GOP announces the YouCut project

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under General on May 13 

President Obama had the most tech-savvy campaign we had ever seen at the time and now the most tech-savvy White House.  However, the GOP may have just one-upped him on their latest technology-based campaign.

Yesterday, Eric Cantor introduced YouCut.  Every week, five spending cuts are posted on the YouCut website.  Anyone who has a cell phone or access to the Internet (is there anyone who doesn’t?) can vote on a spending cut.  The following Monday, the winner will be announced and brought to the House floor that week for an up or down vote.

This week’s options are:

Presidential Election Fund
$260 million in savings
This federal program provides matching funds to political candidates during Presidential primaries, certain third-party candidates, and funds for political conventions. In the 2008 presidential election, the candidates raised over $1.3 billion from individuals and PACs, do they really need to supplement that with taxpayer money? This proposal has been estimated to save $260 million over five years. (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)

Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities
$600 million in savings
Currently, some federal employees spend up to 100% of their workweek, paid by taxpayers, doing work for their union. Federal employees unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying, should they also be subsidized by the taxpayer for their official functions? In 2008 the Federal government spent $120 million paying employees for their time spent working on union activities (over five years this would total a minimum of $600 million.) (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)

HUD Program for Doctoral Dissertations
$1 million in savings
Recently, taxpayers have financed research on media strategies for housing policy and the use of eminent domain for urban redevelopment. Why should families who are struggling to pay for their children’s college also being asked to fund stipends from the government for those who want to write their dissertation on certain government-preferred policies? At approximately $200,000 in grants per year, terminating this program would save $1 million over five years.

New Non-Reformed Welfare Program
$2.5 billion in savings
The program was recently created to incentivize states to increase their welfare caseloads without requiring able-bodied adults to work, get job training, or otherwise prepare to move off of taxpayer assistance. Reforming the welfare program was one of the great achievements of the mid 1990s, saving taxpayers billions of dollars and ending the cycle of dependency on welfare. This new program, created in 2009 is a backdoor way to undo those reforms. The program currently costs approximately $2.5 billion a year. (Also proposed as part of the RSC Sunset Caucus.)

Eliminate Wealthier Communities from CDBG
$2.6 billion in savings
This cut will focus federal economic development assistance to needy communities. The Community Development Block Grant program currently funds a wide range of local economic development activities, while it is advertised as a way to help low-income communities, funds are also dispersed to communities with income well-above the national average. A recent study found that the community of Newton, Massachusetts with a per capita income over twice the national average was receiving $28 per person in CDBG funds. At the same time, other communities with income 25% below the national average were receiving $10 per person. Restricting this program to only communities with income at or below 110% of national average income would save $2.6 billion over five years.

 

What do you think?  Was this a brilliant move or a pointless gimmick?

Comments

  • Russ

    Can’t it be a brilliant gimmick? I guess that would make it non-pointless. I think it is a gimmick in that it doesn’t change any of the core causes or really do anything to fix the problem. The biggest cut is 2.6 billion which is really a drop in the bucket. But if they really do vote on these things and put Democrats in the position of voting in favor of pretty ridiculous spending, then it is also brilliant.

  • Rochelle

    I like seeing where the money is going and where it is being wasted. This is a great idea! I know that there won’t be a ton of bipartisan support, but this will, at the very least, bring light to the wasteful spending in Washington.

  • Neil Braithwaite

    Great idea – but the problem is that you have to go through a website with the word “Republican” in it.

    The Democrats will spin it as a partisan effort by Republicans and the Tea Party to thwart the will of ALL the people.

    Any political consultant worth their salt would have advised Congressman Cantor of three important things:
    1. Find some “conservative” Democrat support in the House before moving forward.
    2. Have a “neutral” website and URL.
    3. Call a bipartisan press conference to unveil the concept and website – not as a lone wolf Republican on the Gretta V show.

    But it’s too late now – the cats out of the bag.

    Another Republican blunder.

    • Cordeiro

      My guess is Congressman Cantor knows he runs a better chance of winning the Powerball than finding a conservative democrat. More power to him!

      • Neil Braithwaite

        I disagree. In this political climate and the elections coming up, there are some Democrats that didn’t vote for health care that would gladly hop on the “cut spending” wagon.

        Cantor could have challenged not just conservative Dems, but Obama as well. Obama said we need to cut the deficit and reduce the debt. Let Obama and the Dems go on record as not wanting any feedback from Americans.

        Again, the problem is how Canter put this together – not the idea.

        • Alaina

          If they vote against it, aren’t they basically going on record to say they don’t want feedback from the American people?

          I don’t know that it matters who came up with the idea, but I agree that it shouldn’t go through Cantor’s website…. more for ease of navigation. I think it’s fine to have GOP stamped all of it because it says we’re listening and we’re acting on t
          your feedback. I just don’t think Cantor should be stamped all over it… Doesn’t seem to do as much for the party as it does for himself.

          If Dems vote for it, I don’t think either side gains (politically), but if any of them vote against it, that’s some serious ammo for November.

        • http://www.sotr.us Cordeiro

          Ok, let’s break it down by the numbers. Of the 253 members of Pelosi’s house caucus, only 34 of them voted against Obamacare. 34.

          And of that 34, the first vote they cast at the beginning of every congressional session is a vote to put The Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair.

          Say what you want, there are no conservative democrats in Congress.

  • Red State Eddio

    Alaina – “Brillant” or “gimmick” is whether or not they follow through with what is voted on. This should fly through T-Party Nation and places like Ctr for Fiscal Accountability, etc.

    You should track this and make it a weekly post on PD. I think it’s a great idea if enough people cast votes. BTW you cast them based on email addresses; so if you have more than one address, cast a couple of votes. Loved it!

    • Sartho

      I agree with your brillian vs. gimmick perspective. However, it provides a voting record for the members of the House on something that’s currently very important to the common folks – government spending. So even if things don’t make it through to the point of actually getting cut from the massloads of spending, we can at least see who voted for or against the cuts.

      Overall, I love the idea!

    • Alaina

      Will do