As lawmakers in Washington, D.C., rev their engines at the starting line of yet another high-stakes game of budgetary chicken, several of California’s Democratic congressmembers took to the phones this week to fill in the dots on what exactly the GOP’s current $60 billion worth of federal spending cuts proposal would look like when applied here in the Golden State. “There is no doubt people will be laid off and programs shut down,” explained Rep. Lois Capps during the unique phone-in press conference Thursday morning. “Add this to the massive cuts at the state level and this is going to be such a double whammy for us,” she said.
Joined in the teleconference by representatives Zoe Lofgren, Sam Farr, Mike Thompson, John Garamendi, George Miller, Linda Sanchez, and Lucille Roybal-Allard, Capps and her peers painted a rather bleak picture of what the officially titled Continuing Resolution (HR 1) would mean should it become a reality. Described by Napa’s Mike Thompson as the equivalent of looking “to lose weight by cutting off your legs,” the Republican-promoted plan — which is currently working its way out of the House of Representatives and headed to the Senate later this month — would viciously and immediately hack away at mostly domestic federal spending that, to hear critics tell it, would unfairly target middle- and low-income families.
Designed to cap expenditures at last year’s levels, the bill would essentially leave the feds with a roughly $1 trillion billfold to make it through to the end of this fiscal year (September 30) while taking money away from: transportation (good-bye high-speed rail in California); water resource projects (California’s Delta project would face potential shutdown via a series of proposed cuts to various related research efforts); the National Endowment for the Arts (things like PBS and NPR are once again on the brink of being cut into nothingness); heating subsidies for low-income households; community health care programs like Planned Parenthood and Family Planning ($1.2 billion worth of community health care cuts, to be exact); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (marine sanctuaries, such as the Channel Islands, stand to be particularly hard hit); the National Science Foundation’s various research projects (a more than 50 percent reduction in funding is proposed); funding for the new health-care reform bill; and crucial low-income education offerings via Title 1. “This is going to equal serious, serious job loss,” testified Walnut Creek’s John Garamendi. “It is a whole lot of craziness, really.”
The bill comes as the feds try to reconcile a rampaging spending deficit and newly elected Republican and Tea Party representatives aim to deliver on campaign promises of spending cuts. However, with both the White House and the Democrat-led Senate on the record as being opposed to the current budget proposal, the stage seems particularly pregnant with the possibility for an outright government shutdown when the current stop-gap spending measure expires on March 4 — an anything but ideal side-effect of gridlock between Republican and Democrat lawmakers. Such partisan warfare has not led to a shutdown since 1995 when the GOP took on the Clinton administration in a similar budget wrestling match.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
You mean the budget does not have a line item to cut, called "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse"?
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
February 19, 2011 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about cutting the millions given to NASCAR?
EZK (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EZK: please elaborate on NASCAR's funding. (How weird, just seconds ago my dad and I were talking about the results of the Daytona 500)
I'm out of the loop on NASCAR being subsidized.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2011 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Sports world in general could use a cut in outragious pay. Just think of it, the game that kids and adults play for fun on any given day, demands a $10 Billion dollar contract to a guy who can't play well with others or lacks the ability to do more than throw a ball, catch a ball or hit a puck with a stick.
We pay our sport players and their teams more in cash and endorsments than the Government does in taxes or the Presidents makes. We cry about Unions being outragous but we give an 20yr old, intellentual fool a Billion dollars to run down a field with a ball tucked under his arm. Granted, we are entertained but at what cost? Here in DC, the Redskins can't get out of last place but there lowest players made in 2009 Byron Westbrook made $317,280 in one year and the Highest player Albert Haynesworth made $11,007,280 in the same year ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team/was... ).
For the crap of a season, they should have fired, not paid more, look at the stats for the other teams on the website provided to see if your team player makes more than you do for all your life and only in one Season?
That was just NFL, what about NASCAR, NBA, NHL, MLB and countless other major league sports compared to the minor's or College sports, imagine how much more richer we all could be if that money spent a simple-played sport for fun by anyone of us could do for our State's, Counties or Cities?
Not a Lecture, just a thought!
Charles.
dou4now (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am so proud of you as my Congresswoman. Why can't we get more media coverage of the ridiculous and disgusting waste with NASCAR??
I will write about it........in the Montecito Journal.....Oprah is my next door neighbor.....maybe I can help in some way! This is where politics gets totally idiotic.
Penelope
penelopeb (anonymous profile)
February 21, 2011 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, two people say NASCAR is being subsidized including one who (I assume) read my previous comment. So far, no statistical citation. I'm not saying you are lying, but so far I'm still waiting for a solid explanation.
If you can't back this with facts, then you've made no point.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 22, 2011 at 5:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is true that there is a wide variety of instances where our taxes are being misused and misappropriated but there is a 400 lb. gorilla in the room that is hardly getting a nod. I am speaking of the gross imbalance in the tax structure for corporations, their vested interests, the banking industry and the players on wall street. With the current government structure as it is I believe our society is much closer to an oligarchy than a democracy. Truth be known it probably has always been such but today it seems that the passivity of the public in general has allowed the runaway, blatent takeover of our government by loggyists representing those interests and a certain political party that is their representative in Washington. It is no wonder that the laws being pushed through our congress are going to once again hurt the middle and lesser financially successful of us. We are again going to be asked to do with less and compromise our life styles more than we already have so that the individuals who really control the purse strings of this country can add to their wealth and power. It amounts to a tantamount rape and pillage by the ones with wealth of those who "serve" their needs and wants.
iavoidtraveler (anonymous profile)
February 22, 2011 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BillC - They are referring to the fact that the Dept. of Defense advertises with NASCAR
That is irrelevant to the topic at hand, I don't know why people complain so much about that. If you want to talk about how much the DoD spends on advertising, and you want to cut said advertising then GREAT! Cut advertising, bring our troops home, end our foreign empire, I'm all for it! But to tell the DoD where they can and cannot advertise is completely ineffective and doesn't make any sense. They will simply have to spend the advertising dollars elsewhere and will reach an inferior audience that won't generate the numbers they need.
This has all come about due to progressives having an irrational fear and hatred towards rednecks..
That said, when it comes down to it, I probably would have voted for the DoD not to advertise with NASCAR because I have it out for the DoD and would like to see less people join, I just don't see it as a huge issue.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2011 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)