E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Ken Strickland
While maintaining their stance that any short-term agreement to avert a government shutdown should freeze spending at current levels, Senate Democratic staffers are starting to identify areas to cut spending for the long term in a bill that would fund government operations through this fiscal year.
According to a Democratic source, appropriations and leadership staff are going through President Obama's 2012 budget request to see which of those spending cuts could be applied this year. They're also considering cutting $8.5 billion worth of earmarks, which are included in the current funding bill that passed last December.
The source says Republicans are "trying to confuse people" by suggesting Democrats object to any spending cuts.
Senate Democrats maintain that keeping spending at the current level provides billions of dollars in cuts when measured against president 2011 budget request. (However, that request was never enacted.)
"Senate Democrats have already agreed to a five-year spending freeze and $41 billion in spending cuts and we're willing to go further," said the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, in a written statement today. "But that requires the sort of good-faith negotiations House Republicans refuse to engage in."
Leave a Comment:
Good luck with THAT!
Governor Walker elequently demonstrated yesterday - how Teapublican's deal in good 'faith'!
Trickery is deception is more the way they roll...
RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans..........
Feisty, I see you posted a line and then came back with more JUST SO YOU COULD BE FIRST.............lame!
Paul, you didn't get back to me yesterday on Obama and your subpeona empowered investigation....what's up with that?
True American. You could be first, too, try harder. But I seriously doubt you care, it is just something to complain about and makes a good one-liner on FR. Have a nice afternoon.
Look at that folks... First Read's very own Inspector Clouseau! LMAO!
True American
Perhaps you would feel better on the FOX Noise site.
Feisty...........you forgot the LAME part
Job1.........I feel great right here.
Maybe you should try the FOX site for a change.......maybe you'll learn something....lol
Exactly what I was going to say, Feisty.
Beware of the Trojan horse.
And if safecracker wants to make a crude "Koch" joke here, let him try it.
Or wait. I think I beat him to it.
Or wait. ;-)
Most of them on the FOX site aren't very bright.
Job 1.....nothing like your Ann B. Portland yesterday who was commenting on Unions and didn't even know who Trumpka was............LMFAO!
Is he the guy with the big tower?
He doesn't understand his own mistake; "Trumpka". Jody asked who Trumpka was because True American didn't realize that he had meant to write Trumka, if he was refering to the Union boss.
See, here's the deal, Paul. I think he does. After all, he's a "true" American.
what we need in this country is a flat tax no deductions 10 percent for everybody I now pay about 20 percent already while the rich pay as little as possible . no more corporate welfare . don't give the corporations a tax breaks to build a factory in your state if they want to build a factory or a sport facility in your state let them build it them selves. I am tired of the sport teams asking for help building their stadium and never getting the return that we pay for .
Lets see the anti-American repubs want to cut the WIC program and take food away from babies and kids. The republicans want to cut funding to planned parenthood and take away prevention of pregnancy and stds. Republicans talk about freedoms and rights!! I say B.S you far rightwinged b**tards need to be taken to the edge and get to swimming. Get the hell out of this country you anti life non thinking cowards that you are. You won't be happy until this country is sent back to the Coolidge and Hoover days.
Gamesmanship on both sides best exemplified by Dick Durban's quote;
"But that requires the sort of good-faith negotiations House Republicans refuse to engage in."
Good-faith is a term both parties use but seldom practice..
We all better hope someone steps up and shows true statesmanship. Bloomberg news had an article in it today explaining the if the USA was a corporation they would be negative 44 trillion. We can disagree but quite frankly guys the Party's over. Show some leadership and cut everything equally. We have to we no longer have a choice.
Well said...one question tho...Do those cuts include closing tax loopholes? if so im all for it lisa s...
Yes BMartini we need to get our financial house in order. My parents grew up during the depression I think that their generation should be used as a model. After the depression they fought WW11 . People banned together to do what they could for the country.
Let's start with corporate welfare! Then eliminate tax cuts for the more affluent of our citizens! Then let's cut congress's payroll by 75%, and put them on the SS tax rolls! Let's put the congress on the same medical plan that most of our less advantaged seniors are on! Let congress pay their own way and then they can come back and talk about how fair cuts to the little people are!
first thing we need to do is start at the top and increase all taxes by the amount of 10 percent . then go right on down with the same rate of tax increase then leave it at that rate for about 20years problem solved. it is easy. if the right ones pay . remember 10 percent no deductions.
