Who is committed to spending cuts? Democrats say spending cuts legislation can't be linked. I get that - it holds people hostage. But in defeating an amendment to Sandy relief that would reguire a coresponding $50 billion cut in discretionary spending Republican Hal Rogers of Kentucky didn't say the cuts are needed but shouldn't be linked. He said: "This is a true emergency. This is a true catastrophe and to offset the size that they're talking about would devastate the regular agencies. It's just too big to handle except through an emergency process." If I read the budget correctly there is a total of about $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. And cuting $60 billion "would devastate the regular agencies"??? The idea that $60 billion in cuts is "devastating" does not bode well for our ability to make real spending cuts. Just MHO - but what am I missing here?