One of the House's top Republicans says he believes the chamber will soon vote to block spending for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told reporters Tuesday that by the time the House approves a government-wide spending bill for this year, it will end up prohibiting the use of money for the overhaul. The House is expected to debate that legislation shortly.
That overhaul, which became law last year, is one of Obama's proudest legislative achievements. Republicans have opposed it as a costly, big-government overreach.
Spending for government programs expires March 4 unless Congress approves new legislation providing extra funds.
Cantor, a Virginia Republican, and other GOP lawmakers want to use the spending bill to cut government expenditures across the board.
I know a lot of us (and for damn good reason) are still skeptical of the current Republican leadership. But, the fact that they have only finished their first month of office and they are doing so much of what they promised to do instead of doing "feel good" things leaves me encouraged. Now don't disappoint and piss us off guys. Keep going.
The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on whether to block funding for President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul when it takes up a budget plan next week, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday
The Republican-led House this week will push through legislation aimed at making government rules and regulations less burdensome for business, setting up a standoff with President Obama over some of his key initiatives, including the new health care law, and testing Obama's efforts to appear more business friendly. The House measure, scheduled for a vote Thursday, would require committees "to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations" and the rules' effect on jobs and economic growth. I would suggest -- not that anybody listens to my opinions -- that the regulations be reviewed in reverse order of date of creation, and that quantified justifications be required.
The GOP's assault on federal regulations will begin in the Government and Oversight Reform Committee, where business leaders will testify this week about which regulations they believe are hindering job creation.
The business community is expected to take aim at a host regulations, including those enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Transportation Department. They will also likely go after the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas limits for new and expanding power plants and refineries that were implemented Jan. 2 as part of Obama's effort to curb climate change.
"It's an extremely bad idea and not well put together," Rosario Palmieri, the vice president for infrastructure, legal and regulatory policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, told The Washington Examiner. "We have asked Congress to take another look at it and find a way to prevent that from continuing to be implemented."
House Republicans in recent weeks solicited comment on burdensome regulations from hundreds of companies and trade associations that will bolster committees' efforts to kill off some of those rules. But it will likely also set off a battle with the White House, particularly if the panels target regulations tied to the health care bill or Wall Street financial reforms.
A fight over regulations with the GOP puts Obama in an awkward position politically. After losing the House to Republicans in the November elections and watching the Democratic majority shrink in the Senate, the president has moved to shore up his support among independent voters and in the business community.
Last month, with the Republican attack on regulatory red tape looming, Obama ordered his own review of agency rules, penning an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal that called for the elimination of "absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money" and "regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb." He struck that same theme in his State of the Union address.
Despite his efforts and the weak growth in jobs reported last week, Obama is not likely to match the GOP's enthusiasm for rule cutting as a way to stimulate the economy. Republicans point out that the president's cuts don't apply to some of the most rule-heavy, independent agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. Obama has also signaled that he believes the regulations imposed by the health care reform law and the financial regulatory reform law should not be part of the review.
Republicans have no intention of excluding any agency from their scrutiny.
"You have to question whether President Obama's plan is really about creating jobs or just headlines when it exempts some of the agencies that impact our economy the most," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Read more at the Washington Examiner Holy crap! Elected officials actually doing what they promised the voters! Did we just go through the looking glass?!?
#1
I highly approve, this Nation has become as regulated as the USSR (Before they fell) and this Nannyism has to stop.
We're as leashed as a pet dog on his walkies, told when and where to do his business.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/08/2011 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Can't make regulations if there is no funding for the departments. It's very simple. It just takes 'will'.
#3
More empty posturing. Failure to apply existing regulation contributed greatly to the Great Recession. This is not improving the GOP's chances in 2012. How about abolishing No Child Left Behind and the entire Dept. of Education, for a start?
I still can't recall seeing anywhere any kind of a plan to start systematically pruning government. Do we need an EPA? If we do, does it have to be the size and rapacity it is? Do we need a Department of Education? Why didn't we need one before 1979? Assuming we need it, which I doubt, does it have to be the cumbersome size and weight it is?
How about National Public Radio? It's not the Voice of the U.S. Government, which would kinda sorta be its justification for existence, so why do we all have to support the muppets and All Things Considered? Has the Head Start program ever actually given anyone a head start, or has it only provided a federally funded baby sitting service? What does the Appalachian Regional Commission actually do? Could the functions of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry be carried out by the CDC?
Whatever happened to the President's Council on Physical Fitness? I'll tell you what happened: it's still around. It has a web site with the face of a smiling young girl of undetermined ethnicity eating a whole wheat sandwich and some old folks hiking. Do we need to pay for it, as we've been paying for it every year since 1956? Since we're all accused of being morbidly obese it probably hasn't been all that effective, has it?
Government has been growing casually over the years. Why is the Defense Department larger today than it was when we were fighting the Germans and the Japanese? Does the Department of Labor need to employ umpty thousand lawyers?
All these questions and more barge into my mind every time I hear the word "trillion." I'm wondering why the politicians aren't thinking the same things.
