Anyone Know Where Governor Lynch Was Last Weekend?

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Dateline Miami: It’s Miami, this years four-day staycation destination for governors in hock to Tim Gill and Political Outgiving.

Last year New Hampshire Governor John “out of state political money is bad” Lynch was outed for attending the ‘secret event’ in Chicago.  It was later divulged (under duress I suspect) that he just gave a lunch speech and was Outgivingnot there to fund raise.  He must have left that part out of the speech.  Many of the wealthy attendees at the conference–none of whom live in New Hampshire–collectively coughed up over $100,000.00 for Governor Lynch’s re-election campaign in the usual fashion;  individual, personal contributions, over a number of weeks or months so as not to attract suspicion.  But no, he wasn’t fundraising.

This year the event was in Miami from March 3rd to the 6th, and once again, it’s all about secrecy.  To some peoples credit, there are a few folks in the gay community (here, here, and here) who object to the Gill Foundations ongoing obsession with the secrecy of this annual conference; no press, secret guest list, no agenda, and no transparency.  It bothers them and it should. They decide what states and elections to “invest” their millions in to advance their agenda.  Not everyone is privy to that agenda and this bothers some folks.

But that’s not my problem.

I’m wondering where New Hampshire’s governor was between the 3rd and 6th of March 2011?  Was he somewhere in New Hampshire, or off on other business?  Maybe dropping off a Hallmark card of thanks?  The donors from Political Outgiving ponied up about 10% of the Lynch campaign haul for 2010.  Sometimes an email or a phone call just isn’t enough.

So no idea if Lynch was there but one thing I do know, selling the lifestyle as a “right” is on the back burner. They (the gay lobby) have a new political campaign, and Mo Baxley from NH Freedom to Marry just used it on March 3rd. It is all about implying shared values.   The New narrative is LOVE.COMMITMENT.FAMILY.

March 3rd, AP (day one of the conference by the way)

Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, said that as people live with the law they realize it has no impact on their lives.

“They understand that gay and lesbian couples share the same values of other couples, like love, commitment and family,” she said.

Eugene Sepulveda, reporting/blogging from the 2011 Outgiving conference in Miami…

LOVE.COMMITMENT.FAMILY – this is how we need to lead going forward. Others don’t connect with rights & benefits as well.

Interesting timing.  Revealing admission.  “Others don’t connect with rights & benefits as well.”

So get used to it.  You’ll be hearing that a lot from the gay activists from now on.  At least until next year.

Maybe we’ll even hear it from John Lynch.

Cross posted

Posted in Culture, Democrats, Local NH Politics, National News, New Hampshire News, Progressives, The Narrative | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paul Hodes – Lobbyist

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

The Concord Monitor is reporting that Paul Hodes has started a business consultancy. This will have him back and forth to Washington DC for the purpose of connecting northern New England to Washington DC; a lateral move from his role as congressman when he was trying to sign New Hampshire away to Washington DC.

Old Two-FaceThe new biz is called Northern Connection, which will provide strategic counseling to businesses and non-profits.  Hodes is keeping his client list confidential, and in the process of determining if he has to register as a lobbyist.  So he will be consulting money up and down the DC-Concord corridor, into and out of the pockets of….it’s a secret.

But it’s not hard to figure out, and no one should be surprised.  We called him out on it, and yes he already has a well worn familiarity with a lobbyist and earmark culture he cried wolf about while working the system to fund his Senate campaign.  Hodes is a DC creature.  But we commend him on this capitalist shift even if it is just a Hodesian enrichment project resulting from his who’s-who list of Senate campaign donors, some of the most committed earmarkers ever to walk the earth.

The fact that it runs in direct contradiction to everything in his Senate campaign narrative about insider politics,earmarks, spending and revolving-door corruption is just more evidence that he was full of it then, and he’s full of it now, he just hopes to turn it into a bigger payday.

 

H/T Drew Cline calls him out across the board here.

 

Cross posted

Posted in Around New England, Democrats, Hypocrats, Local NH Politics, New Hampshire News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sebelius Admits to Obamacare Double tap

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Double TapFans of the movie Zombieland might understand the post title right away.  In the movie the lead protagonist, “Columbus” has a set of rules he always follows which he believes are the only reason he is still alive after the world is turned into Zombieland by a mutant strain of Mad Cow disease that turns almost everyone into crazed, flesh eating zombies.

