Remember, they like to call themselves the party of "compassionate conservatives."
Just as the House Agriculture Committee last week "was drafting budget-cutting legislation that could knock 295,000 people off food stamps, the Agriculture Department released findings that 529,000 more Americans went hungry last year than in 2003.
But in spite of the juxtaposition, rest assured, the party of "compassionate conservatives" plan to move ahead with the cuts. Why? Because after $2 trillion of deficits spawned by five bloated Bush Administration budgets, they've decided an argument could be made that the GOP is no longer the party of fiscal conservatives.
And don't forget, mid-term elections are just around the corner. The House conservatives figure they can offer the false pretense that they're fiscally sound, and all it takes is screwing over a subset of the population that is unlikely to vote Republican under any circumstances.
To reverse the bloat, the House Republicans want to cut $50 billion from the budget over 10 years. Later this week. the House Budget Committee is expected to take up eight different bills that will rewrite welfare laws, curb federal support of state child-support enforcement, reverse a court-mandated expansion of foster-care programs, and make significant changes to Medicaid, such as allowing states to add co-payments and premiums for families just above the poverty line. Of that amount, the food stamp cuts total approximately $844 million.
It's a drop in the budget when compared to the over-the-top deficits created since 2001 by our Republican-led leadership. But hey, these congressmen face re-election! Who cares if a few poor people get hurt? There are commercials to cut! Talking points to create! Majorities to preserve!
Some Republicans won't go on board. House Republican moderates have grown increasingly queasy about what one of their leaders, Michael Castle (R-DE), calls an unbalanced package, too weighted toward cutting programs for the poor.
Article comments
1 - Preston Parkhurst
< But that reality doesn't stop the conservative leadership from offering empty spin to cover-up their pro-corporate budget plans. >
First, off, the current administration is Republican, they are NOT conservative. The fact they used the catch phrase "compassionate conservative" means absolutely nothing. In fact, I believe this tendency for borrow and spend like a drunken sailor in a whore house with a fist full of credit cards is the driving factor that is dividing real Republican conservatives with those who are embracing this political theology of neoconservatism.
2 - Nancy
Typical of congressional hypocrisy; but the current congressional "Republicans" are NOT actually Republicans. They're Bushicans or some such, and as such they spend like drunken sailors, & divide the spoils like hyenas fighting over a carcass to be picked clean.
3 - Dave Nalle
If you're going to cut the budget you're likely to appear to target the poor because the most bloated items in the budget are and are likely to remain the various entitlement programs. That's just a fact of life.
Dave
4 - Nancy
No - if you're going to cut the budget, you start at the top with the blatant PORK in the transportation bill, any kind of perks for the rich or big business, & work your way down. The ones who can least afford it are the last ones you hit. The rich will still be able to afford Guccis, and the damned multinationals won't even feel it; but a couple hundred to someone already barely scraping by means the difference between paying the rent or eating. & I'm not talking PB&Js or rice & beans, either.
5 - David R. Mark
Preston, the opening sentence of the article makes it clear that we're talking about the Republican party.
6 - David R. Mark
I agree with Nancy. You cut the pork, not the poor.
7 - Matthew T. Sussman
Fat cats! Pork! Government! Politicans! Irresponsiblity! Evil Corporations! Hitler! Top 1 percent! Corruption! Impeachment! Halliburton! Nobody can silence me! I hold the truth! Conspiracy to make people poor! The CIA is doing..... GAHHH THEY FOUND ME NOOOOOOOOOO
+++++NO CARRIER++++++
8 - gonzo marx
oh Suss ...i don't know why she puts up with you...
{8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
truthfully, is anyone really suprised?
i mean, it is the GOP modus operandi to enlarge the benefits for their contributors and slash any kind of social program since the New Deal..
since 06 is election time, they will stay away from Social Security and Medicare...but will gladly fuck with Medicaid or any other program with an already small budget (percentage wise compared to corporate welfare or tax cuts) that affects those segments of the population which tend not to vote for them anyway
case in point...please note the Military base closings and even more so the "moving" of facilities...like the sub base at Groton (Atlantic ocean) to a much nicer, midwest red state
on and on
but since they control both House and Senate...no actual Investigations can be done unless a GOP member crosses over
and when that actually happens , sign me up for Lucifer's hockey team...
Excelsior!
9 - Dave Nalle
I agree the pork should be cut. But the problem is that enormously offensive though the pork is when looked at case by case, if you add all the money up it's just not enough to make much difference. Sure, cut it by all means. But you're still going to have to cut entitlements to make any impact.
Dave
10 - gonzo marx
say it straight , Mr. Nalle, the "entitlements" you mean are Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare... all the rest of the ones mentioned in the original article are a tiny fraction of the pork in the transportation Bill alone...much less the "energy" bill...and even more when you count corporate welfare
as for SS and Medicaid/care...you are correct, they do take up a large portion of the budget, however the taxes taken in for them make up a large portion of revenue generated, don't you agree?
an interesting excercise for an actuarian accountant woudl be to take each instance and compare the revenue generated to the money spent and compare
i bet we get a much better return on investment form the New Deal than we get from the pork
Excelsior!
11 - Dave Nalle
Medicare/Medicaid is expected to hit 1.5 trillion a year by 2015. How do you plan to deal with that, Gonzo?
dave
12 - gonzo marx
why Mr Nalle..i did not know you had voted me Galactic Overlord and gave me the power and authority to solve this problem...
perhaps we could start with removing benefits for those whose income exceeds a certain, negotiable, number...say $100k a year? those folks can certainly afford to pay for their own insurance
just a Thought, and certainly not the entire answer...you do realize that a good chunk of this comes form the Bush "drug benefit" which does not allow the government to even negotiate prices?
tell you what, you make it so that every senator and congressman receive Medicaid(NOT Medicare) benefits and i bet a bunch of it gets fixxed...
the problem stems mainly from two factors...
1) lots of Boomers getting old and being unhealthy pill poppers
2) the Medical establishment itself....it is no longer a Vocation, but an Industry...and in this transition it has succumbed to accountants > patients well being
so..the Question here is a matter of priority..is corporate welfare( see farm subsidiesw for big Agri-biz and the give aways that came out of the "energy" bill as well as the transportation bill's pork fest) more important than the programs for Citizens that are being cut?
the GOP and their apologists say no...but ask that older person on medicare...or the single mom with nothing but Medicaid when she takes her child to the emergency room what they think..
me?...i tend to side with people
and first rule if i am the Galactic Overlord is that we just shoot our enemies, no death traps and the like...oh yes, and our troopers will have helmets with clear faceplates so our foes cannot infiltrate that easily...
so much more...
Excelsior!
13 - Dave Nalle
Sounds good to me, Gonzo. That's one vote for you. Keep campaigning.
Dave