Does Romney want to cut spending for teaches, police, and first responders?

Has he denied that he would do this? He talks about cutting government spending, but exactly WHAT goverment spending is he saying he will cut???
He supports Scott Walker so does that mean he supports cutting funding for teachers, firemen, police and first responders? Why won’t he clarify this? Especially considering his reputation as a flip-flopper here is his chance to come out strong on an issue and make his position exactly clear. Why isnt he doing this?

Maybe he thinks that those functions are supposed to be funded at the state level, not the federal level.

ETA: Form yahoo news:

Not sure if that is a cut or just a redirection of existing funds.

Seems like a redirection of funds…

I don’t understand why that when it comes to cutting government spending the Republican platform seems to be that you start with teachers and firefighters and police? Why not start with auditing the various other departments of the governemnt? Why not start wtih cutting funds for judges and elected politicians???

Romney’s pledge to cut government spending to 20 percent of GDP by 2016 may well involve transferring education spending to the states, but it would also mean laying off FBI agents, border patrol agents, park rangers, food inspectors, NASA engineers, CDC scientists, and hosts of other important government functions.

At least, that’s according to Fox News.

Because he is riding a wave of popular opinion that hates government in general but tends to like it in specifics. Everyone hates to pay taxes, and has been told that there is massive amounts of government bloat and waste. So they line up in favor of smaller government. But if ask them whether they want medicaid, or food safety , defense etc. they will object just as vociferously, As far as waste and bloat, the only way to cut out waste is to spend even more money trying to find the waste to cut, which in the end defeats the purpose.

I’ve heard many Republicans interviewed and all of them say they are going to cut government by x%, but when they are asked for specifics none of them answer. The only person who did so was Paul Ryan, and the Republican party suffered for it.

In truth I think if Romney were elected, and had to run the country, the Republican party would do its best to go back to the view that deficits don’t matter.

That’s not true. Rick Perry gave an answer too - he would cut the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and the other one… :slight_smile:

Kinda depends, doesn’t it? Its about three o’clock here, what is his position as of this moment?

Has Walker done these things? On Face The Nation this weekend, he said he hadn’t.

Because teachers, firefighters, and police are overwhelmingly unionized. Like most of the Republican agenda, they’re using the abstract fear of the budget deficit to mask their real intentions–in this case, destroying union political influence and power in labor negotiations.

Destroying unions and making their workers poorer is not likely to make the rest of society richer, it might make particular individuals more wealthy, and that is the Republican demographic

20% of GDP is towards the top of the historical average collected in taxes in the US. If Romney is advocating to spend that much, then he is targeting close to a balanced budget.

Yes. He is advocating a balanced budget by cutting FBI agents, CDC scientists, NASA engineers, park rangers, and the like. See the Fox News article I linked to.

Here is the data in an Excel sheet - 20% is certainly the top in collections, and it used to be closer to the percent of GDP we would spend:

I would consider a GOAL of 20% collected / 20% spent to be a decent number to work towards.

Dude, I know it gets you all excited to make like Fox is slamming Romney, but the article is from the AP. The Fox website just reposts AP stories, like every other news outlet in the country.

I saw that. His unwillingness to cut military spending is a problem to me (not that my vote matters at that level - California will go to Obama).

Whoop-dee-do. I point out that Romney wants to cut the number of people doing important jobs, and your response is, “Wait!! The AP wrote the article!”

What a powerful retort.

I’m just laughing at your repeated invocation of Fox News like it’s some big deal that it appeared on their site.

Romney is doing what all politicians do, and what Obama did when he ran: say they’re going to make cuts, but not say where. The idea that FBI and all the rest will be cut is sheer imagination on the part of the article. He’ll do what most politicians do, and break the promise to make cuts.

How very reassuring! “Don’t worry, he’s lying!”

Well, it is possibly significant in a couple ways. To right wingers, it may be evidence that Fox News does not have the right wing slant that it purports to have, because it did not censor (I use that term lightly) an article that is unfavorable to Romney.

To everyone else, it is shocking that Fox News with its well-known bias did not censor an article that is unfavorable to Romney.

So, yeah, it is kind of significant, at least in a minor way.

Romney calls suggestions he wants cut teachers, firefighters ‘completely absurd’

And this just in…