Political Advice
How many of you read Frank Rich In the Sunday New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/opinion/07rich.html?_r=1
It is an interesting approach.
But I would do him one better.
I would suggest to Obama that he offers the Republicans a deal for the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. Offer to sign legislation for this tax cut only if the legislation also contained spending cuts to offset every Penney of revenues lost to the tax cuts.
While he is at it ,offer the same deal on the inheritances tax.
Remember, the legislation will also have to go through the Senate before it gets to the White House and to get through the Senate will require a certain number of democratic votes.
Yes, the republicans ran on a platform of cutting spending. But if history is any indicator
the “borrow and spend” party will not be able to put together a piece of legislation actually cutting spending.
Obama should take a hard nose stance and call the republicans bluff on this. The democrats ability to get health care reform through Congress suggest they have the ability to play hardball. So show the republicans that the democrats can really play hardball on this.
I do not believe the republicans will be able to deliver. When it comes to spending, as they say in Texas, the republicans are all hat and no cattle.
Spencer, beware of what you request. Republicans are poised to cut the budget to 2008 and some are thinking 2007 levels. That more than offsets the proposed Obama tax rise, disguised in terms as the Bush tax cuts.
Obama will be more than happy to sacrifice Social Security to get high-end tax cuts, just ot show what a great compromiser he is.
This across the board rollback should be called out for what it is: A failure to identify priorities and programs considered unworthy of government support by the deficit hawks. If the GOP dominated house is so serious about taking control of the deficit let them cut specific items and answer to the voters for them.
It’s not like the requirements haven’t changed since 2007. Veteran health care, inadequate oversight of MMS are 2 obvious places where the 2007/2008 budget would probably be found lacking by today’s electorate including the tea party inclined.
The Dems “played hardball” to get the healthcare bill passed? They couldn’t even play hardball with their own caucus. I always wondered who would take political advice from a theatre critic.
Republicans have made the claim that their income tax cuts will help the economy. Since they haven’t made that claim about the inheritance tax, there’s no reason to offer to renew it.
Have the GOP House appropriate a spending cut of 35% in the defense budget.Tell them it’s the only way they’ll get their tax cuts for the rich. Then let’s see how long it takes for their $400 screwdrivers to come down in price and dump the vastly overpriced Halliburton non-bid contracts!
But if history is any indicator the “borrow and spend” party will not be able to put together a piece of legislation actually cutting spending.
One big reason is that this is true is that we can depend on the Libs and their willing accomplices in the media to treat us with endless features showing “they are taking food from the babies etc.” old people eating dogfood, veterans suffering from diabetes that might have been caused by Agent Orange, or maybr something else. it doesn’t matter, don’t they deserve it? People whose two years worth of unemployment is running out. What about the children? blah, blah, etc. etc.
And then we will have governments cutting the least essential services first, such as 911, and releasing all the prisoners from prison,
This will be juxtaposed with the intangile benefit of being in less debt and more freedom.
People don’t want to be regarded as selfish, hard hearted a la coberly, and, after all, it is Other Peoples Money, we can just take it from the evil rich people who have won life’s lottery…….you know, the first page in the Socialist playbook.
So, yes, it will be hard. With so many dependent on the government teat, it may well be impossible. This time, however, the cause is aided because we have a manifest incompetant in the WH. As Obama himself said: “this time will be different, because you will have me.”
The Democrats played “hardball” because the field was a pushover..it isn’t any longer. If the Democrats wanted to make a special point they’d offer the full Bush tax cuts and deduct every taxpayers share of the Iraqi and Afghanistan war costs for 2011. Perhaps then, those who think these foreign fiascos are fought on someone elses dime will get the message..
