|

Republican lawmakers don’t like it when spending cuts they voted for hit home

Hypocrisy rating

Don’t tax you. Don’t tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.

If you adapt that old saying to the issue of government spending cuts, it applies to the hypocrisy we see HERE:

With sequestration spending cuts forcing the FAA to order the closure of air traffic control towers at smaller airports throughout the country, House Republicans are complaining.

After years of doing nothing but talk about the need to cut spending, Republicans have finally started to get what they want—and it turns out they don’t like it. But instead of doing the obvious thing, which would be to change their position on austerity, they’re simply issuing press releases and statements about how they don’t like the cuts that are taking place in their own back yard.

The problem is that their solution—to make the cuts in somebody else’s back yard—isn’t really a solution. It’s just political spin. There is no magic wand to make spending cuts be painless and for Republicans to pretend otherwise is transparently dishonest and defies common sense.

Share:

9 Comments

  1. I would rather have Republicans who vote to make the cuts and then complain about how painful they are when they take effect, at least they realize the need for budgetary sanity.

    This, rather than Democrats who won’t make meaningful cuts at all, call a decreasing rate of increase a cut or predict how terribly awful the cuts are going to be and then they are a mere blip on the radar.

  2. Their idea of cutting somebody else’s backyard is food, shelter and clothing.

  3. Doc you really think either side is different? I see no difference.

    “The House Republican budget plan (H. Con. Res. 25) spends $3.531 trillion. It plans for revenue of $3.003 trillion.”

    “The Senate Democratic budget plan (S. Con. Res. 8) spends $3.715 trillion. It plans for revenue of $3.022 trillion.”

    The difference in the two plans is 561 dollars per person. Isn’t that less then 4% per person? 4% isn’t a difference to me. Not to mention the republicans still want to spend more money then they take in. Is this what you call budgetary sanity?

  4. Brian Opsahl

    Mr. Obama has cut more than any President has …but remember what a mess he had to fix…first..?
    2 wars,crashing econ, housing market crash,Auto market crash,un-employment crash..

  5. Joe,

    Then why won’t either side accept the other’s plan and put it into law?

  6. Because they are a bunch of bums. Both sides. It’s pretty much no different then the bloods and crips. They are fighting for turf. Why share a corner when you can have the whole corner all to yourself?

  7. Your very own corner is an admirable goal, unless the house falls down around you.

  8. These towers don’t HAVE to close due to sequester. The FAA will still have a bigger 2013 budget than it did in 2012 even with the cuts in place.

    Now tell me, if the 149 towers were able to stay open in 2012 with LESS money, why do they have to close in 2013 with MORE money??

    Simple, it’s because Obama WANTS them to close, so that he can use them as a backdrop for the 2014 budget battle……..don’t think so? Organizing for America is ALREADY holding rallies at airports, preaching on about how bad the sequester is!! (See Lancaster, PA).

    The FAA spends $500 million a year on “consultants” and $200 million a year on “travel”, but their first reaction is to close 149 towers? Even a liberal can see through that BS.

    Imagine if you were forced to cut 1% of your household expenses, and your knee-jerk reaction was to disconnect the heater/AC and throw out the refrigerator. And when your family complains, say “Well, I had NO choice!!”

    That’s EXACTLY the game that OBAMA is playing with the American people, and I pray that there are no fatal crashes because of it.

  9. Craig Knauss

    My local Congressman, Doc Hastings (R-WA) stays in line with the rest of his party bitching about spending and demanding cuts. Now he’s crying because DOE may reduce some of the cleanup spending here at the Hanford Site. If it was at another DOE site it would be perfectly OK.

    BTW, Hanford lost $171 million out of a $2 billion-plus annual budget.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>