Rule #1 is cardio.   You need to be able to run away from Zombies.

Rule # 31 is Check the back seat.  Always look to see if there is a Zombie in the back of the car before you drive away in it.

Rule # 3, beware of bathrooms.  Zombies seem to be able to sense when you are at your weakest.

Rule #18 Limber up.  Wouldn’t want to come up lame.

And Rule #2?  Double Tap.  It is not a waste of ammo to put another round into the head of a zombie to make sure they are down for the count.

So who stumbles into my metaphor but Obama Zombie and Health and Inhuman Services Minister Kathleen Sebelius.  Note to the left–no, I am not suggesting we double tap her, I am suggesting she and the democrats of the 111th congress–and all your lying or deluded selves included– have double-tapped the Taxpayers.  Sebelius has just admitted to a congressional committee that a huge chunk of money they claimed was going to offset the costs of Obamacare is the legislative-accounting equivalent of a double tap.

Five hundred billion dollars ($500,000,000,000.00) was basically double counted, or double tapped, in the Patient Affordable Care Act to make it something it is not, affordable.

Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

Nothing new here.  We always knew the numbers were funny.  But the left and the media, having exhausted themselves with the ideological equivalent to the Health-Care Kama Sutra, would have none of it.  And it’s been unraveling ever since.

I’m sure you feel much better now that passing the bill has lead to yet another discovery about what’s in the bill–or not in the bill if you don’t double tap the 500 billion. But what’s $500 billion in the dynamic Obama-deficit based economy? It’s a trip down to the US Treasury to speed up the presses.

But they could still make it up to us. Maybe we can all just get a waiver.

 

Cross Posted

Posted in Democrats, Economy/Economics, Health Care, Hypocrats, National News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Paul Hodes – Lobbyist?

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

The Concord Monitor is reporting that Paul Hodes has started a business consultancy. This will have him back and forth to Washington DC for the purpose of connecting northern New England to Washington DC; a lateral move from his role as congressman when he was trying to sign New Hampshire away to Washington DC.

Old Two-FaceThe new biz is called Northern Connection, which will provide strategic counseling to businesses and non-profits.  Hodes is keeping his client list confidential, and in the process of determining if he has to register as a lobbyist.  So he will be consulting money up and down the DC-Concord corridor, into and out of the pockets of….it’s a secret.

But it’s not hard to figure out, and no one should be surprised.  We called him out on it, and yes he already has a well worn familiarity with a lobbyist and earmark culture he cried wolf about while working the system to fund his Senate campaign.  Hodes is a DC creature.  But we commend him on this capitalist shift even if it is just a Hodesian enrichment project resulting from his who’s-who list of Senate campaign donors, some of the most committed earmarkers ever to walk the earth.

The fact that it runs in direct contradiction to everything in his Senate campaign narrative about insider politics,earmarks, spending and revolving-door corruption is just more evidence that he was full of it then, and he’s full of it now, he just hopes to turn it into a bigger payday.

 

H/T Drew Cline calls him out across the board here.

cross posted

Posted in Democrats, Hypocrats, Local NH Politics, Progressives | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ask Jeanne Shaheen – So What About Diminshed Snowfall?

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Ask Jeanne ShaheenRemember the halcyon days when the science of global warming was settled?  Do you recall the  dire warnings from green industry activists “experts” around the world, echoed by prominent herd animals Democrats, including some from from New Hampshire, that Global Warming was going to diminish regional snowfalls and ruin the ski and tourism industry?

Do you recall that?

Well there is one thing we can say about “settled Science” when it comes to Global Warming.  It is the conclusion that is settled.  The science leading there, that’s gotten real unsettling.

Case in point?  Snowfall.  We had to, just had to start spending as much as possible to avert a catastrophe on the issue of ‘Hello My Name Is “diminished snowfall.”

Enter candidate Jeanne Shaheen, November 2007

CONCORD, New Hampshire (CNN) – At a climate change rally held outside the statehouse, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen called for a renewed commitment to protecting the environment.

“Our quality of life is being affected by our failure to address global warming,” said Shaheen.