Lisa,
That would be "banded " together.
Edward, Sorry for the missed spelling but they did what was needed to make the country whole again.
I'm sure harry reid is "working" on something....It's just not cutting spending.
According to a Democratic source...................
You guys need to go back to The Columbia School of Broadcasting, I think you missed a few classes.
God this is going to be funny to watch.
How sad that anyone finds this funny.
LoL For once I agree with you, JoAnna.
Oh, this one is being celebrated Jody. Imagine that, the government making at least a token attempt at living within its means, and not passing even more of a massive debt to the children of the country. You are concerned for the children, aren't you Jody?
Yeah, the Democrats are really struggling with this one. They don't understand the concept.
A democratic President and a republican congress actually did balance the budget just !2 short years and two Presidents ago. That is what it takes, as both sides have their excesses and philosophical shortcomings, and are equally blind to where they exist. Just read this thread...
so just so im clear...when there is a deficit in the budget...then that means that whoever is in power does not care about our children? That is a "special" line of reasoning for a conservative. When was the last time a Republican President did not add to the deficit???Ill wait...
BMartini,
The Real Question is When is the last time a Democrat Congress didnt add to the Debt.. Ill wait
probably around the same time as a R president...in the 50's when there was actually a middle class dream...no one is without fault...i dont think either party is fiscally sound for the record...i guess i showed my bias as to which parties motivations i align myself with and i apologize for that...the truth is the truth however...one party would like to return to 2005 (or even 1985) and the other would like to try and move forward( to 1995 i think).i just get worked up when people say "if u don't agree with my line of thought then you don't care about the future of our country" or "our children's hopes and dreams" and all that other stuff that actually holds no merit in the conversation. Thanks for callin me out tho Steve...
the US has had a debt since its creation, The truth is no president hasn't added to the debt in some way. The budget however, is a totally different issue. As I recall, Clinton balanced the budget.
Maybe then we'll get a reduced budget plan that doesn't sacrifice the middle class, the environment, education and women's health services to further line the pockets of the top 1%.
So true, Grand Moff Joseph. I think the odds are better with democrats doing the cuts; they're not perfect but do seem to have hearts and care about everthing you mentioned.
Yesterday, in response to the letter the WH sent Speaker Boehner (the DOJ would no longer defend DOMA), Speaker Boehner commented that the President wasn't focused on jobs but rather on an issue that would divide the country. Guess Boehner was out of the House chamber when the GOPTP passed all those pieces of legislation removing women's reproductive rights none of which created a single job and all of which further divided the country.
In a perfect world that's what we would all like. But in our present situation it's not reality. We are in terrible financial trouble in this country and things haven't hit bottom yet. I wish we had people in gov't that were honest with the American people. Fourteen trillion in debt is reality whether we all like it or not. Bloomberg news {which is pretty reliable} said we are negative 44 trillion.
The source also says..............
What are you guys afraid of.........or are you just making sh!t up?.........and don't give me any of that "standard practice" stuff or I'll be forced to give you that "Cowardly Bullsh!t" stuff..............
It will be hard for the dems to identify a cut since they have never seen one before and really don't know what one looks like.
Rocco...............I LOVE IT!.......Who do they think they're kidding (except Feisty, Bev, Louis J., & John B.)
And Harry, and Dick, and Chucky are there to lead them through the process. Three Blind Mice.
Of course what they'll come up with is a "5 year plan" which ends up with more spending now, and the "cuts" coming during the out years. They promise!!
I'm certain at some point the CBO will join in on all the fun.
you all do realize that the dems already cut over $20 Bil and the reps want to cut $100 Bil? so the argument that our electede officials are actually having is how much to cut and from where. and the argument that you all are patting yourselves on the back for having actually has no merit at all.LIVELIFE,B
B - the Senate Democrats have cut exactly NOTHING! Until they pass a bill, all they have is talk. And we know what that's worth.
JoAnn not true. Last year the president presented a budget. the dems said that it was too spendy and cut some of that budget.Look it up. The reps decided that they would win more seats if they just did not participate in what the dems were doing and were proven right. they then asked for even more Draconian cuts to the already existing cuts. This is just historical fact.
