Wall Street Journal: Walden Cut-As-You-Go campaign

As featured in the Wall Street Journal article called House GOP Leaders Push Cut-As-You-Go,

In another nod to conservative activists, House Republicans want to impose new rules that would make it harder for Congress to create government programs.Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, who’s leading the Republicans’ transition to the House majority, is asking colleagues to support a change to the party’s internal rules that would require lawmakers to cut spending or eliminate programs to offset the costs of any new programs established under fast-track “suspension” bills that require a two-thirds majority for passage and can’t be amended.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio first suggested the change during a Sept. 30 speech to the American Enterpise Institute, dubbing it “Cut-As-You-Go” — a play on pay-as-you-go rules that require lawmakers to offset any legislation that adds to the budget by cutting spending or raising new revenue through taxes or fees. He borrowed the idea from Republican Rep. Roy Blunt, who just won a Senate seat in Missouri….The rule: “Would prohibit consideration of a suspension bill if it (1) creates a new program w/o eliminating or reducing another of similar size; and (2) increases authorizations w/o offsets,” according to an aide. Aides expect it will be adopted when Republicans vote on the conference rules next week.

Full article here
(subscription may be required)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:13 | Posted in Measure 37 | 69 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    I believe this is such a good idea that it will never happen.

  • Marvin McConoughey

    Representative Walden has proposed an intelligent, thoughtful, reform that would contribute toward more sane spending. I don’t see this as either conservative or liberal. Rather, it is sound policy that both parties should embrace. We need more pragmatic reform of this quality. Congratulations.

  • Bob Clark

    This is good but more dramatic changes are best. For example, eliminate the Federal Transit Administration which throws money around on boondoggles like the Portland (milwaukee) light rail project, and now is mocking states who didn’t take such wasteful project monies and is giving these monies to other Democrat governor states like Washington. Hopefully, the U.S House under GOP leadership now will yank Ray Lahood up in front of congressional hearings. Same goes for the rogue EPA and FCC. Put the heat to these stinkers. Pare the federal government’s domestic roles and give these roles back to the states where local communities are more in touch with their public service wants and willingness to pay.

    This is much more important than tromping on the Federal Reserve. Sorry, but putting Ron Paul as lord over the Federal Reserve is a major misdirection of political capital by the GOP. The Federal Reserve is a necessary back stop in free market economies (oxymoron maybe), helping to staunch panic periods when there are runs on banks.

    • Ron Marquez

      You were right on until you got to the Federal Reserve. The monetizing of our sovereign debt is a fools mission. Sooner or later the dollar will be another drachma and buyers (if there are any) will be demanding a heavy premium. Shut the printing presses down now.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    This reminds me of the 2006 election where excessive spending was also an issue in the campaign.

    During the campaign Nancy Pelosi promised if Democrats took congress the would reimpose pay as you go (from the Contract with America days). When she ascended to speaker, she gave a speech about exactly that, Democrats promised to add no more new deficit spending.

    Proposing pay as you go is neither new nor inspired.

    Actually sticking to it would be.

  • Founding Fathers

    One question: Will this apply to the Pentagon as well?

    If we start a war, will the budget have to be cut in other places in order to fund it?

    I just want to know how serious you people are about this.

    • Marvin McConoughey

      Despite all opposition, defense spending should also be subject to cuts. Secretary Gates is making some limited progress, but the brutal fact is that we face an unprecedented combination of a rising elderly population, rising global competition, and a dangerously high level of debt. The debt is, in itself, a major national security weakness.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I cannot believe you are still on about this.

      Once again – You act as if the deficit funding of Iraq/Afghanistan was anomalous – Please point out to us the previous wars which were non deficit line items in the budget before troops were landed on the ground.

      It would be nice to see if you are at all serious about this issue or if you are simply stuck on a banal left wing talking point.

      • Founding Fathers

        But Rupert, that’s the point. The Republicans are acting as though deficit funding of other programs is anomalous.

        The difference with Iraq and Afghanistan is that those wars weren’t just deficit financed, they were largely off the books. They were also sold as being quick and cheap, especially the Iraq war. It has proven to be neither quick nor cheap, just as those of us who opposed the war predicted. We were vilified by the right for our prediction.

        You can’t believe I’m “still on about this” because you can’t believe anyone would think differently than you.

        • Anonymous

          The Republicans under Bush moved us a giant step toward bankruptcy. Then Obama moved us another giant step. Now, Obama and the Republicans seem to want to finish the job with the insane new tax bill.