That was a staple of her Senate campaign.  New Hampshire would suffer from global warning’s shorter winters and decreased snowfalls.  Seen any of those lately?  I haven’t.  But you know what?  Longer winters have a detrimental affect on the tapping season and Maple Syrup production, something else Jeanne was certain would be ruined by global warming.

Well science has come to there emotional rescue.  While the winter sporting industry is in a boom, some parts of the state are still so deep in snow that they can’t start to tap trees.  And thanks to the unsettling nature of settled science, we can still blame the impact of increased snowfall on global warming.

You heard right. Increased snowfall is now an indicator of global warming.  And that can only mean one thing.   It’s not really a science, its a destination.  And the one true constant we can expect from a global warming adherent is not decreasing snowfall (increasing), more severe and frequent hurricanes (fewer hurricanes), Himalayan glacier melt (not melting), rising seas and temperatures (not happening), polar ice caps vanishing (getting bigger), Polar bears going extinct (population is huge and growing) or any of a list of other symptoms we are not experiencing, is what I like to call the AGWBS Constant.

That is the level of BS from AGW supporters required to keep the taxpayer funded grants to Global.

As for the syrup, no one is concerned, they’ll just start a Bit later.  But for Jeanne, well, she’s up to her eyeballs in AGWBS.
Posted in Democrats, Environment, Local NH Politics, National Politics & Policy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Did They Raise The Drop Out Age To 18?

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

As debate proceeds on the NH House bill HB 429 which returns the drop out age to sixteen (A 16 year old could leave school with a parents permission), John Lynch and the education community have come out against this change and responded with warnings of the potential consequences.  They then entertain us with ‘success stories’ resulting from their raising the drop out age to 18 just a few years ago.

John Lynch has even bragged about how he helped reduce the drop out rate by 30%, down to 1.7%, but if that is true then 98.3% of all students in New Hampshire must be “graduating.”

Really?  98.3%.

Drop ooutI can tell you from long discussions about the various pathways to “graduation” that the goal is more geared toward getting kids through school on paper to make the numbers look good.  Any reasonable path to that end is considered a win, but by any traditional standard it is anything but a public school success story.

To make this approach work they even changed the definitions and altered the methodology for reporting drop outs so raising the age to 18 probably has little or nothing to do with the reported improvements under Lynch.  Just ask anyone what “Early exit Non-graduates” are and why we call them that.  But SB 18, the bill that raised the drop out age to 18, did serve a purpose.

When you and your party are beholden to the deep pocketed Teachers unions in a state suffering from wide-spread declining enrollments and rising school budgets, you do anything you can to pad those participation numbers.  Forcing kids to stay in school until they are 18 (or they graduate) adds a few extra butts in the seats, but it is no guarantee they will graduate, even at 18–or that they have even learned anything more along the way.

As to the finer points, that’s all politics.  But at the end of the day you can ask the defenders of SB18 this question.  When John Lynch said the drop out rate had declined to 1.7%, can we prove that 98.3% of New Hampshire students are really graduating with the knowledge and skills necessary. (Necessary again being very subjective.) If you can’t, no matter what you decide to call it, then it’s just a smoke screen to hide the truth and forcing kids to stay in school just to have them in school costs taxpayers money and serves no other purpose.

posted here

Posted in Democrats, Education, Local NH Politics, New Hampshire News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Smoking Weed With “Dignity”

Posted on March 3, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

Chuck Weed is back again to take another shot at the death with dignity bill.  This year it is called HB513 and according to this morning’s paper it is about to die without much dignity.  I think we can call that smoking Weed.  (Sorry medical marijuana advocates, this is not a story about pot.)

The last go around was HB 304, about which I said this back  in April of 2009.

I just read HB 304, “An act relative to death with dignity for certain persons suffering from a terminal condition.” It’s sponsored by Weed, Richardson, Watrous and Mitchell, and we’ve already got problems.  For starters Life is a terminal condition for which, by the way, there is no known treatment.  Yup.  Can’t deny it, but no reason to stop the government from getting involved.

I mention it because in the latest iteration “Terminal condition” has been replaced with “Terminal disease.”  And ‘Terminal disease’ is not the sickness you get standing in line waiting to get groped by Atilla the TSA screener.  It is actually now defined as…”an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment produce death within 6 months.”

