I got this by email, so I have no source info. It “looks” like Ryan, though
– A List of Republican Budget Cuts. Notice S.S. And the military are NOT on this list.
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy — $445 million annual savings.
* Save America ‘s Treasures Program — $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland — $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation — $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts — $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities — $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program — $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies — $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs — H.R. 2274 (in last Congress),
authored by Rep. McKeon ,
eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency — $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy — $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding — $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy — $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund — $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid — $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half — $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% — $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service — $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program — $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program — $125 million annual
savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization — $530 million
annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment — $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit — $2 billion annual savings.
*
Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and
Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts — $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants — $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning — $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission — $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration — $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act — $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy — $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership — $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program — $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt — $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development — $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia — $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — $150 million
annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund — $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition — $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act — More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget — $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees — $1 billion total savings.
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees — $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of — $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies — $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — $12.5 million annual savings.
* Eliminate Market Access Program — $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program — $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program — $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs — $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program — $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
Credibility of citizen journalism matters
I would rather, Tom, if you took the time and trouble to check facts and sources, rather than to rush into print whenever a new rumor comes your way.
“I got this by email, so I have no source info,” is a worthless excuse. (And you do not even say who sent it to you! Are you spreading unsolicited spam?)
Perhaps this list of planned cuts is accurate, or maybe it is not. If it is accurate, then there must be a source. If it is nothing more than a rumor, then it is shameful to spread internet garbage as “citizen journalism.” Is it that you are too lazy to fact check (which an authentic journalist does) or is there some other motive for sloppy “reporting”?
so this is...
what they call fake news
Fake News?
Fishboy asks a good question.
The trouble with posting random spam on ibrattleboro, is that it might be fake or it might be true. I know Tom from when he lived in Wardsboro more than 25 years ago, I like him because he is a kind person, who offers his help to neighbors when he can. Personally I find it difficult to understand why he does it, but the truth is that Tom has a habit of posting an awful lot of garbage on ibrattleboro.
Unfortunately for Tom’s reputation as a citizen journalist, he has become a bit like the boy who cried wolf: The volume of junk stories that he posts creates skepticism. We know that at some time it will be true that the wolf will threaten the sheep: but when an unreliable citizen journalist posts a specific warning, we cannot be sure whether this time is it true or fake, until there is some corroboration.
You are not an arbiter for us authors
Your appropriateness comments, with implied censorship, borders on a direct interference and abridgement in the exercise of free speech. (See my comment below.)
You are not an arbiter for us authors. Neither are you the Moderator.
I am an ardent supporter of our First Amendment right of free speech, and I always will be.
It is not a First Amendment Issue
You are expressing your opinion, I am expressing mine. If you truly welcome free speech, then why do you have a problem with it?
As I said -
“Your appropriateness comments, with implied censorship, borders on a direct abridgment in the exercise of free speech.”
You clearly want to go beyond just your “opinion” and attempt to redirect this site through you perceived “press ethics.”
I trust Chris and Lise. I woulld not trust that job to you.
Censorship?
Censorship means suppression of free expression.
Nowhere did I say or imply that Tom’s story should be censored. What I wrote was that spreading rumors without checking the facts is sloppy reporting, and that I would prefer it if Tom would take the trouble to write with greater care.
To say that I would prefer a better quality of reporting is not censorship. Tom has expressed himself freely, and I also exercised free expression.
And I would rather
I would rather, Steve, if you took the time and trouble to check the facts and sources yourself if you feel they are that important.
Sent to me by...
you do not even say who sent it to you
picky, picky, picky!
It was sent to me by Ken Davis.I’m sure everybody knows who he is.
Now do you feel better?
Half-cocked? These budget cuts were proposed in 2016
It was a pretty simple matter to Google “Paul Ryan’s Proposed Budget Cuts.” It required no judgements about Tom either for or against his post.
Moreover, there are no requirements on this site to post factual or accurate sources, nor any requirement for citations. There was no need to just jump to the conclusion that this was shameful or fake reporting.
Postings here are not generally submitted by “authentic journalists.” Tom, in fact, did just as the definition of citizen journalism states, “The collection, dissemination, and analysis of news and information by the general public, especially by means of the Internet.”
Easily found links:
Paul Ryan List of Republican Budget Cuts – 2016
http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2016/12/paul-ryans-proposed-budget-cuts.html
A Balanced Budget For A Stronger America: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution: http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9974
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting – 2016
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/paul-ryans-proposed-budget-cuts-greg-deans
(Note: Any link, anytime can possibly be fake or inaccurate. The best practice is to search and view multiple links to cross-reference as best as you can.)