Democrats won’t do that because they don’t have the stomach for it..they’re too busy fighting for a welfare social agenda from rich to poor that’s past redemption…
The politics don’t make sense. The Republicans have nothing to lose and any suggestion they make, they will just shift ownership of that suggestion to the “party in power” if a deal is cut that contains talking point fodder. On the other hand, if they make toxic suggestions that the Democrats reject, they will claim they have a plan and the Democrats are shutting them out. So any way this plays, the Republicans should be able to spin all negatives to the expense of the Democrats.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. If you think you can sign people up to measure their government by the price tag organize and run on that. If you so believe that you can starve our way to prosperity make a detailed case for it and let the voters decide, it’s still a nominal democracy Citizens United Vs. FEC notwithstanding. I think the country is well past ready to engage in a serious debate on whether or not 911 emergency services and the prisons are among the least essential services as you put it and I’m ready to participate in it.
The more typical scheme advocated by CoRev et al. where debate is short circuited to policy prescriptions involving rollbacks or across the board cutbacks actually constitutes a refusal to govern. You’re willing to consign millions of your fellow citizens to deprivation and hardship without doing the heavy lifting of explaining exactly why helping them is so damaging to your ideas regarding freedom. I know why you refuse to take up that debate and I pity you for it.
I think they should let it expire. Doing nothing is a perfectly good way to improve the budget situation (just like doing nothing with social security). Actually it doesn’t even improve things, because the projections already assume it won’t be extended.
I wonder though, if this thing is left to die, does Obama bring a proposal for tax cuts two years from now? I don’t trust his cadre of advisors to do the right thing, I count on them doing the politically expedient thing. Now that the election is over, there’s no reason to extend tax cuts. People will forget it by the time the next election comes.
JG, said: “People will forget it by the time the next election comes.” you’re kidding, right?
CoRev is engaged in a couple of intentional fantasies here. One is to pretend that the GOP means what some of its members say about budget levels. “Poised” sounds great, but also leaves out any evidence – typical political speach. The other fantasy is the insistence on “Obama tax hike” instead of “Bush tax cut”, as a way of shifting blame. The cuts were bad policy when they were put in place, in the traditionally Republican form of making politically expedient policy that will have to be cleaned up some day, and then blaming Democrats for the clean up. Examples abound – Iraq, tax cuts, weak regulatory oversight (though Democrats deserve their share of blame in particular for weak regulatory oversight).
sammy
it is really hard for me to tell what i have to do with this particular (your) rant. and while it’s true i am a bit hard hearted, it’s always in the interest of building character.
The US DoD budget a fraction of warfare welfare for the socialized “industry” runs 20% of US government outlays.
It is filled with pork, waste and fraud. If you cut it 65% in relation to other US government outlays you get it to the same percent of outlay at the Brits before they cut theirs back.
spencer,
1) The Dems were not going to get the fiscal house in order anytime soon, tax-hike or no-tax hike. See Obama’s budget projects.
2) Anna Lee is correct, the Dems are still the party of power and government. Obama is stll the most visible Dem out there. Even with all that publicity I bet 50% of registered voters outside of Ohio don’t know the name of Pelosi’s replacement. Only people worse than R’s at political theater are Dems (but the bar is really, really low).
3) Sammy’s point goes with my nod to Anna Lee. The Dems will always cut the most critical services first – like 911 operators or police. This is just how government works.
4) As for balancing the budget – easy, repeal ObamaCare.
Islam will change
AS,
They don’t have to govern- Obama is President. He sets the agenda. Now admittedly the voters rejected the way the Dems & Obama ran the government, overwelminigly, last Tuesday, but they are still in the drivers seat.
And you and for that matter most at AB continue to miss what people are bitching about. Its the overwelming influence of the FEDERAL government in every aspect of their lives. They want to reduce the power of Washington. Its really that simple. yet progressives seem only to want to expand the size and reach of the Federal government. I can avoid Aetna wy entire life, I never have to buy a GM car or a Coke. But I can’t avoid the Feds.
And lastly you missed Sammy’s poit. The Gov will always cut the MOST essential services first. To do otherwise points out the fact the the Government was bloated to begin with when people find out they can live quite happily without some obscure department. One way to find out who is not needed is cut all 10-20% and see what doesn’t get done. Refund the critical areas and not the rest….I bet you could cut 1 in 10 of all fed employees without anyone noticing a change.