So glad I could help out.  Of course even that change still leaves far too much to the imagination for my taste.

One feature of this years doomed version that remains from the previous is the declaration that

The state of New Hampshire recognizes that persons have a right, founded in the autonomy of the person, to control the decisions relating to the rendering of their own medical care.

If we jump into Simon and Mr. Peabody’s Way-back machine again and set the dial for my September 2009 blog post…

…the same kind of people who were averse to HCR6 (protection of states rights) have written a bill with language that will prohibit  any federal  board or committee from making decisions about what treatments or diagnostics we have access to in the Granite State.  HB 304 states that we have a right to control those decisions.  So …, if the state wants to tell the federal government to kiss off on Health Care reform regulations that limit patient options or challenge my right to decide what treatments I’m entitled to, even if its entirely unintentional, I’m all for that.

Be that as it may, I am still not advocating for the State defined suicide bill.  Anyone who appreciates freedom should know better than to let the state define and then interpret the rules of individual extinction.  Too much power over life and death.  It’s just a bad idea.

 

HB 513 2011

HB 304 2009 (appears under year 2010 in advanced bill search. (?))

 

Cross posted

Posted in Culture, Legislation, Local NH Politics, New Hampshire News, Political Thought | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cost of Defining “Adequate” In Merrimack NH

Posted on March 1, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald
DateTuesday, March 1, 2011 at 08:29AM

AppleA funny thing happened on the way to the ‘off-hand comment’ on the Merrimack TEA facebook page.  I was accused of not using “real and accurate data” and that my “rhetoric was not doing anyone any good.”

Nothing surprising there I suppose but to stay on point–what was it I said that earned me such a response?

I announced that if you took the total Merrimack School budget and divided it by the total student enrollment that it cost more than  sending your kid to UNH.  This appears to have riled some people up.  In fact someone sent me a nice itemized list of the “costs” of sending your kid to UNH for a year just to prove I was wrong, and to justify how Merrimack’s cost per child wasn’t as much.

So here we have the “costs” to go to UNH.  Keep in mind that this is (I suppose) meant to be relevant to the comparison I made.

Tuition: 10,730
Mandatory Fees: 2,942
Room and Board: up to 6,198
Meal Plan: up to 4,324
Then add thousands of dollars for books a supplies –
you are over $25k a year.
These prices are HIGHER if you are not a NH resident

Fascinating.  And yes, I suppose it could cost this much for one year at UNH, but is that relevant to the point I was trying to make?

The Merrimack school budget for 2011-2012 (if passed) is $65,340,419.00.  The town projects that 4227 students will be ‘educated’ that year, down from 4354 this year and 4665 the year before that. This works out to $15,457.87/per student for one year of k-12 education in the Town of Merrimack.

How does that compare?

Well, my detractor includes room and board, the meal plan, and books to arrive at a sum of over $25,000.00 per year and hey! non residents pay even more. (even when they vote as residents, by the way).

My response?  How much more would it cost to send a kid to school in Merrimack if the School board included, a dormitory, room and board, and an additional meal plan.  If the law of averages applies, more than 25,000.00 per year.  But let’s just go the other way with this.

First, we don’t have out of state or probably even out of town residents attending class in Merrimack.  If we do, I’d suggest we charge them $10,000 more per year for that ‘quality’ education and we can then use that to offset town residents school taxes.  Maybe we could have a contest.  Everyone in town can recruit from outside the district and whomever gets to ten kids first wins a new Mercedes.

Room and Board?  Seriously?  Room and Board? I’ve only lived in town for twenty years but if there is a public school dormitory somewhere I’ll have my kids dropped off in an hour.  I have some excellent ideas for re-purposing their bedrooms during the school year.  I’m also rather keen on all the money I’ll save on room and board, meal plans, and electricity at home, since I appear to paying for it in my tax rate already.

The Meal plan.  I have one of those.  It’s called a bag lunch and change from my pocket for milk.  If they want a hot lunch, I need special paper with dead presidents on it or a check to charge up the lunch card.  So again, I appear to be paying twice for something that is already “built in” to the cost of a public school education.  And correct me if I am wrong but even the kids who get a free or reduced lunch could not possibly cost that much and that may well be offset in part or whole by some state or federal funds.