House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is expected to enter into the congressional record a cap on discretionary spending as promised by House Republcians prior to the election. From National Journal:
The cuts will be part of legislation, which will be unveiled as soon as Thursday, that will fund the remainder of the fiscal year. The current continuing resolution expires March 4, and the House is expected to vote on the Appropriations Committee package next week.
House Republicans pledged during the run-up to the midterm elections to roll back nonsecurity discretionary spending to levels equivalent to fiscal 2008, which amounts to roughly $100 billion less than requested in President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget. The $1.055 trillion represents a $73.6 billion cut from Obama's request, according to House Appropriations Committee data.
Ryan and other Republicans have promised more cuts in the future.
What's most remarkable about this, however, is that they had to get a rule that would allow the chairman to set such a cap. By placing a spending limit out of reach of those who would want to tear it down, Republicans hope the rule will stick. Rep. Hal Rogers, who became chairman of the appropriations committee despite general concern about his willingness to appropriate, is also tearing into spending:
Under the spending plan unveiled last week by Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., $42.6 billion would be cut from nonsecurity discretionary spending, while $7.6 billion would be added to security spending, for a net cut of $34.98 billion from current levels.
One can't help but wonder when they're going to start making excuses for ramping that spending back up.
#1
The mod that put in the yellow part of the article (Fred?) makes some good points.
I think this is just managing what was already passed and dealing with the now before setting up the next budget. However, I would love to see a systematic plan from the Republicans on exactly how they are going to prune the spending.
We have more departments than ever and they constantly do little more than make the rest of our lives even more complicated and expensive.
More and more stories of corruption and incompetence from all agencies are coming out and expect to see that this is only the tip of the iceberg (see ATF running guns to Mexico for starters).
Get a plan guys, for now it just looks like a guy with a hedge trimmer whacking at the overgrown shrubbery, but there needs to be a plan for getting rid of the plants that you just don't need, take up space and suck up all of your fertilizer and water at the expense of your garden.
#3
In the 'real world' such departments or organizations would have to justify their existence once in a while and point to some actual, measurable, and dependable, results (as in Revenue or benefit to their clients).
What has the Department of Education actually produced? By all accounts our kids are dumber than ever (and definately dumber than most of the rest of the planet). Seems to me that the DOE's main accomplishment is to dumb down the American student.
Ditto for Energy - the Department Of Energy's main purpose is to stifle any and all means of domestic energy generation.
Homeland Security is more interested in groping as many men and women (both comely and ugly) as possible at the Airports than actually securing our wide open southern border.
And Don't get me started on the EPA - who's main focus recently seems to be crying over spilled milk and regulating cow farts.
And of course I resemble Fred's remark on the results of the 'President's Council on Physical Fitness'...
Some Students at Mansfield ISD schools could soon be learning Arabic as a required language. The school district wants students at select schools to take Arabic language and culture classes as part of a federally funded grant.
The Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant was awarded to Mansfield ISD last summer by the U.S. Department of Education.
As part of the five-year $1.3 million grant, Arabic classes would be mandatory at Cross Timbers Intermediate School and Kenneth Davis Elementary School. The program would also be optional for students at T. A. Howard Middle School and Summit High School.
Parents at Cross Timbers say they were caught off-guard by the program, and were surprised the district only told them about it in a meeting Monday night between parents and Mansfield ISD Superintendent Bob Morrison.
The DOE has identified Arabic as a language of the future. But parent Joseph Balson was frustrated by the past. Why are we just now finding out about it? asked Balson. Its them (Mansfield ISD) applying for the grant, getting it approved and them now saying theyll go back and change it only when they were caught trying to implement this plan without parents knowing about it.
Trisha Savage thinks it will offer a well-rounded education. I think its a great opportunity that will open doors. We need to think globally and act locally.
Mansfield ISD says in addition to language, the grant provides culture, government, art, traditions and history as part of the curriculum.
Some parents had concerns over religion. The school doesnt teach Christianity, so I dont want them teaching Islam, said parent Baron Kane. During Mondays meeting Morrison stressed the curriculum would not be about religion, but about Arabic language and culture, similar to the Spanish curriculum already in place in the district.
Kheirieh Hannun was born in the Middle East but raised in the U.S. She believes giving students the option to learn Arabic will give her son and others like him the option to learn more about their culture. It was surprising, but I think its okay, and it will help come down on the stereotype. Hannun says she is hopeful the class could broaden the minds of not only students, but also parents.
The FLAP grant was awarded to only five school districts across the country, including Mansfield. I guess we need more Arabic speakers so that we will have adequate numbers of Christian overlords to rule over Arabs in the future.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
One of the House's top Republicans says he believes the chamber will soon vote to block spending for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.
The Republican-led House this week will push through legislation aimed at making government rules and regulations less burdensome for business, setting up a standoff with President Obama over some of his key initiatives, including the new health care law, and testing Obama's efforts to appear more business friendly. The House measure, scheduled for a vote Thursday, would require committees "to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations" and the rules' effect on jobs and economic growth.
House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is expected to enter into the congressional record a cap on discretionary spending as promised by House Republcians prior to the election. From National Journal:
