Replies to post #122108 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

New pay-go rules reveal GOP's misplaced priorities

January 2, 2011; 6:55 PM

ARE HOUSE Republicans serious about dealing with the deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric - or you could read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting.

The ominous signs come in the wording of the new majority's version of its pay-as-you-go rules, which normally require that new programs or tax initiatives be covered with cuts to other programs or new revenue. In the GOP concept, pay-as-you-go applies only to spending programs. When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay. Taxes can be cut, and the national debt increased, without any offsetting savings.

If you thought the sticker shock of the latest tax deal served as a useful reminder that tax cuts cost the Treasury money, think again. Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when it comes to tax cuts. But that's not all. Under the new rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed - not even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes, no problem. No need to pay for that.

Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit-busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax break to let "small businesses," which can be expansively defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross income.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget it. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, programs that help keep low-income working parents and children out of poverty, are not assumed to continue and would have to be paid for - with, of course, spending cuts. This is about as upside-down a set of priorities as can be imagined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010202495.html?wprss=rss_opinions

..........so NOW they figured this out ? the wapo and MOST all other media outlets are a huge factor for the problems in our country..! Every thoughtful person figured this all out in the bush years .. yet the wapo .. while salivating over every 200 teabagger gathering .. now ..sneaks this in ?

[StephanieVanbryce]

The GOP Spending Compromises Begin

Jonathan Chait January 5, 2011 | 10:09 am

..........Embedded Links

And so it begins. House Republicans have vowed to cut $100 billion from the federal budget. Of course, they're making exceptions for Social Security, Medicare, defense, and homeland security. Which means that the tiny slice that remains has to be subject to a 20% cut or more. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04fiscal.html?_r=1 ]

And then, when you start to look at the programs they plan to cut, all of them either have strong lobbies, strong policy rationales, or both. Here's George Will a couple days ago making the case that Republicans should not cut funding for scientific research. And there's a furious (and also persuasive) response against cutting transportation infrastructure:

Groups that back more highway spending aren't waiting to see specific cuts to register their opposition. Congress is expected to take up a new multi-year highway and transportation funding bill this year, and a diverse array of groups ranging from the Chamber to big labor unions are calling for more funds to rebuild the nation's infrastructure.

The Chamber, which contributed heavily to GOP congressional candidates in the midterm elections, said in a letter last week that subjecting highway spending to the uncertainty of annual budget cuts would lead to more job losses in the battered industry. The letter was also signed by groups tied to the construction industry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123102007.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808704576062342133580266.html?mod=WSJ_Election_MIDDLETopStories

And on and on down the line. So now Republicans are cutting their spending cut target in half:

Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05fiscal.html?_r=1

They haven't even taken over yet, and they've already reduced their target by half! They will reduce it further still as they get into the details. The one thing that won't be scaled down is the Republican appetite for tax cuts.

The basic situation is that you have a tiny handful of principled conservatives who genuinely want to cut the size of actual government programs. But that accounts for a tiny slice of the general opposition to government programs, which is rooted in misperceptions about what government spends money on alongside strong support for the programs that actually exist. Government programs are popular. Some of them serve little purpose (think farm subsidies) but those generally exist precisely because they have powerful constituencies.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80890/the-gop-spending-compromises-begin

.......I find it difficult to think of 'george will' as an intellectual ..wow .. he believes in Science ?.. cui bono

[StephanieVanbryce]

When Spending Cuts Get Real

Jonathan Chait January 5 2011

More adventures in Republicans grappling with the fact that actual spending programs are popular. Here's Paul Ryan refusing to say what programs he would cut:

MEREDITH VIERA (HOST): You say discretionary spending — give me specifics. Where are you going to cut? Are you gonna cut transportation, education, Medicare — what are you going to cut?

RYAN: That is what is gonna happen in the appropriations process down the road. So I can't tell you the answer to that because, as a budget committee person, we simply lower the cap and then those things go down. We're gonna be reducing all domestic discretionary spending. I can't tell you by what amount and which program, but all of it is going to be going down, and the aggregate amount will be back to 2008 levels before the spending binge occurred.

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201101050001

What spending programs do you plan to cut, Rep. Ryan? Oh, all of them, any of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8

The discussion is preceded by Ryan saying he wouldn't touch defense. And of course, he won't touch Medicare or Social Security, either. So that leaves the portion of the discretionary budget that isn't defense. But of course, you can only say you're going to cut domestic discretionary spending because domestic discretionary spending is not a program, it's a category. Once it gets down to cutting scientific research and roads and, well, everything else that isn't foreign aide or programs that only benefit the poor, it gets very unpopular very fast. You can avoid naming programs he wants to cut for a while but he can't run forever.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80904/when-spending-cuts-get-real

[StephanieVanbryce]

ROTF....! Republicans to Spend $1.1 Million Reciting Constitution on House Floor

snip ~~

It would seem that in an era of Fiscal Responsibility™, a performative rendition of the Constitution might have been one such eliminated endeavor. For an estimate on just how much the Republicans would have saved if they had decided against the tedious exercise, VF Daily checked with Peter Keating, the co-author of “The Cost of No” and VF.com’s resident expert on Congressional wastefulness.

According to Keating:

The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.