          As for the military — obviously we are hopelessly overextended. With the Clinton military cuts, and then the Bush/Obama wars on the cheap, we can barely maintain two small wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another war — Korea, Taiwan, maybe an overdue attack on Iran or a nuclear war started by Iran — we would be cooked.

          With our national finances collapsing, and other countries rising up to challenge our military supremacy — which is about gone anyway — we are going to have no choice but to drastically reduce our commitments, and our role in the world.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >The difference with Iraq and Afghanistan is that those wars weren’t just deficit financed, they were largely off the books.

          Would you please support your point. Name for us the other wars that were financed as a non deficit line item in the budget.

          >They were also sold as being quick and cheap, especially the Iraq war.

          No they were not.

          Again, you are making things up.

          Bush said from day one they would be long. He did so endlessly and I cited a quote from his speech ton congress to that effect.

          Again, please stop making things up.

          The wars were not sold as cheap and quick wars.

          >It has proven to be neither quick nor cheap, just as those of us who opposed the war predicted.

          And just as Bush said from the outset

          At least you and Bush agreed on something!

          >With our national finances collapsing, and other countries rising up to challenge our military supremacy — which is about gone anyway — we are going to have no choice but to drastically reduce our commitments, and our role in the world.

          Maybe so, but thats hardly due to the wars. Bush spent next to nothing on them compared to Obamas spending so it is nonsensical to blame the cost of the wars for a whole lot.

          Ok – so thats out of the way. Lets get back to the main point which you apparently cannot back up.

          *Again – Please list for us the wars that were funded as a non deficit line item in the budget before troops were landed on the ground.*

          • Founding Fathers

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer

            “Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s troops would ‘step aside’ and that the conflict would be ‘weeks rather than months,’ a phrase repeated by other top officials.”

            It’s clear you weren’t paying attention.

            https://open.salon.com/blog/skewz/2009/02/06/cost_of_iraq_war_will_approach_1_trillion

            “The original estimate for the war was between $100 and $200 billion. Being off by a factor of between 5 and 10 would normally be considered at the very least troubling. These expenditures were ‘off the books’ because they were special funding requests.”

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/warcost_05-23.html

            “This war has been financed essentially with borrowing, which has been off the books through supplementals.”

            https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14warcosts.html

            “But the war in Iraq is largely being paid for off the books, with emergency and supplemental spending rather than from the Pentagon’s operating budget, so Mr. Bush’s figures are a low estimate of the relative cost of the war, analysts have observed.”

            See, unlike you, I can actually back up what I write here.

          • Founding Fathers

            Oh, and this is from the NY Times of 2/28/03 (https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35435.html):

            “Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. ‘To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong,’ he said.”

            Then there’s this, from USA Today of 4/1/03 (https://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm):

            ” Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: ‘It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.'”

            “March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: ‘The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator.'”

            “* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC’s Meet the Press: ‘I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.'”

            Then, of course, there was the infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech in May, 2003: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

            Rupert, have you really been paying so little attention to what’s going on in the world that you’re absolutely unaware that Bush administration officials were selling the Iraq war as something that would be over quickly? Perhaps you need to visit a neural proctologist.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Ok, so from your own source we have the following quote from Bush

            “Now, the president has pounded the podium when asked how long the war will last — “However long it takes,” he replied Thursday with open annoyance — and Myers said Sunday, “Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory.””

            Ok, so in April 2003, USA Today, the source you cite, makes quite clear Bush as well as Meyers said the war would be long.

            We also have the presidents speech to congress, in the aftermath of 9/11 where he said quite clearly the war would be long and protracted.

            Sorry, your idea that the war would be sold as quick and cheap doesn’t seem to line up with even the source you cite, which was in April 2003, less than a month after the start of the war!

            Ouch!

          • Founding Fathers

            Sorry, Dupert, you lose.

            This was AFTER the war started, and I’m sorry, but one quotation from Bush doesn’t negate the preponderance of administration officials saying the war would be over quickly.

            If you’ll read through the source I cited, there are NUMEROUS administration, both before and early in the war, stating that the war would be over quickly.

            And the USA Today story points out “the changing rhetoric of war.”

            Are you really this stupid, or do you just play one on blogs?

          • Founding Fathers

            Okay, I’m done here. I found a quotation that explains the futility of my continuing to post here:

            “It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” — William G. McAdoo

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Ok, ok, -Ill give you an easier one. since you cant substantiate the war funding comment.