Islam will change
CoRev–JG is right. Nobody knows from one day to the next what “the People” think. That’s because they don’t know. Whoever comes up with some clever way to stir them up about some ineffable utopian vision of Constitutional purity will instantly acquire a following sufficient to fill a flat screen TV from top to bottom and side to side. It may be a crowd of 5000 or 50000, doesn’t matter. Middle distance, fill the screen, instant grass roots movement signalling a revolution in the R or the D or the I voters. Murdoch is deciding what pictures to sell and everyone else is just trying with much less success to keep up. He makes money whether the country goes to hell or not. So, they will forget. They always do. We here don’t because we are more than a little crazy on the subject of politics. But, people have already lost interest and the next time they’ll come up for air will be October 2012. NancyO
Mornin’, Mr. Buff–Most of APA won’t take effect for another year or two. Wipe it off the books, and you get zip effect on the current budget. In fact, you get a boost of at least 500 Billion in Medicare costs because of subsidies to health insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans and other anticipated increases in provider service charges. Continue the current tax structure for marginal rates, and you get another 700 Billion in deficits, continue the wars, maybe 500 million over the next 4 to 6 years, etc.
In short, as Ilsm points out, follow the money and you end up in DOD, AFPac and weapons systems. SS can roll along for a while without worrying about it and in the meantime, bridges will start falling this Spring when the winter’s salt finishes eating out the last of the already cheesy girders. The country is falling apart, people are out of work, and the temperature in the frog pond is getting hotter and hotter.
Mr. Buff, I think what we have here is a failure of communication. This IS the next Depression. And, if we want Constitutional purity, may I remind everyone that the words “political party” are nowhere present in the Constitution. Times like these are what the federal government is for. Nancy O
Mr. Goodwin–No matter what the administration proposes, it will get shouted down. This adminstration talks too much and therefore, is less effective than it could be. If I were the President, I would say and propose absolutely nothing. I would instead plaster the walls of Congress with Executive Orders doing what I thought would produce the best effects. It takes a long time for people to catch on to them although they are a very powerful weapon in the hands of a determined President. I would also get ready to use the Treasury’s various non-SS Trust Funds as supplemental appropriations. Rubin did it and you’d be surprised how long you can get along on the those TF’s and their revenue stream. This is no time to be pure. The President should ask Big Dog how. Good infighter he. Comes from being Southern. NancyO
AS–Good point. NO
Right, Miss Anna. NancyO
Actually, I just checked. The constitution says nothing about the marine corps, or the nuclear arsenal. The constitution does mention a navy, but it doesn’t say anything about submarines. There’s a lot we can get rid of if we are constitutional purists. Personally, since I see no evidence that the military has as its goal keeping us safe, and I see plenty of evidence that the military has as its goal propping up the defence industry, I think we would be better without all of these (marines, nuclear arsenal and submarines.)
Actually, I just checked. The constitution says nothing about the marine corps, or the nuclear arsenal. The constitution does mention a navy, but it doesn’t say anything about submarines. There’s a lot we can get rid of if we are constitutional purists. Personally, since I see no evidence that the military has as its goal keeping us safe, and I see plenty of evidence that the military has as its goal propping up the defence industry, I think we would be better without all of these (marines, nuclear arsenal and submarines.)
I didn’t miss his point. I understand it all too well, unfortunately. If you are advocating the same debate free process he is you’re on my pity list too.
“One big reason is that this is true is that we can depend on the Libs and their willing accomplices in the media to treat us with endless features showing “they are taking food from the babies etc.” old people eating dogfood, veterans suffering from diabetes that might have been caused by Agent Orange, or maybr something else. it doesn’t matter, don’t they deserve it? People whose two years worth of unemployment is running out. What about the children? blah, blah, etc. etc.”