Rumors
I also just noticed that this post was posted under “Rumors.” Even more to the point that there was no need to choke on a fur ball.
Rumors: “A currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth or circulated as an unverified account.”
Reporting Rumors
When and how to report rumors is a challenging issue for journalists.
Generally the mission of a journalist is to report facts, but not to spread rumors. There are times, however, when a rumor must become part of a news story: for example if a rumor causes a riot or a stock market crash or even a threat of war. In the case of Tom’s report, there was no justification for his having rushed into print without fact checking. You, Vidda, posted a comment with links to a number of sources; which demonstrates that, had Tom taken the trouble, he too could have acted as a genuine citizen journalist.
The idea that all of us can act as journalist without the blessing of the conventional corporate media is a powerful concept. But with so many of our citizen journalists shooting from the hip: That potential power may get squandered. When I can find the time, I hope to write a separate piece discussing press ethics, which I think is a long-overdue topic for ibrattleboro.
Your implied censorship, borders on interference of free speech
Allow me to remind our readers, it is the policy that “Information posted on the site is the responsibility of the individual posters and not iBrattleboro.com.”
In the iBrattleboro policy page, in this section – Comments that may be deleted include, but are not limited to (includes) “Telling others what is or is not appropriate to write about on this site.”
I don’t know who you think you are, but you are consistently telling others what is or not appropriate. I don’t expect that your appropriateness comments to be deleted, so much as you should exercise prior restraint, and let our posters be the judge of what they think is appropriate, or, even, inappropriate, as they write the article, and then decide to submit it to be published here.
Your appropriateness comments, with implied censorship, borders on a direct interference in the exercise of free speech.
I did not post those links to “demonstrate that Tom could have acted as a genuine citizen journalist.” I posted those links for you, because Tom had already identified his source from a personal email. That’s all you or anyone needed to know. I demonstrated how easy it would have been for you if you had taken the time to simply Google it!
Moreover, I want our readers to know, that we are not journalists. Most of who submit articles write articles that are of interest to us, or that we think might be of interest to others.
An article of so-called “press ethics” is not long overdue.
Anyone concerned about “appropriateness” can find what they need on this site at iBrattleboro Site Policies, here: : http://ibrattleboro.com/ibrattleboro-site-policies
Please Leave Site Policing To The Moderators
If you, Vidda, truly believe that I have violated site policy, then why do you not follow site policy, which states that you should should report it to the site monitors and leave it to them?
...in other words
Because, as I said: “I don’t expect that your appropriateness comments to be deleted, so much as you should exercise prior restraint, and let our posters be the judge of what they think is appropriate, or, even, inappropriate, as they write the article, and then decide to submit it to be published here.”
Also, I want our reader to see that I said: “Your appropriateness comments, with implied censorship, borders on a direct abridgment in the exercise of free speech.”
I guess in other words, a way to say it, is: back off.
Take a deep breath, Vidda...
You are slipping into incoherence.
...could flag it as offensive
Oh, gee, how feeble is that?
As any unbiased reader on here can tell you, I am never incoherent.
Your comment: “You are slipping into incoherence.” is, in fact, a personal attack. I could flag it as offensive and ask it be deleted. But I can stand my ground.
You are right
My comment that you are slipping into incoherence was a personal attack, even though it was true. I am flagging my own comment as inappropriate.
I have to keep reminding myself, that even in the face of multiple personal attacks coming from you, Vidda, there is no justification for me to slip down to your level.
Let's see you back that up
If Chris and Lise wish to get involve, that’s their business, but it’s not necessary. If you can’t stand behind your own comments, you shouldn’t make them.
Over the years, my so-called personal attacks are very rare, indeed.
Now, if you believe I am incoherent, let’s see you back that up. Describe for this reading audience where exactly I am being incoherent.
I have to say though,
I have to say though, it is kind of creepy the way you often degenerate our conversations. I will not enlarge on this any further, with you..
The conversation here about freedom of speech rights is what’s important in this comment section.
"Free Speech"?
I think Vidda needs to go back to high school civics class and learn what “free speech” and “censorship” actually mean.
I’ll come back and check on IBratt in another 6 months or so and see if it’s still around.
Sounds like a plan, Putney
Six months should be enough time for Republicans dominating the three branches of the Feds to teach us all the real meaning of free speech. Happy trails until then.
Fragmented media world where you block people you disagree with
Wielding Claims of ‘Fake News,’ Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media
{NYTimes} In defining “fake news” so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country’s increasing political polarization.
And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
“Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue,” said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. “Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we’re doing a disservice to lump all those things together.”