About $300 an hour, and the meter's running.
Bmartini - I think you may have had one too many martini's. The republicans are submitting cuts of $61 billion not $100 billion. The democrats suggested $41 billion 4th qtr 2010.
Budget cuts are from today forward not backwards.
no such thing as too many but good looking out.what i was talking about was the budget that the president asked for and did not receive. It was cut.
and the point i was attempting(and failing) to make was that both parties WANT to cut spending levels b/c we have to. The argument is over how much and where. Pretending anythng else is just outside of reality.
point taken Bmartini, just hope you don't drink & drive. lol!
Good luck to democrats; I'd say good luck to republicans but they don't listen to liberals. Wonder how the GOPTP will feel when democrats target some republican not just democrat ear marks.
Honestly, the partisan nonsense is killing this country. Put both sides in a room, lock the door and throw in some bread and water once in a while--they'll find Speaker Boehner's "common ground" and democrats "compromise" in roughly two days tops.
Jody, did you ever wonder why republicans don't have the luxury right now to "compromise" with the LIBERALS?
Do you think it might be because they are busy trying to save the country from bankruptcy and just don't have time to make it to the PLAYGROUND today.
True American, why is everything so sensationalistic? "Save the country from bankruptcy"...right, good talking point, but last I checked there will be no crack that swallows the nation up. I agree that the deficit is an issue, but it only became an issue in the last 6 months, whereas it has been growing for decades. It is more of a talking point that I frankly have heard enough of...just like "jobs" were prior to November, or "birth certificate" was during the elections. GIVE IT UP!!
The GOP came up with $60 billion is cuts. You don't even have to try and you'd come up with that amount. That's not even 2% of the what these Continuing Resolutions are funding. And with Obama's 2012 budget and his $1.6 trillion in deficit spending, Congress would have to cut 40% of that budget, and that's just about all of the total amount of discretionary spending in the budget, to get it into balance. Yeah, and the Democrats want to "compromise". Compromise with what? We're broke.
True American. Yeah, right. Why weren't those fiscally responsible republicans busy trying to save the country from bankruptcy from 2001-2008? Or didn't all the unfunded spending count? And please, don't say the democrats were in charge because they weren't until 2007 and why did they win--all that unfunded spending, two wars and massive debt. Try spinning all you like, facts are facts and the biggest share of the massive national debt was created by republican presidents: Carter 42%, Reagan 189%, Bush 41 55%, Clinton 39%, and Bush 43 89%. The GOP was fiscally responsible to the tune of 333% added to the national debt; democrats 81%.
We could get an easy 60 Billion from the top 1 to 2%. Then a few billion from big oil. Oh, I forgot, the Republicans don't want that.
Let's say ....for fun....that the republicans spent all the money.
WHY aren't democrats leading the way on fiscal responsibility then? Why did Obama PUNT on the budget? Why won't Harry reid just make the cuts that were passed OVERWHELMINGLY by the house?
You guys don't have a leg to stand on........as usual.
Job1 your jealosy is showing.........you could be rich too if you just try, instead of crying about what everbody else has and you don't. Why do you think the rich should pay your taxes for you?
How do you know that I'm not rich. I can't figure out why you guys want to balance the budget off of the backs of the poor and middle class. Do most of your folks feel like big shots looking out for the rich and big oil.
So call your US Senators from your state and recommend that the answer is to raise taxes.
Somehow I think you're mis-judging the mood of the country.
Jody of iowa (post 8.0 ) - kind of agree with your 2nd paragraph, (forget the bread and water), but not the first
your post 8.3 siasd, you, republicans and democrats alike. Quit dwelling in the past, the rest of us want to go forward, don't you?
they are being responsible in connecticut, one of our wealthier states. they are cutting spending AND raising taxes...HOORAY for Rationalism...
JoAnna ~
Agreed again, JoAnna. They used their whole recess -- i.e., the past ten years -- PUTTING the country into bankruptcy and then FIDDLING for the past two years while Rome continued to burn.
About time they got off the monkey bars and let the democrats take a turn. ;-)
Right JoAnna,
It is impossible to compromise with crap. The Democrat's budget is crap. They live in some kind of Disneyland fairytale dream world. Every day this issue isn't addressed in a financially responsible manner, puts this country and it's citizens in further peril.