Sammy,
Now that you’ve delineated some of the many needs that afflict a significant portion of the American working class are you suggesting that such needs are irrelevant to the rest of us? Do you really see it as hard hearted to care about those who suffer from the worst deficiencies of our econommic system? Do you believe that poverty happens as a process external to the economic system? Should it truly be a dog eat dog and screw all the little guys? Are you really that much of a jerk? Do you not recognise the inhumanity of your perspecltive? Or, am I wrong, and is there really nothiing humane about human behavior?
Mr. White–Why, you’re absolutely right!! And, the Navy has the coolest uniforms if we include the Marines dress blues. So, I vote for keeping them and a fleet of sail-powered vessels and ditching the rest. Since this is a very frivolous and annoying non-comment, I look forward to scathing counter comments. NancyO
AS said: “..across the board cutbacks actually constitutes a refusal to govern.” As I mentioned in the other thread you do not understand how the Fed Govt works. The Legislative Branch legislates and has some oversight role with little influence overt policy but with the purse strings. The Executive Branch Governs by implementing legislation and setting policy, and interpreting recommendations from the other two branches.
You then continue your rant with a couple of rash statements of my personal motivations. Kinda silly, since you don’t actually know me nor talk to me other than through this medium.
What you propose, Congress getting deeply into the operations of programs within executive agencies, is at best beyond their resources and capabilities, and quite probably verges on the constitutionality of separation of powers.
This level of governance you are suggesting is only possible by those familiar and involved in the day-to-day operations of the programs and Agencies. That’s the executive branch!
So, if you are trying to slow down any changes forced by budget cutting, it won’t work. If you are trying to make Congress the scape goat for the detailed decisions for how those budget cuts will be implemented, that also will not work. If you are just ignorant of the Federal Government operations, then that is obvious.
Jack,
Are you really that much of a jerk? Do you not recognise the inhumanity of your perspecltive?
Thanks for illustrating my point. One sob story and you will be ready to get some more money from the rich guy so you can feel more humane. A lot of people (most?) are like this. And when the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, and 50% pay no taxes, well that is why it is so hard to cut spencing.
But we are spending $1.40 for every $1.00 in revenue. You try that with your own personal finances and see how long you last. I guess we can get more money from the “rich” but they are the one’s that provides the jobs. Raise the tax rates on the rich to 75% and see how many luxury cars you sell.
NO, if you think conservative voters will forget the largest tax increase in several life times, you are sadly mistaken. Maybe you didn’t notice the arguments against the Obama/
dem/progressive/liberal policies, but the results were resounding.
Letting the tax cuts expire plays directly into conservatives’ hands for the 2012 elections. I just don’t foresee the Obama handlers being that foolish. The presidential race started last Wednesday, and the only voters that will lose interest are those who may or may not vote. They break late because of their lack of interest, which is good for the more motivated. That was conservatives in the past election, and there is little chance of that changing with this law just being allowed to expire.
Consider yourself scathed! :>))
This is an interesting counter-civics lesson you’re trying to provide. When I was taught US Government about 35 years ago it was fairly routine pedagogy that Congress exercised the Power Of The Purse. If things had changed that much you’d think they would have managed to make a Frontline about it or something.
And it took me about 15 seconds to find this article by Lee Hamilton explaining congress role in exactly those terms, to wit: “That responsibility is Congress’s “power of the purse” — its ability to set the spending and taxing policies of the nation. Not one dime can be spent from the federal Treasury without the approval of Congress.”
http://www.centeroncongress.org/radio_commentaries/power_of_purse.php
Your attempt to rewrite 40 year old civics textbooks is pitiful. Still.
Why, CoRev! Thank you for the excellent scathe! NancyO
I realized after I posted that I should probably point out that the US President still doesn’t have a line item veto. Obama is a fan as are most presidents once they get elected. Without that essential modification your arguments regarding my knowledge of US Governance are not worth reading much less typing.