Books and supplies?  Every year the list of supplies I must provide gets longer. And the stories of teachers buying their own supplies are legendary.  So should we count those as additional expenses or back those costs out?  And the text books?  If you mean to compare the ones in public school to those used at the college level–even a crappy college– there’s no comparison.  Public school texts are like big picture books on 50 pound paper, double spaced and light on depth for easy delivery and consumption.  We could save a few million by going back to books where the real estate on the page was more words than pictures and written in type below thirty points.

So what are we left with?  Tuition and fees which amounts to $13,672.00 the exact figure posted on the UNH web site, and the one I used to make my claim that it costs more per student to send a kid to Merrimack Public school  than it does to UNH.

To be fair, I was not specific.  And there are other costs like transportation that we have not addressed.  But this comes down to the people of Merrimack accepting that their K-12 per student costs on a truly comparative basis are not much unlike having them live and eat at home while attending UNH.  Is that a good deal or should we be trying to do better?

There is clearly a seismic rift between the institutional-acceptance mentality of a level funded contract, or what might be considered a good deal on the cost of a public education, or the need for an expensive and expansive (excessive) curriculum and reality.  We are not in reality here.  At $15,000.00 per student plenty of people would opt to keep one parent at home and educate their own kid, or even all of their kids.  Yet the amount most frequently used when talking about a voucher or a credit to parents who consider home schooling or a private school is only $3500.00 to $5000.00 per year?  Where did the other 10-grand per kid just go?  Administrative costs?  There’s a conversation worth having.

Public education has far exceeded its mandate and in doing so its costs.  We need to get back to basics, focus on real education, and the goal of teaching kids how to think, not what to think.  Because at 15Kper kid per year, UNH comparison or not, someone is getting screwed.

cross posted

Posted in Debt/Spending, Education, Local NH Politics, Public Sector Unions | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economic Power Of New Hampshire

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

 

DateMonday, February 28, 2011 at 09:51AM

Looks like we do have regional influence.

From this mornings Union Leader, a Politico story quotes Pete Shumlin the Democrat governor of Vermont…

“My problem is, on the eastern side of me, I’ve got the state of New Hampshire,” he told Politico. “Sarah Palin said that she could do foreign policy because she could see Russia from her house. Well, I’m the first governor in 40 years that can see New Hampshire from my house. So I can do tax policy. And I can tell you, we’ve got no more capacity. They’re killing us.”

Shumlin manages to appear dumb–the Palin quote was Tina Fey on SNL not the Alaska Governor, and smart–“They’re killing us,” at the same time.

We are and we will continue to “kill them” along the border as the GOP super majority makes the state even more business friendly.  And as long as Vermont persists in their “more government” socially liberal policies–which suck incessantly off a tax cow they have to continually feed–Vermont will remain to the left of New Hampshire (on the map and just about everywhere else) and behind New Hampshire economically.VT%20v%20NH%20graph.jpg

But it is nice to see the Democrat giving it go.  Not sure how long before he realizes he can’t feed his ideology and pretend to be a fiscal conservative at the same time but we can grab some popcorn and watch the experiment unfold.  I’m a strong supporter of Vermont’s sovereign right to hold the line on taxes, and for them to try because of New Hampshire–well, it doesn’t get much better than that.  It is as if we are projecting economic power throughout the region.

So while we wait for change to come to Vermont, here are a few tidbits that explain some of the disadvantages Vermont has handicapped itself with and why they work to New Hampshire’s growing advantage, a report funded by Vermont to understand what the problem is and how much it is costing them.  And more motivation, perhaps, to keep New Hampshire that much further ahead of the rest of New England.

Boston.com

Unintended Consequesnces (pdf report)

 

Cross Posted

Posted in Around New England, Debt/Spending, Democrats, Economy/Economics, Jobs/Unemployment, New Hampshire News | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Congressman And A Free Throw

Posted on February 28, 2011 by Steve Mac Donald

 

DateMonday, February 28, 2011 at 05:15AM

HR 1 The US House just finished it’s work on HR1, cleaning up after democrats who in 2010 abrogated yet another  obligation when they found themselves incapable of writing the budget they really wanted right before an election.

