• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Guest Blogger: The CRs Simple and Complex Spending Cuts

    Of the $100 billion in spending cuts in H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution (CR), some are big, others are small, but all are vital reductions that help our nation regain its financial footing. In some cases, the bill simply seeks to eliminate entire programs or blocks of funding. In others, the bill takes a more complex approach and prohibits agencies from spending taxpayer dollars to carry out certain policies.

    We find a great example of the simple cut in section 1529, which eliminates funding for the President’s “Unanticipated Needs” fund. Unknown to most people, the President has been given $1 million annually to “meet unanticipated needs for the furtherance of the national interest.” Only after the money is spent does the President have to report where the money went. Spend now, and ask for forgiveness later? Not in this bill. Interpreted in English, this is a Presidential slush fund—a prime candidate for waste and abuse—and a no-brainer spending cut for a nation with a $14 trillion debt.

    Then there’s the more complex spending cut that would prevent the enforcement of a particular program or regulation. Section 1746 enters those waters, as it prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using any taxpayer dollars to enforce regulations based on concerns about climate change. For starters, this section seeks to prevent the EPA from imposing the infamous cap-and-trade regulation scheme on America. Such a national energy tax was a key policy initiative of President Obama, but, since it was defeated in Congress, the EPA has taken steps to skip the legislative process and simply decree that the President’s policy is law.

    Fans of democracy will be pleased to know that H.R. 1 puts the EPA back in its place of public servitude. The language of Section 1746 blocks the EPA from using tax dollars to even promote the idea of regulations based on climate change. In other words, if the section becomes law, not one finger can be lawfully lifted in the EPA to support cap-and-trade or any other regulation rooted in the questionable science of climate change. In preventing extensive climate regulation, we achieve savings by limiting government activity, but also stand to increase government revenue by empowering businesses to grow and make more money.

    So as Congress begins the task of conquering our $14 trillion debt, H.R. 1 marks Congress’s first trip to the budget chopping block in years. It’s been reported that the $100 billion in cuts is the largest one-year reduction in history. Even so, we clearly have an enormous hill to climb before our government is financially stable and fiscally responsible. To get there, Congress must take an indiscriminate approach to spending cuts, where we pick the low-hanging fruit like million-dollar slush funds, but also tackle the regulatory agencies that threaten to act as drain on profits and a drag on economic growth.

    Representative Tom Graves represents Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District.

    The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Guest Blogger: The CRs Simple and Complex Spending Cuts

    1. George Colgrove, VA says:

      With all the potential for wasted time in finding, debating and implementing specific targeted cuts, why not just apply an across the board cut (ABC)? The people have been asking for that. I am all in favor of these specific cuts, but the opportunity costs in getting these implemented is costing America $4 billion a day in additional debt! 15% would be a small slice out of each office, program, agency and department, but would total over $570 billion in one simple single page legislation. Then each office would be held responsible for coming up with the cuts and implementing them in a timely order. By close of business on September 30th, 2011 we can be $570 billion closer to a balanced budget. If we also do the $100 billion in targeted cuts, we will be $670 billion closer to a balanced budget.

      I just think a 15% ABC would be easier to get through than these targeted ones. America would stand behind these cuts with fervor!

    2. Pingback: COACHEP » Blog Archive » News about Cap and Trade issue #292

    3. Pingback: Graves on spending cuts — Peach Pundit

    4. Bob says:

      Absolutely George!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×