The Senate Finance Committee, after days of deliberation, agreed today to $10 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, to take place over the next five years. The cuts will come primarily from Medicare, as the measure would cut $18.6 billion from the Medicare and $7.7 billion from Medicaid. It also, however, would boost spending on various Medicaid and Medicare programs. They will markup the measure early on Monday, which will pave the way for the bill to be included in the Senate Budget Committee's reconciliation package, slated to be put together October 26.

The Agriculture Committee in the Senate is required under the FY06 budget reconciliation instructions to cut to cut $3 billion from mandatory agriculture programs. One of the programs at risk of being cut was the food stamp program, however today Senate Ag Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) dropped plans to cut the program by $574 million. They would have achieved their savings in the food stamp program by requiring families receiving non-cash state welfare assistance -- who are currently automatically eligible for food stamps -- to apply separately. This would have brought down the number of families who use the program. Instead, he will reduce the amount of money farmers can get in certain farm subsidy payments that are made in advance. According to CongressDaily, "The change in the percentage of direct payments a farmer can get early in the year raises the savings from $518 million in Chambliss' first plan to almost $1.1 billion. The impact is to deny farmers the use of that money during the production season. Farmers will continue to get the full direct payment promised under the 2002 farm bill minus a 2.5 percent reduction in all farm programs, but making the payment later in the year creates budget savings." NY Times Coverage

It seems the most "fiscal conservatives" in the House, the extremely right-wing Republican Study Committee, has gained the upper hand in their push for increased budget cuts in reconciliation. This week House GOP lawmakers will begin taking steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the FY 2006 budget. These cuts will effect areas such as health care programs for the poor, food stamps, and farm supports, and may also include across-the-board cuts in other programs. A month ago, when the RSC first called for stepped-up budget cuts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, House leaders tried to terminate their efforts behind closed doors. However, now House leaders are embracing this call for extensive budget cuts. With the leadership in turmoil because of Majority Leader Tom Delay's (R-TX) indictment, leaders, according to the Washington Post, "had no choice but to firm up support with their conservative base... according to lawmakers and leadership aides." Part of what is driving the Republican Study Commitee, which is headed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), is a concern regarding spending in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which is projected to possibly exceed $200 billion. This group has, on occasion, criticized the administration and their Congressional colleagues for participating in what they call run-away spending. Since Bush came to office, federal spending has increased by approximately one-third, from $1.86 trillion to $2.47 trillion, and deficits have risen. What does not add up is that this same group supports the tax cut measure slated for passage in reconciliation, which amounts to $70 billion in un-offset federal spending. They also support the extension of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cut provisions, which would cost over $1 trillion in lost revenue over a decade. It seems that the $200 billion cost of Katrina - a one-time expenditure that will not add to the deficit for more than one year, is nothing but an excuse for these members to gain some traction for their real goal: shrinking the size of government significantly by defunding public programs which serve to help millions of people every year. It is a push for cold-hearted disinvestment in our country during a time when so many people -- both Katrina victims and others -- are in need. And it is masked in the cloak of "fiscal responsiblity." In reality, it would be difficult for the RSC's definition of fiscal responsibility to be any less responsible, both in regards in to the well-being of citizens and in regards to future deficit projections.