GOP plan boost Pentagon, cuts Meals on wheels and other social programs

GOP plan boosts Pentagon, cuts social programs




FILE -- In a Dec. 7, 2011 file photo House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., second from right, accompanied by fellow committee members, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington . From left are, Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., Ryan, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. The Republicans who control the House are using cuts to food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels to protect the Pentagon from a wave of budget cuts come January. Manuel Balce Ceneta, file / AP Photo








By ANDREW TAYLOR

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A key House committee has voted to cut food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels to protect the Pentagon from a crippling wave of budget cuts come January.


The cuts approved by the Republican-controlled panel total more than $300 billion over the coming decade.
They are but a fraction of the cuts called for in the broader, nonbinding budget plan that passed the House in March and are aimed at preventing the Pentagon from absorbing a 10 percent, $55 billion automatic budget cut in January that's the result of the failure of last year's deficit "supercommittee" to reach a deal.



The cuts will be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate this year.


THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.


The Republicans who control the House are using cuts to food aid, health care and social services like Meals on Wheels to protect the Pentagon from a crippling wave of budget cuts come January.

The reductions, while controversial, are but a fraction of what Republicans called for in the broader, nonbinding budget plan they passed in March. Totaling a little more than $300 billion over a decade, the new cuts are aimed less at tackling $1 trillion-plus government deficits and more at preventing cuts to troop levels and military modernization.


The House Budget Committee meets Monday to officially act on the measure, the product of six separate House panels. It faces a likely floor vote Thursday.


The proposal kicks off Congress' return to action after a weeklong recess. The House will also vote on a spending bill funding NASA and the Justice Department and on legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The Senate, meanwhile, has a test vote slated for Tuesday on a plan backed by President Barack Obama to prevent a doubling of college loan interest rates.


Fully one-fourth of the House GOP spending cuts come from programs directly benefiting the poor, such as Medicaid, food stamps, the Social Services Block Grant, and a child tax credit claimed by working immigrants. Federal workers would have to contribute an additional 5 percent of their salaries toward their pensions, while people whose incomes rise after receiving coverage subsidies under the new health care law would lose some or all of their benefits.


The budget-cutting drive is designed to head off a looming 10 percent, $55-billion budget cut set to strike the Pentagon on Jan. 1 because of the failure of last year's deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal. The Obama administration and lawmakers in both parties warn the reductions would harm readiness and weapons procurement, and reduce troop levels.
The automatic spending cuts, known as a "sequester," would strike domestic programs as well, including a 2 percentage point cut from Medicare payments to health care providers. The sequester required by the supercommittee's failure would abruptly wring about $110 billion in new spending from next year's budget, but the upcoming GOP measure is more gentle in the near term, cutting deficits this year and next by less than $20 billion - though the cuts add up to more than $300 billion over the coming decade.


"The question is whether or not to just let the sequester occur ... or whether to be more targeted, reasonable and responsible," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "The last thing we want is those kinds of reductions in defense spending."


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/0...#storylink=cpy

---------------------

Wow.. these guys are nuts. You don't return the elderly back into poverty and hunger. These are not lazy people laying in some hammock these are the poor, disabled and elderly. These guys are nuts and I sure as hell hope the American people vote these fuckers out of office. I am hoping like hell Obama wins this election and then lets get rid of these cold hearted bastards who only care of about their jobs and their wealthy constituents.

about fucking time

"The question is whether or not to just let the sequester occur ... or whether to be more targeted, reasonable and responsible," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "The last thing we want is those kinds of reductions in defense spending."


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/07/2787355/gop-plan-boosts-pentagon-cuts.html#storylink=cpy

. Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

That about sums up the GOP.

They want to cut spending but not Defense spending. The biggest expense in government. WTF?

One of the reason we have this huge deficit is because we have cut taxes and spend this huge amount of money on Defense.

Amen, WTC and SE! Eddie Munster looks as stupid as ever. They actually think people will vote for that. Research into the "conservative" and into the "liberal" brain reveals that conservatives are motivated by fear and want to be protected from all sorts of real or imagined threats while liberals think more altruistically.

I KNEW it was an I.Q. thing. The TPunks are both stupid and selfish.

That about sums up the GOP.

They want to cut spending but not Defense spending. The biggest expense in government. WTF?

One of the reason we have this huge deficit is because we have cut taxes and spend this huge amount of money on Defense. Originally Posted by WTF

The sad part is we could cut defense spending significantly with minimal hurt to real defense except for one thing: Comgress.

BOTH parties refese to allow the military to cut what should be cut. It would affect pork in too mant districts: bases that should have been closed decades ago, National Guard units that should have had their mission chnaged from what was needed in the Cold War to what is needed now, hardware that theservices have said they don't need but is built in the right senator's state, etc.

Actually, th Dems are willing to cut some things that shouldn't be cut, but the Republicans are refusing to cut things that should be cut. Neither is blaimless, and sadly as a party neither really cares about intelligently closing the deficit. They only care about closing it in a way that gets them votes--not doing what is right.

They only care about closing it in a way that gets them votes--not doing what is right. Originally Posted by Old-T

Absolutely correct.

The sad part is we could cut defense spending significantly with minimal hurt to real defense except for one thing: Comgress.

BOTH parties refese to allow the military to cut what should be cut. It would affect pork in too mant districts: bases that should have been closed decades ago, National Guard units that should have had their mission chnaged from what was needed in the Cold War to what is needed now, hardware that theservices have said they don't need but is built in the right senator's state, etc.

Actually, th Dems are willing to cut some things that shouldn't be cut, but the Republicans are refusing to cut things that should be cut. Neither is blaimless, and sadly as a party neither really cares about intelligently closing the deficit. They only care about closing it in a way that gets them votes--not doing what is right. Originally Posted by Old-T

Agreed....

Of course you know we're still at war and our troops are stretched thin. Even Leon Panetta is against cutting the military budget and he is a democrat!

This whole thing was predicted back when they talked about the super committee.

JD, I am sorely aware we are still at war. I am also very aware of what the service chiefs say they vitally need vs. what Congress seys the services need.

The two lists are not the same.

What we actually buy is very much dependent upon whose distric it is in. We still spend a lot of useless dollars tokeep posts and bases open that would e far better spent on other things.

There is too much politics among the services and between DoD and congress. Quit trying to paint the Republicans as "nice guys" who support a strong defense. Some actually do--but too many wany a strong defense contractor bottom line. And the democrats are no better.

Example: why are we keeping open an AF base in Los Angelese when it's an office park that could be easily moved to a far lower cost area.

Example: we have Navy munitions going straight from production line to long term storage because they are of no oppeational value, yet they bring $ to certain companies.

Example: The AF says they need one type of A/C, but Congress takes that money to buy a different plane that doesn't fix any opperational problem.

The complete list would be very, very long.

BOTH parties force spending big dollars in poor ways

JD, I am sorely aware we are still at war. I am also very aware of what the service chiefs say they vitally need vs. what Congress seys the services need. Originally Posted by Old-T

JD and people like him are the problem. Is is a spitting image of the folks on the left who will not listen to reason when it comes to bending the curve on Social spending. They are what they hate. Unreasonable people.

These Tea Sippers got it in their head that the Constitution says thaey can spen an infinite amount of money spreading our way of life and policing the world for our elites to prosper. I have never seen that but they sure do!