House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

[Scotteq]

This is certainly a good start. Maybe they can cut some more. Seems like republicans are doing what The People want. Most of the cuts are in wasteful or unnecessary programs.

Nice start that they're at least making an effort. But at the end of the day, the Senate and President have to agree.

 

[K1052]

Big Oil. Why are you mystified by it?

Trains can (and largely do) run on oil and are usually made by huge conservative conglomerates.

 

[ichy]

Oh yeah, I saw NOTHING about agricultural subsidies being cut.

While we're at it we ought to eliminate the DEA. I can't think of a more harmful government agency.

 

[BoberFett]

I am still mystified why Republicans hate trains so much but love cars and airplanes.

Don't know about that, but we shouldn't be subsidizing any modes of transportation or fuel. Let the real costs be borne by the end user and the free market will sort it out. Cheap oil paid for by middle eastern military involvement for decades masks the real price of oil. Paying for roads out of the general budget rather than strictly fuel tax does the same. Same goes for the airline and railroad industry. Government involvement merely skews the market and makes otherwise undesirable options more attractive. Government fail, as usual.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No cuts to defense? Absolute fail.

This. Defense needs to be drastically cut.

 

[K1052]

Don't know about that, but we shouldn't be subsidizing any modes of transportation or fuel. Let the real costs be borne by the end user and the free market will sort it out. Cheap oil paid for by middle eastern military involvement for decades masks the real price of oil. Paying for roads out of the general budget rather than strictly fuel tax does the same. Same goes for the airline and railroad industry. Government involvement merely skews the market and makes otherwise undesirable options more attractive. Government fail, as usual.

With fuel tax nets declining rapidly that would probably mean the abandonment of a signifigant percentage of the roads in the country outside the highway trunks, major state routes, and arterials.

The Highway Trust Fund alone has been sucking up $10B annually in general funds since it went insolvent in 2008.

 

[crownjules]

Like others have said, it's a good start but they need to carry this sentiment much further AND less along such partisan lines. Nothing should go untouched if they are truly serious.

 

[EagleKeeper]

With fuel tax nets declining rapidly that would probably mean the abandonment of a signifigant percentage of the roads in the country outside the highway trunks, major state routes, and arterials.

The Highway Trust Fund alone has been sucking up $10B annually in general funds since it went insolvent in 2008.

If the public wants something at the state/local level, they have the authority to authorize the spending and taxes needed for it.

 

[K1052]

If the public wants something at the state/local level, they have the authority to authorize the spending and taxes needed for it.

Agreed, but to make the playing field level the federal government would need to remove all direct and indirect subsidies for all modes of transport concurrently.

If that ever did come to pass I'm buying as much Union Pacific stock as I can get my hands on.

 

[halik]

Don't know about that, but we shouldn't be subsidizing any modes of transportation or fuel. Let the real costs be borne by the end user and the free market will sort it out. Cheap oil paid for by middle eastern military involvement for decades masks the real price of oil. Paying for roads out of the general budget rather than strictly fuel tax does the same. Same goes for the airline and railroad industry. Government involvement merely skews the market and makes otherwise undesirable options more attractive. Government fail, as usual.

It might be good public policy to have a solid and efficient public transit system.

(That's not to say that Amtrak is a paragon of that, but my point stands...)

 

[Elias824]

I am still mystified why Republicans hate trains so much but love cars and airplanes.

According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[78] On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak. The analysis does not consider social costs and benefits, or difficult to quantify effects of some regulation, such as safety regulation.

Amtrak is much more subsidized and less effective then other modes of transport. Republicans dont like it because its inefficient and a waste of money.

 

[BoberFett]

It might be good public policy to have a solid and efficient public transit system.

(That's not to say that Amtrak is a paragon of that, but my point stands...)

How are you measuring efficiency? Can you accurately weigh an object if you've got a thumb on the scale?

 

[Genx87]

According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[78] On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak. The analysis does not consider social costs and benefits, or difficult to quantify effects of some regulation, such as safety regulation.

Amtrak is much more subsidized and less effective then other modes of transport. Republicans dont like it because its inefficient and a waste of money.

How dare they say that about Joe Bidens national treasure!

 

[K1052]

According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[78] On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak. The analysis does not consider social costs and benefits, or difficult to quantify effects of some regulation, such as safety regulation.

Amtrak is much more subsidized and less effective then other modes of transport. Republicans dont like it because its inefficient and a waste of money.

Huge government funded road and airport projects obliterated the competitiveness of private passenger rail in the 30s through the 60s. Eventually this forced the creation of Amtrak lest all the railroads who were made to continue revenue draining passenger services go belly up.

Amtrak, while mismanaged internally and externally, has faced the basically impossible job of being competitive in the same environment. Declaring a system inefficient when it has literally been forced to be so isn't that damming of a complaint.

 

[her209]

According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[78] On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak. The analysis does not consider social costs and benefits, or difficult to quantify effects of some regulation, such as safety regulation.

Amtrak is much more subsidized and less effective then other modes of transport. Republicans dont like it because its inefficient and a waste of money.

Does it take into account the defense related costs to keep bases in Middle Eastern oil producing countries?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This. Defense needs to be drastically cut.

Agree...but we've got to leave Afghanistan and Iraq first...the cuts should then follow.

 

[matt0611]

Its a good start, its something. Does something like this have any chance of actually passing?

 

[Patranus]

A good start.

 

[Nintendesert]

Does it take into account the defense related costs to keep bases in Middle Eastern oil producing countries?

Defense related costs like the tens of billions worth of weapons they buy from us because we're the super-power with the closest military ties to them?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Agree...but we've got to leave Afghanistan and Iraq first...the cuts should then follow.

Absolutely. Once we get out of there, we need to start cutting back.

 

[spidey07]

Its a good start, its something. Does something like this have any chance of actually passing?

House controls the money. If they are actually canceling programs then it would need presidential approval I think.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, at least the repubs have got their priorities straight: Make sure the Bush tax cuts for the rich stay in place, THEN propose spending cuts, most of which seem to be of the same nature that repealing HCR was all about.

It would have been impossible for the repubs to argue for spending cuts without first getting Obama to agree to keep the tax cuts for the rich in place.

 

[boomerang]

Deficit spending has been masking long term unemployment anyway. $14T paid a lot of salaries over the past few decades. We can deal with the pain now or later when it's that much harder to do.

I'm with you 100%. I question whether we should raise the debt ceiling. I think we more than likely need to "force" Congress to curtail spending. Not raising it would more or less force them to live within their means.

And for those crying partisan this and partisan that, the Republicans have spoken. Now it's time for the Dem's to weigh in with their cuts. Hopefully both parties can quit acting like children and make the compromises needed to get this done. It should come as no surprise that these cuts are along party lines. Disappointing yes, surprising no.

 

[Mani]

More bluster - and no cuts in Republican's pet pigs - defense, agricultural subs, etc. Cutting government spending during a delicate recovery from a massive meltdown is extremely dangerous. I'm all in favor of responsible spending, but the republicans should have done all of this when they controlled both houses and the presidency while presiding over a somewhat healthy economy, not now.

 

[her209]

Defense related costs like the tens of billions worth of weapons they buy from us because we're the super-power with the closest military ties to them?

1) We might be selling them tens of billions but make a fraction in profit. Less if they are allowed to buy directly from the manufacturer.
2) They would still buy from us even if we didn't have bases there because we're the super-power with the best equipment.