          >We were vilified by the right for our prediction.

          Can you please list for us one person on the right who vilified on the basis of the wars not being cheap and quick.

          List just one – a notable one – not some guy who works at the comic book store.

          Since George Bush himself said from the outset the wars would be protracted and difficult, I dont think you can.

          Do you have a quote from a single notable person on the right vilifying the left on the basis of the wars not being fast and cheap?

          I dont think you do.

          I think you make things up.

          • Founding Fathers

            Gee, Rupert, I’m so sorry I’m not on my computer watching this site like a hawk and therefore unable to respond to your comment within 10 minutes. Please forgive me, I actually have a life and other things to do.

            If you’ll notice above, I showed that Cheney and other administration officials were saying that the war would be over quickly.

            I’m not able to quickly find specific attacks from the right about the anti-war movement’s predictions about the cost of the war. I’ll poke around and see if I can find any. I do know that those of us who opposed the war were attacked as being “America haters” and unpatriotic by people like O’Reilly and Lars.

          • Founding Fathers

            Oh, and Rupert, I’ve backed up most of my claims. You haven’t backed up any of yours. That makes you a tool.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Oh, and Rupert, I’ve backed up most of my claims. You haven’t backed up any of yours. That makes you a tool.

            Well, thats a lie, considering I just backed up that the war wasn’t sold as quick and easy by citing a full quote from Bush himself in your own citation!

            Sure I had done so previously, by citing Bush’s speech to congress after 9/11, but oh well.

            Showing your contention that I dont back up my claims is par for the course. Getting to do so again by using your own citation is funny as hell!

    • Marvin McConoughey

      Despite all opposition, defense spending should also be subject to cuts. Secretary Gates is making some limited progress, but the fact is that we face an unprecedented combination of a rising elderly population, rising global competition, and a dangerously high level of debt. The debt is, in itself, a major national security weakness.

  • Anonymous

    The new tax cut bill makes a farce of any such move as this. The payroll tax cut will blow a hole of hundreds of billions of dollars in the deficit. Where is Walden on the tax bill? If he supports it, then he’s just a blowhard on the deficit. We are racing toward national bankruptcy and the Republicans are flooring the accelerator.

  • Pingback: he has a good point()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: stream movies()

  • Pingback: streaming movies()

  • Pingback: streaming movies()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: kangen water machine()

  • Pingback: depannage serrurier deauville()

  • Pingback: fue()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: parking()

  • Pingback: electrician oklahoma city()

  • Pingback: visit site()

  • Pingback: pssl()

  • Pingback: locksmithing courses on line()

  • Pingback: click resources()

  • Pingback: plumber services rochester mn()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loan()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: electricians backpack()

  • Pingback: pay per day loans plan()

  • Pingback: car insurance options()

  • Pingback: click for details()

  • Pingback: https://crudsiverde.jurna.ro/muse-events.php()

  • Pingback: https://grabwebs.com/wp-content/details_prensa.php()

  • Pingback: https://titusleasing.com/tag-list.php()

  • Pingback: Smart Balance Wheel()

  • Pingback: アディダス 時計 メンズ()

  • Pingback: ルブタン スニーカー()

  • Pingback: ダニエルウェリントン()

  • Pingback: LOUIS VUITTON メンズ ベルト()

  • Pingback: ルイ ヴィトン レディース バッグ()

  • Pingback: フランクリンマーシャル パーカーセット()

  • Pingback: アルマーニ ベルト()

  • Pingback: ノースフェイス リュック()

  • Pingback: アディダス リュック 赤()

  • Pingback: バーバリー Tシャツ レディース()

  • Pingback: ガガミラノ 腕時計()

  • Pingback: ヴィヴィアン トートバッグ()

  • Pingback: NIKE Cortez()

  • Pingback: ニューバランス 574,New Balance 574,ニューバランス 574 新作,ニューバランス 574 人気,ニューバランス 574 メンズ,ニューバランス 574 レディース()

  • Pingback: Giuseppe Zanotti ハイカットスニーカー レディース()

  • Pingback: ヴィヴィアン ネックレス 新作()

  • Pingback: LOUIS VUITTON メンズ ベルト()

  • Pingback: ヴィヴィアンウエストウッド ピアス()

  • Pingback: クロムハーツ ネックレス ゴールド()

  • Pingback: ヴィヴィアン 時計 レディース()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)