« | »

NYT Pretends GOP Is Reneging On Cuts

From the Democrats’ lickspittle minions at the New York Times:

Republicans Lower Goal for Cuts to Budget

January 4, 2011

WASHINGTON — Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.

What a perfect example of what passes for journalism at the New York Times. Notice that there is no evidence that many knowledgeable people ever said any such thing. (As far as we can recall, it was not mentioned when the GOP pledge was announced.)

Moreover, there is no evidence that "Republicans agree" that this is not possible. It is simply a lie.

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law

In other words, Republican leaders are saying since the fiscal year is half over they will only be able to cut ‘discretionary’ spending by half of their first year goal. They are not backing away from their pledge.

Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

Who are these anonymous aides, if they even exist? And why are they talking to the New York Times, who will only twist their words or make up statements out of whole cloth?

Yet “A Pledge to America,” the manifesto House Republicans published last September, included the promise, “We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone.”

The House Republicans were undoubtedly talking about the first fiscal year – since that is how everything is handled in the budget process on the Hill. So how are they reneging on their promise?

This is simply an outrageous misrepresentation of the facts, even by the abysmally low standards of The Times.

Republican leaders have repeatedly invoked the number. On Tuesday the Web site for Representative John A. Boehner, the incoming House speaker, included a link to his national radio address on the Saturday before the midterm elections, in which he said, “We’re ready to cut spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving roughly $100 billion almost immediately.”

Again, that is exactly what they are trying to do. And this would also put them back to 2008 spending levels.

On Tuesday, aides to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Boehner blamed Democrats’ failure to pass the regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011 for forcing Republicans to reduce their goal to perhaps $50 billion to $60 billion.

House Republicans will continue to work to reduce spending for the final six months of this fiscal year — bringing nonsecurity discretionary spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels — yielding taxpayers significant savings and starting a new era of cost cutting in Washington,” said Conor Sweeney, communications director for Mr. Ryan…

Once again, this is exactly what was promised in The Pledge. The Times is trying to create a contradiction where there is none. They are simply making it up.

And speaking of professional liars:

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said, “I think they woke up to the reality that this will have a direct negative impact on people’s lives.

“You know, it’s easy to talk about these things in the abstract. It’s another thing when you start taking away people’s college loans and Pell Grants or cutting early education programs.”

It would seem that Mr. Van Hollen is the one who is refusing to wake up to reality.

But that’s okay. November 2012 isn’t that far away.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 5th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “NYT Pretends GOP Is Reneging On Cuts”

  1. proreason says:

    “the reality that this will have a direct negative impact on people’s lives”

    Unless they reduce payments from the government to individuals or states, which is unlikely, how will cutting government possibly have a negative impact on people’s lives? Other than “civil servants”, whose compensation is a major part of the problem we have. Frankly, if they were simply paid for a year to do nothing the impact on the country would be enormously beneficial.

    • Papa Louie says:

      You’re right on the money, pro, except If we paid civil servants to do nothing for a year, how would that be any different from the past? I would go a step futher. Federal salaries should be tied to the average private sector salary. That would cut salaries and benefits in half from what they are now, but it would also give them an incentive to help prosper the private sector rather than regulate it to death. The federal government is too bloated now, so it would be a good thing if a large number of them quit. But where would they go in this economy where they could continue to work in slow motion and still get the same bloated salaries and benefits they’re getting now? Good luck with that, bureaucrats.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »