The Republican budget cuts would cut GDP growth by 2% and cost 800,000 jobs.
The federal budget cuts supported by the US House Republicans will stifle US economic growth by some 2% of the GDP and cost some 800,000 jobs. The state budgets cuts by Republican and other governors have caused .5% less growth in the US GDP in the 4th Quarter of 2011. It is apparent that Republicans are cutting spending at federal and state levels so they can defeat President Obama in 2012 because the worse the economy is, the better chances Republicans will defeat President Obama and make him a “one term president.”
The US House Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH) says; “So be it!”
Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN), mentioned as a future GOP presidential nominee, told Meet The Press said; “…yes” to state budget cuts even if they would result in fewer jobs and less economic growth.
I guess the 2010 mid-term voters who voted for Republicans all thought that it would be a good thing for their Republican office holders to stall economic growth by 2% of GDP and cost some 800,000 jobs.
Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?
They're also saving money by going with cheaper, unsustainable, polluting, and nearly indestructible styrofoam cups in the House coffee shops. Something Mr. Boehner apparently tweeted joyfully about on Monday –
"The new majority – plasticware is back"
Jim: This reminds me of Reagan tearing down Jimmy Carter's White House solar panels. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43156.h… It also makes we again consider the deep roots of this Republican urge to act proud of trashing the earth. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/03/26/new-e…
So, 300+ economists say Goldman-Sachs is right; Boehner's got 46 that disagree. Tim, want to take a stab at playing oddsmaker? What's the over/under on:
1) this will happen
2) the prediction will be forgotten and the Dems will not use it to their advantage
3) the Repubs will find some other "reason" should the prediction come true
4) even if the prediction is not forgotten, Fox will make up whatever spin they want anyway
According to a WP article from 2006 I found, we paid $1.3B for farmers not to grow crops. I don't know what that number is now, but I'm pretty sure it still has a "B" in it. I understand some of the recipients only own land that used to be farms and some of the so-called "farms" never were nor could ever be used for such, slipping under the radar. But then, reducing oversight to the funds we do dole out has been a mainstay in the Elephant world. TARP anyone?
Speaking of cuts that they could be making, how about cutting oil subsidies? Near-record high oil prices should mean that the big oil companies don't need subsidies (did they ever?). ThinkProgress reports:
On the oversight tangent I introduced, OSHA is a target (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134177079/GOP-Looks-To-Make-Cuts-At-OSHA) – saftey is apparently not a good thing for businesses. I do question the ergonomic "standards" though.