The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. “We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe,” Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. “Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time.”
Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/us/politics/fake-news-claims-conservatives-mainstream-media-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
This list
Be aware that this list was not promulgated to scare liberals.
It was produced by and for House Republicans, and they were BRAGGING!
The guy who sent it to me is a Tea Partier and a “Freeman-on-the-Land”.
A good lesson in "press ethics”
Your article triggered in the first and third comments a seemly hysterical reaction from one of our readers when you were accused of, and I quote:
That you were not checking the facts and sources
That you rush into print whatever new rumor comes your way
That your reason for posting is a worthless excuse
That you were spreading unsolicited spam
That you were shameful to spread internet garbage as “citizen journalism”
That you are too lazy to fact check
That you had another motive for sloppy reporting
That you’re prone to cry wolf
That you post an awful lot of garbage on ibrattleboro
That you post a volume of junk stories that creates skepticism
That,you, last but not least, are an unreliable citizen journalist
Tom, do you need a good lesson in “press ethics?” 🙂
I had to Google “Freemen-on-the-land” as I also Googled the “Paul Ryan’s Proposed Budget Cuts.” Thanks for a stimulating article.
Vidda, another of your nonsensical mischaracterizations
Tom gave no source, and presented his story as uncorroborated rumor.
Only in response to my critique did Tom finally take the trouble to gather and present relevant facts, which he had failed to do when he first posted the story. This is encouraging because it shows that Tom is capable of better reporting.
Perhaps Tom’s next story will be more worthy of his ability.
Say what?
“Vidda, another of your nonsensical mischaracterizations” (sic)
Each of what you say are my so-called “nonsensical mischaracterizations“are directly quoted from you!!
They are, in fact, not my characterizations at all!
“Tom gave no source, and presented his story as uncorroborated rumor.”
Tom’s article was posted under the “Rumor” heading!! Duh?
He stated in his very first sentence: I got this by email, so I have no source info.
“Only in response to my critique did Tom finally take the trouble to gather and present relevant facts, which he had failed to do when he first posted the story.“
Does the word delusional come to mind??
“Perhaps Tom’s next story will be more worthy of his ability”
Let’s see, you denounced Tom as, (and I quote you again), shameful, poster of internet garbage, posts junk stories, unsolicited spam, a sloppy reporter, lazy, cry’s wolf, and an unreliable citizen journalist. . .
And, now, you generously recognize that his “next story will be more worthy of his ability.”
You’re just loaded with unrealistic beliefs and opinions. Have I described your pathology accurately?
Honestly, you come off as an attack dog and then your want to whitewash your comments?
Setting the record straight
These alleged direct quotes are, in fact, your own distorted paraphrases. The discussion speaks for itself.
I never “denounced Tom.” I critiqued his work.
Without any help from you, Tom is quite capable of speaking for himself. He has responded by citing sources, thus making the necessary corrections without any need of your gratuitous invective.
I doubt that further discussion will be productive.
I call our reader's attention
I call our reader’s attention to your very own comments that I’m quoting from, starting with this one: Submitted by SK-B on December 25, 2016 – 7:47pm.
Tom “has responded by citing sources, thus making the necessary corrections…”
Tom cited sources? Yeah, he identified the sender of the email. But, I’m saying to our readers that the alleged necessary corrections you refer to are all in your own mind!! Tom never had any reason to make any corrections. You did !
And if it’s true that you claim not to have denounced Tom, that you only “critiqued” his work, I summit to our readers that your out-of-the-gate attack on him was highly critical, unfriendly and not really constructive.
You merely amended your comments along the way as I point them out. As for you being a “critic,” well, I’ll leave that up to the silent readers.
Tom might not have needed my “gratuitous invective” but you surely seem to. I see “invective” is one of your more often used words (too often out of context) when you are challenged.
However it is that our readers may perceive me or you, you and I will never know. Now that this article has over 520 views, all we know is, that is a pretty high readership for one article. It’s not unusual for an article here with over 20-25 comments to garner a high number of (unique) views. The readers are hanging in there for whatever reasons, but readership is what’s important to this site. So what you, as an individual, think of me is elementally a write-off as far as I’m concerned.
To be fair
Vidda is correct that the only source Tom gave was to name the individual who sent him the story. It was Vidda who provided the sources, that Tom had failed to give. Writing that the sources were “easily found,” Vidda gave us the following links:
Paul Ryan List of Republican Budget Cuts – 2016
http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2016/12/paul-ryans-proposed-budget-cuts.html
A Balanced Budget For A Stronger America: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution: http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9974
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting – 2016
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/paul-ryans-proposed-budget-cuts-greg-deans