U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, said Monday, Feb. 25, a list issued by the White House of projected impacts of the sequester spending cuts is “mostly political theater.”
Reed emphasized that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives had attempted to change the cuts, set to go into effect March 1 unless federal lawmakers take action.
“We’ve passed two bills (in the House) to reallocate these cuts,” Reed said.
The two bills passed by the House in the last Congress were never taken up by the Senate. Those bills died when the new Congress was sworn in.
The new Congress hasn’t yet passed a bill to alter or prevent the cuts.
Reed said the House is waiting on action from the Senate or the White House on the issue; bills of this type procedurally are introduced in the House.
Reed repeated his prediction from last week that the cuts will go into effect, but that lawmakers might undo them later.
But he said given the size of the cuts in relation to the overall federal budget, the impacts won’t be as severe as the White House is portraying them to be.
Reed says the sequester cuts amount to less than one percent of the overall budget, or about 5.8 percent of discretionary spending.
“Are we so dependent on the federal government that we can’t absorb a 5.8 percent cut in discretionary spending?,” he said.
Discretionary spending is spending that isn’t mandatory. Mandatory spending includes items like entitlements that the government is required to pay for unless the original legislation is changed or repealed.
Mandatory spending accounts for most of the federal budget.
Reed said when he spoke to people in the district recently about the impact of spending cuts, the general response was supportive.
“People recognize ... intuitively that we have to get our spending under control in Washington, D.C.,” he said.
U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, said Monday, Feb. 25, a list issued by the White House of projected impacts of the sequester spending cuts is “mostly political theater.”
Reed emphasized that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives had attempted to change the cuts, set to go into effect March 1 unless federal lawmakers take action.
“We’ve passed two bills (in the House) to reallocate these cuts,” Reed said.
The two bills passed by the House in the last Congress were never taken up by the Senate. Those bills died when the new Congress was sworn in.
The new Congress hasn’t yet passed a bill to alter or prevent the cuts.
Reed said the House is waiting on action from the Senate or the White House on the issue; bills of this type procedurally are introduced in the House.
Reed repeated his prediction from last week that the cuts will go into effect, but that lawmakers might undo them later.
But he said given the size of the cuts in relation to the overall federal budget, the impacts won’t be as severe as the White House is portraying them to be.
Reed says the sequester cuts amount to less than one percent of the overall budget, or about 5.8 percent of discretionary spending.
“Are we so dependent on the federal government that we can’t absorb a 5.8 percent cut in discretionary spending?,” he said.
Discretionary spending is spending that isn’t mandatory. Mandatory spending includes items like entitlements that the government is required to pay for unless the original legislation is changed or repealed.
Mandatory spending accounts for most of the federal budget.
Reed said when he spoke to people in the district recently about the impact of spending cuts, the general response was supportive.
“People recognize ... intuitively that we have to get our spending under control in Washington, D.C.,” he said.