AS, huh!?! Not only your ignorance of how the Fed Govt operates, but now you are showing your inability to read. What are you responding that I wrote?
I was responding to your comment on who/what/ governs. The power of the purse was even mentioned in my comment: “The Legislative Branch legislates and has some oversight role with little influence overt(sic) policy but with the purse strings. “ The “but” may be superfluous.
Anytime, M’dear!
None of which addresses my initial response to you. If governmental largesse is so distressing to our new GOP congressional freshmen why can’t they be expected to identify exactly what programs should be cut? This seems to me to be a minimal requirement regarding productive engagement in the governing process.
Unfortunately for Sammy, CoRev and MG, some of us remember enough history to recall the last president to successfully pass a budget leading to surpluses. Charming fella named Bill Clinton. He passed it without a single GOP vote in either house of congress. But this new Tea Party Inc GOP has a new set of priorities eh? We shall see.
So… Congress is responsible except when (you say) they’re not. Got it.
AS, you’re making no sense. I asked a simple question. To what are you responding that I wrote? And you came back with just more silliness.
I’m going out hunting, y’all have a good time.
Whereas sammy and his allies would never argue from emotion when it comes to the struggles of the rich.
Understand, much of what passess for clear-eyed rationalism from the right is instead an effort to taint perfectly legitimate concerns for humanity from the non-right. There is no particular reason that we should not take human need into account when setting policy. sammy is just trying to weaken the appeal of human-centered policy with “Oh, you’re going to resort to sob stories”. He hasn’t really shown that policy based on human need is somewho wrong. The fact is, it can’t be shown. Much of policy making reflects preference, rather than cold logic. sammy simply prefers policies that allow some people to suffer unnecessarily, over policies that cause the better off to loose a few bucks.
Anna,
You have more or less described buffy’s favorite talking point since before Obama was inaugurated. Whatever happens, no matter how many times Republican Senators filibuster or threaten to, everything is Obama’s fault. Politics above policy, ever and always.
AS,
Once again you prove you do not understand. Congress writes a check for the DoD. Within there are specific provisions for certain items spending levels at best.(Basically earmarks). But the bulk of the DoD spending occurs without direct oversite of Congress. Congress does not decide how much funding should go into yearly maintenance of the B-52 vs B-1 vs B-2. heck they don’t even set the maintenance funding level of all AF aircraft, in total, as an item. That done by the executive branch via the Secratary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force. If you cut the AF budget by 10%, that may mean an 5% INCREASE in B-52 maintenance, a 7% decrease in B-1 maintenance, and a 12% decrease in B-2 maintenance. But the executive branch does the cutting….
So when you do an across the board spending cut, the Executive branch, not the congress, will decided how to handle the cuts. So if the 911 service is cut – that’s Obama deciding its the least important.
Islam will change
kharris – not a talking point – reality.
Glad your finally seeing it. You did not have much problem with it for the 8 years with President Bush.
Islam will change
Given that the top I% earn nearly all the income and have nearly all the wealth, why is it not assumed that they should pay nearly all of the taxes that may be needed to support the government. Keep in mind that it is the government and its policies that provide the 1% with such a wonderful environmrnt in which to earn, develop and sequester that wealth. Here is a nice tidy article from the archives of UC Santa Cruz which spells out the glorious wealth of the 1%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html When i% earn nearly all the income there isn’t much left for the other 99% to spend. And there is even less per worker when you look at the other 95% instead. How on Earth would they be expeclted to pay any tax if they haven’t got any reasonable income to pay it from? And they” certainly need their SS benfits and Medicare when they retire since they earned so little of the nation’s welath during their working years. Those that’s got it has to pay since those that hasn’t got nothin’ left to pay with.
Nancy,
I beleive we still have a in-commission sail powered sailing vessel, also from the time of the signing of the constitution. The USS Constitution. ‘Old Ironsides’ is berthed in Charleston harbor with a crew of 60 and still on active duty.