To get this estimate, I took the total FY 2011 costs for House salaries and expenses and House office buildings, then added half the costs of joint House-Senate expenses, the CBO, the Capitol Police and the Capitol power plant. Then I divided that sum by 205, the number of days the House was in session last year, then divided again by 24 (the number of hours in a day) and multiplied by 3 (the estimated length in hours of members reading the Constitution). It might not take three hours to read the document, but on the other hand, Congress is usually in session for considerably less than 205 days a year. Also, I didn’t include staff costs, since most aides will probably be working through the reading. But not all will be, so overall I think this is a conservative estimate.

To keep the republican tradition - Tax CUTS will be coming within two months. Oh YES .. the 'deficit hawks' are back to their tried and failed ways!
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/how-much-will-it-cost-republicans-to-recite-the-constitution-on-the-house-floor.html

[StephanieVanbryce]

Three Days to Read Bills before Voting ? - NOPE

In the absence of an agreement between the House and the Senate, the proposal allows the Republican Chairman of the Budget Committee to unilaterally set enforceable spending and revenue limits for the entire Federal government - with no Committee consideration or vote of the House.



• So much for that pledge about never voting on a bill you haven't read:



If you believe the Republican rhetoric, you'd think that every member of the House will have at least 3 days to read any bill before it is brought to the floor for a vote. But if you read the fine print, you will see that the new rules specifically exempt the Rules Committee. This means that the Rules Committee will take up a bill that has been available for 3 days, strike every word, and completely rewrite it - with no notice.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/01/03/house-dems-pushback/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider

[StephanieVanbryce]

House GOP Won't Read Entire Constitution

......Another Day .. ANOTHER PROMISE BROKEN!

David Weigel Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:11 AM

In case anyone was wondering whether the 3/5 Clause would get a read. [ http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/05/original-u-s-constitution-will-not-be-read-in-entirety-on-house-floor/ ]

Instead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an “amended version” that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.

“We’re reading the amended version with all amendments that are currently part of the Constitution,” said Kathryn Rexrode, a spokesman for Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who spearheaded the reading. “It will not include any amendments that were in the original but later amended.”

Original U.S. Constitution will not be read in entirety on House floor

Members who signed up for the reading don't know which part of the Constitution they'll get. They'll be spared defense of slavery or Prohibition, but pity the congressman who has to read the 16th Amendment and talk about the right of the federal government to collect income taxes. (If they're cheeky, they'll give it to Ron Paul.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/06/house-gop-won-t-read-entire-constitution.aspx

[StephanieVanbryce]

The Trouble with Numbers

David Weigel Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:08 AM

Reporters love numbers, and we love benchmarks. What's that -- the Obama administration provided estimates for how many jobs the stimulus package would create-or-save? We'll check that. Economists predicted a slightly lower jobless number than the one we got? That factors into our doomsaying.

The $100 billion that Republicans promised to cut this year was a little different than either of those numbers. It was a pledge (in the Pledge to America), not a promise. So Republicans have been taking hits since the New York Times reported that this year's cuts, at best, were likely to be in the $50-60 billion range. Jim Angle has the spin:

Republicans won't have a whole budget year to work with. Congress failed to pass a current budget even though the fiscal year began last October. So the government is now operating on a temporary spending measure which runs out in March.

Budget chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wi., said that because they're halfway through the fiscal year, half the spending cats are already out of the bag. So by the time any cuts can be made, the reductions will add up to less.
"They'll try to cut tens of billions of dollars out of that funding, but realistically getting down all the way to 2008 might take a year and a half instead of the first year," says Doug Holtz Eakin, a republican analyst and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. "That would still be a remarkable success."

As a result, the cuts for this budget year are likely to be closer to 60 billion.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/05/gop-house-leaders-and-new-spending-promises

Okay, but let's go back to the Pledge.



"First year alone" means, to most people, in the first year alone. This is a silly trap that Republicans set for themselves: They can start cutting to "pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels" and not achieve the specific number they requested, prodding the rest of us to call them disappointments. All of this will reflected in the Don't-Tread-on-Meter.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/06/the-trouble-with-numbers.aspx

[StephanieVanbryce]

Birtherism Breaks Out!

.......every FREAK in town shows up WHEREver the 'gop' is

January 06, 2011 11:32 AM | By David Weigel

During the reading of Article II, Section I of the Constitution -- the clause that requires the president of the United States to be a "natural born citizen," an unidentified woman in the gallery screamed "Except Obama! Except Obama!" Politico's Marin Cogan adds that the woman yelled, "Help us, Jesus!" She was removed immediately.

UPDATE: I'm told that the woman who made the disruption was Theresa Cao, a birther activist and supporter of court-martialed birther Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. On December 16, she told WorldNetDaily that she was "taking his message to the White House and Congress." She maintains a blog here and a Facebook page here.

there links..lol, wnutdaily links
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/06/birtherism-breaks-out.aspx

[StephanieVanbryce]

GOP bends its own new House rules



.........It's ONLY two days after gop taking control AND all ready this 'BREAK' their own promises is getting OLD ..!..YES, this is NEW STUFF, today ..read it if you want, I repeat, I'm getting tired of their breaking every promise ..shtick, BECAUSE ..it's just so damn predictable !..no..?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47124_Page2.html