The Republican Party should be refered to as the party of "KNOW" As in they KNOW whats best for America.
Finally...
At long last.
At least a grudging...albeit tardy, concession to reality.
Progress.
This falls in the category of believe it when you see it, Bag Boy.
On both sides.
Anna Molly-
What do you make of the CBO's contention that, within 10 years, interest on federal government debt will reach $844 billion annually? Nearly $1 trillion a year to service the interest on the nation's debt?
Can you imagine the uses that money could be spent on otherwise?
This can't continue, Anna Molly.
We're done if it does.
Let's see if President Obama intervenes...
I honestly wish I were more hopeful.
I'm not.
The Party of Government will never agree to any diminution of Government.
Like their state counterparts, the national Democrats would prefer to flee and ignore the rule of law.
i guess the dems could abuse an extremely outdated parliamentary trick like the filibuster to the point where it actually holds zero meaning anymore but that would be too "courageous" for them. We have a budget deficit and there are ways to handle it without attacking the middle class, the working class, or the uber elite rich that earn 25% of all the money in America(as compared to 10% in 1980...btdub). If we are all wiling to give a little and the grown ups in the room realize that gov't does do good things then we can start to have honest discussions about where our nation's money is best spent. If you come to a budget debate and you only are willing to deal with expenses and not income then you are handicapping yourself. If you come to a budget debate on an idealogical hardline that no social program can be cut then that is also a non-starter. One group of our officials has been compromising while the other has been making demands and that makes for a weakening of whatever bill comes out of that "debate". The truth never gets heard and the mongerers always have the last laugh. I believe that Durbin and all the other "grown ups" who were on the bi-partisan deficit commission will come to an honest to goodness compromise that helps get our country pointed in a more fiscally rational path than we have been on since the last time we were there which was way back in the sixties before any of us were even born.LIVELIFE,B
You mean the rule of law that makes republicans like Scott Walker and that guy from Indiana think it is appropriate to mow down peaceful protesters in the street, with bullets if necessary?
Or, no. That's the "rule" of the Wild, Wild West, but without all the saloons with dancing girls.
Or wait, this IS Wisconsin, isn't it? Never mind.
Or is that the same "rule of law" that says trick your colleagues back into the state with lies and then double-cross them?
Or is that the rule of law that says take "good time" trips to "Cali" from your wealthy cronies for doing them favors like busting up unions and passing laws allowing them to buy power plants built with public money for pennies on the dollar and run them for private profit?
Just looking for some clarification here, Bob. As you can see, these "rules of law" tend to confuse me.
Anna,
take a deep breath, put down the leftist koolaid...wow...do you have all these lame talking points and spin written down?
You did forget "tax cuts for the rich" . That is required in a moonbat post..you forgot. I am telling George Soros on you.
Ha..i like Bob...well said...
Anna please, you can't leave out the saloons and dancing girls!
oh boy the democrats blinked. But mr strickland seems to have confused what the democrats are doing in his report. Current events refer to the FY2011 CR budget but he interjects obamas dream budget for FY2012. I am sure it must just be a typo.
No...they have to vote on the next budget pretty soon here as well so he could've been talking about that fight to come.
"Senate Democrats Look for Cuts"
Something about "Democrats and "Cuts" in the same disconcerting headline reminded me of a past headline...finally it came to me...Dems looking for cuts is akin to :
"OJ SIMPSON LOOKS FOR HIS WIFE'S KILLER ..ON GOLF COURSE"
oh well...i used to like Bob...
The cuts are inevitable. The questions is how much and if it will be in the CR and become a model for the fiscal 2012 or if it will stand alone until the next budget cycle.
you really need to chill, and how is his decision changing your life in any way. however - you deciding to break the law has direct consequences for you and your family. (unlike defense of marriage which I am not sure effects anyone but makes the folks on the right feel better about getting divorced i guess.)
Time to reinstate American values from the past: "Pay-as-you-go" and "Those who derive the most benefit have the most responsibility". Based on those two, Congress needs to: 1) institute a "War Tax" to pay for the recent and current conflicts instead of packing the cost into the deficit (this would also spread the burden beyond the military), and 2) have taxes proportional to the % of overall income, thus a group(s) making 25% of the income would pay 25% of the taxes. How is this not fair? Cover the cost, cut what we all can agree on. Governing, not rhetoric.