I, unfortuanately, have to agree the Marines have the coolest uniforms and the best PR…
Consider you further scathed!!! 🙂
AS,
Great get Bill and Newt back in office, roll back the clock to before 9/11 and the dot-com bubble bursting and go back to the heady days of buying pets.com for $20/share.
But instead we got Obama and total control of the Fed by Dems for two years. Its all on you guys…just like I said it would be.
I also very correctly pointed out that Obama would continue the wars and protect Bush’s legacy!
Islam will change
And once again you try to start my education with your condescension. Thanks anyway.
Yessir, Mr. Buff–Thank you for pointing out that future naval needs are apparently taken care of already! And, the excellence of the Marines’ dress uniform is acknowledged by one who knows from uniforms. Outstanding! Equally excellent scathe, might I say, although you’d do well to be more timely in the future, sir. Just a reminder. Must maintain discipline even in scathe. TTFN. NancyO
Ummmm, Jack. If the rich paid all the taxes, it follows that they would literally own the government and could do what they wanted with it and that would be awful, right? Wait a minute. I got it backwards. They already own the government and do what they like with it, so why should they pay more taxes? Isn’t that what they’re thinking? Why pay for what you own already? I’ve got to stop hanging out with you guys. First, I actually start thanking CoRev and Buff for scathe and now, I end up understanding the poor misunderstood billionaires. What next? 😉 NancyO
“Obama is President. He sets the agenda”
The house introduces legislation. The senate considers it, It is brought to the President to execute. Big money people want an imperial presidency who drives the agenda. When power is diffused to the legislature it weakens the hold of the oligarchy.
Had the Senate still been appointed by state houses as the constitution originally provided for power would be even more defuse.
Boehner should attempt to drive domestic events. His job however is not undermining our Kenyen interloper’s foriegn policy by calling for another war for Israel.
Spencer nails the Republicans. They are all hat when it comes to cutting spending. They never do.
Jack starts his rant with this falsehood: “Given that the top I% earn nearly all the income“
But from his own article we get these examples:
………………………Income
Year ..Top 1% ……Next 19% ….Bottom 80%
2006..21.3%……..40.1%…………..38.6%
So what Jack can not understand from his own article is that the remaining 99% actually account for 78.5% of the total income. The top 1% DO NOT EARN NEARLY ALL THE INCOME.
We also find in Jack’s article that the top 1% total net worth went from the 33.8% to 34.6% a grand total of a wopping .6% in 25 years.
Jack, your total buy-in of the Dem class warfare talking points is embarrassing.
Nancy,
The sad facts are that while you are being sarcastic all too many of the voters wouold understand your comment for its literal message. I say voters as distinct from citizens because of the disconnect between the two. When the very wealthy in both their personal and their their corporate guise can virtually buy senators in cow country USA for chump change their is little contest in controlling the government. Brooklyn has a much larger population than about 18 states and more likely more than 25 states. So too the boro of Queens, but neither has any representation in the Senate. NYC ought to become four seperate states and give Staten Island to NJ. That would begin to approach balanced representation in the Senate.
Tecnically, legislation can be introduced first in either house.
Well the big stick that the president currently has is that in the event of total gridlock, all the Bush taxcuts expire. And for large portions of the Congress that is the worst possible thing.
Jack–What’s fair representation got to do with it? Besides, every Senator is worth more than what you paid for him to someone else. So, they don’t stay bought. You have to keep plugging the meter. From the standpoint of the buyers, it’s better to have fewer of them since you can reduce costs somewhat. It has actually always been this way in the Congress. It’s just that more people are aware of the system and how it works now than previously. People who weep for the innocence of former times don’t know from squat about how the system has always worked.
It helps to be from the South. This part of the country is a plutocracy and always has been. Other people had the illusion of more political freedom through elected reps. But, it was just an illusion. Now the Billionaire Boys Club is quite openly running the show. They used to be more discreet. That’s the only difference between then and now. NancyO.
As I’ve said, Jacobins United for a Better America.