The liberal-progressives wanted more spending but that was not politically advantageous.  And since the single driving-force behind all Democrat decisions is politics the budget got relegated to the back of the bus, where the electorate’s short attention spans were meant to forget that democrats were never fiscally conscious representatives–they just tried to play them on the campaign trail.

But avoiding the high profile budget battle was more evidence that they had something to hide. The Democrat House majority was appropriately sedated and placed under observation, while the Senate saw minor adjustments but no change in leadership.  So the process of changing our spending ways would still have to go through a Democrat controlled Senate and across the desk of a President who thinks the words “spending cuts” are just a rhetorical flourish used to provide cover for more spending.

Obama’s budget is proof enough of that.

But Obama only proposes a budget.  The House is in charge of spending.  So the new Republican congress went to the back seat of the Hopey-changey bus and picked up the budget obligations abandoned by the 111th congress.  This wwas a free shot at changing the fiscal direction of the country before writing their own first official budget, which was not due until later in 2011.  It was a gimme, a free throw, but one that had to survive the democrat Senate and the Spender in Chief.

So how did it turn out?

The House Republicans took their free throw and settled on $61,000,000,000.00 (billion) dollars in cuts which included votes on 21 amendments to reduce or eliminate some non-security spending. Not bad for a budget that should have been written by a democrat majority House, and a respectable down-payment on the 100 billion promised for their first official budget–though plenty of folks will still be unhappy about it.

To add to that unhappiness,(or not) we have the results of the 21 proposed amendments to cut non-security funding.  Heritage.org (thank you very much) filtered those votes and created both a table you can filter and a pdf.   The table show us how each member voted on the 21 cuts as a percentage of the total number of votes and the pdf lists how they voted on each of the individual amendments.

Looking at New Hampshire we can see that congressman Charlie Bass supported 33% of the proposed budget cutting amendments while congressman Guinta supported 76% of them.  That’s a rather wide margin, a tale of two congressman perhaps, worthy of your individual attention should it interest you.

Also worth noting; according to Heritage 95 House Democrats voted against ever single non-security cut, while another 45 opposed all of the cuts but one.  That certainly puts a fresh coat of “something” on the face of the Democrat party when it comes to their “belt tightening rhetoric.”  (That something is brown, by the way, and it smells “offal.”)

So feel free to follow the links, print the report and sift the data at your leisure.  I have provided below the list of 21 amendments referenced courtesy of Heritage.

 

The spending cuts include the following 21 amendments:

1)    Eliminate $34 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center (Flake);
2)    Cut $10 million from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Latta);
3)    Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, saving $324.4 million (Duncan-SC);
4)    Cut $50 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Biggert);
5)    Cut $70 million in energy efficiency programs at the Energy Department (Latta);
6)    Eliminate $35 million in funding for land acquisition at various agencies (Lummis);
7)    Cut $64 million from EPA science and technology programs (Flake);
8)    Cut $8 million from EPA environmental programs and management (Pompeo);
9)    Cut $10 million from EPA state and tribal assistance grants (Reed);
10) Cut $7.4 million for forestry programs at the U.S. Forest Service (Pompeo);
11) Cut $20.6 million from the National Endowment for the Arts (Walberg);
12) Eliminate $4.5 million in funding for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Program (Canseco);
13) Eliminate $15 million in funding for the Presidio Trust Fund (Reed);
14) Cut $100 million from Community Development Block Grants (Flake);
15) Eliminate $233.4 million in funding for the National Labor Relations Board (Price-GA);
16) Eliminate $42.7 million in funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace (Weiner);
17) Eliminate $10.7 million in funding for the East-West Center (Canseco);
18) Cut $211.2 million in funding from multilateral assistance through international financial institutions (Heller);
19) Cut $446.9 million in Amtrak funding (Sessions);
20) Cut all funding by 5.5% and legislative branch spending by 11%, with certain exemptions, saving $22
billion (Blackburn);
21) Cut all funding down to fiscal year 2006 levels, with certain exemptions, saving $34 billion (Mulvaney).

 

H/T Heritage.org, Hot Air

Cross Posted

Posted in Debt/Spending, Legislation, National News, National Politics & Policy, taxes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment