so. Can you at least admit that if descretionary spending was decreased in the last few years instead of increased while non descretionary spending stayed relatively constant, that the nation would be better off fiscally?
That's just about everything I believe in - but they are a bit too radical for me. And way to radical to gain any traction in the electorate.
Both Discretionary Spending and Non-Discretionary Spending are relative terms. It begs the question of what are they spending the money on. Frankly, I really don't know where that budget is going, so I can neither agree nor disagree with you. The fact is... a government need to spend money in order to keep the national currency from deflating. That is unless government start buying private interests, but that would be Socialism, not Capitalism.
so does the current GDP and tax revenue significantly surpas budget deficits, nationaldebt, iraq war costs, inflation, and other costly disasters natural or manmade?
Good question, I would love to see the current statistics... As far as war costs, I'd imagine most of the spending is on American corporations, so the GDP should increase accordingly.
It has been stated clearly that we are talking about pork, descretionary spending put forth by Congress for projects that are deemed non essential. Pork-barrel projects are those that get federal funding by circumventing established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork and merit inclusion in the Pig Book, a project must meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two: * Requested by only one chamber of Congress; * Not specifically authorized; * Not competitively awarded; * Not requested by the President; * Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding; * Not the subject of congressional hearings; or * Serves only a local or special interest. Citizens Against Government Waste For Delay to say that there is no fat to cut from the budget is an absolute joke. That is the point. See for yourself if you like: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
