Loading ...G.O.P. House And Senate Members Having Political Food Fight Again With Leadership Afraid Of Lending Credence To “Party Of No” Label
According to Glenn Thrush of The Politico, the Grand Old Party Party of “No” is shaking in their collective “boot” again. One thing you’ve got to give ‘em — they are, indeed, a “big tent party” — a “tent” filled with hundreds of guys-n-gals who can barely stand each other on a political basis.
President Obama is absolutely W-R-O-N-G to make fun of those who see decriminalization of marijuana and taxing it as one way to help stimulate the economy at his Town Hall Meeting today, but I’ll re-address that one in a future column, or — if you’d like, feel free to check out my anti-”Global War On Drugs” archives. Bad, bad Barry – B-A-D. Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish has a “must read” column you should, by all means, ponder, sir.
Now, back to the Republican bashing…
You see, a few days back, President Barack Hussein Obama had presented Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IND) with what he felt was his very well-reasoned, highly detailed budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2010. Hours later, he receives a nineteen page “NOPE!!!” on his desk. No alternative ideas, no suggestions, just a nineteen page “NO”. It didn’t really reflect well upon the G.O.P. leaders PUBLIC SERVANTS (MY, how fast the politicos forget their TRUE role for The People they are elected to SERVE, isn’t it?) intellect, character and dedication to helping to make this a better country for all. President Obama and others said as much, of course, using this incident to illustrate just how correct they were all along in using the “Party of No” label for these people.
Now, fast-forward to today. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Minority Whip and Britney Spears’ biggest fan, Eric Cantor (R-VA) were whining about their party’s new alternative budget “blueprint” released today just to quickly be told to “shush” by both House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Mr. Pence and back the blueprint. Failure to do so, they reasoned, would only give the Democrats more “Party of No” fodder and they’re “mad as hell and just aren’t gonna take it anymore“. Oh, my gosh — you’ve really got to click on that Politico article for a good laugh. Talk about a bunch of children in suits and ties. Now, I’m talking about BOTH sides of the aisle again, by the way.
These people (G.O.P.’ers) just don’t know what in the heck they are. Hip-hop? For or against assault weapons? Big spenders or actual “conservatives”? Porkers or “Jeff Flakes” (CBS News)? Even scarier for them, just who IS their “voice”? Rush Limbaugh? Michael Steele? Newt? They don’t even have a clue.
And, what’s scary about this is the FACT The Eagle needs both a right wing and a left wing to fly and She’s in ICU unless and until these dorks get their collective “act” together and QUICK.
***
Other bloggers O-Pine: My friend Ron Beasley of The Newshoggers; John Cole of Balloon Juice; The Anonymous Liberal
GTL
It was a budget blueprint. The GOP knows they are going to be locked out of this budget fight and that the real fight is within the Democratic party and our only hope is that enough trully, honestly and patriotic Democrats will not rubber stamp Obama’s MINDLESS DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA as he declares financial war on the rest of the world.
Our hope is with the moderate, fiscally sane Democrats who are even know coming under attacks by Michael Moore and Moveon.org.
Lord help us.
Given the depth and scope of this budget’s assault on our economy and liberty, I would wear the party of “No” badge proudly, if I were a Republican. This budget has so much waste and so many distasteful provisions that just saying “No” is an entirely rational response.
Perhaps President Obama will put on his “Bi-Partisan” pants and work out a compromise, since that was such a major claim during his campaign. I rather doubt it, since all of the existing evidence is that he is yet another lying pandering politician, albeit with a better jump shot.
Once again, the only thing “Bi-Partisan” about Obama’s administration and his agenda is the Opposition to it.
Hey, Chuck – I notice you’ve been here more often lately. I hope that’s a sign that your business is picking up along with the stock market/economy in general.
Obama is a Chicago Style politician through and through. If you want to know how he’ll perform, just check his past record and the records of his cronies, e.g. Rahm, Blago…
Speaking of Blago, I think you’ll appreciate this one GTL, a local Chicago radio station (WLS-AM, owned by ABC – Disney) had Blago on one morning this week as the guest host of a talk-radio program while the regular hosts were on vacation. If Blago stays out of prison, I won’t be surprised if he gets a full time talk radio gig at that ABC affiliate.
(Except for the fact that he was actually pretty bad as a talk show host.)
Also, Blago claimed he was set up by other Illinois/Chicago school democrats (more of Obama’s cronies) who wanted to raise taxes. Blago refused to raise taxes so the other dems wanted him out of the way. He had said repeatedly that as soon as Pat Quinn took office, he would raise taxes. WIthin three weeks or so after Quinn was sworn in as Governor, he announced a state tax increase.
Hmmmmm…. Maybe Blago was right…
Obama has never been one to shy away from character assassination. Remember how he got his Illinois Senate gig – Obama managed to get the divorce records of the very popular Jack Ryan leaked to the press. This caused Ryan to drop out of the race and Obama to run un-opposed.
What a guy!
I’ve been reading Pence’s budget and I wouldn’t even consider it an outline, I’ve done too many budgets and this farce would not have left my desk.
President Obama’s budget has been out there now for us all to read. He promised that there wouldn’t be any hidden costs left out and he delivered. The Irag war cost is in there and it should have been in every budget all along. I may not like all of his budget proposals but I know what he is trying to do.
Americans need to know the real cost of running this country and all of it’s, or ours, programs.
What would you be willing to give up in order to keep taxes low? I’m serious. Every time I hear someone yelling for lower taxes, it seems that the only thing they’re willing to give up is the other guy’s benefits. My husband and I make capital gains and I would be more than willing to pay them at our regular tax rate. So that’s one thing we’re willing to give up, special tax rates.
We should not have the services that we seem to demand without paying for them.
GTL
Actually things have reached equilibrium, we are flatlined. Everything that can be cut has, so that now it becomes a waiting game. We simply will live or die based on whether conditions improve, although I may have a suck…er, buyer.
Gaia
How about this for start. Every non-entitlement federal program will be reduced by 40%. No new programs will be created for at least 5 years. Social Security will be indexed to inlation, and average wage increase. The department of education will be eliminated, with the appropriations given to the states in block grants. The department of energy will be eliminated, and a stake driven through it’s heart.
That’s a good start, with the ultimate goal to return government to the enumerated roles that the Constitution proscribes.
Chuck, it is the capons in Congress we have to watch. Even Jefferson back in the day saw that:
I see…with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic…aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825
Notice that even back then that vague, general clause in the Preamble was used to justify subverting the Constitution. And the preamble is just a statement of purpose, not a ceding of powers to the Feds. I think that we would “promote the general welfare” much more effectivly if we held the branches to the strict limit of powers as laid out in the Constitution, rather than allowing them all to fall back on that clause in the Preamble.
Another poison to our liberty is the interstate commerce clause. That has been much abused too.
I’ll go with evrything you said, Chuck, and add the department of Commerce. At the very least every single department should have to justified. Social Security, no problem; but how about Medicare and Medicaid? Both of those programs are out of control and so is the RX program. How do we control health care costs?
F&B…. I read your post about trickle down and the wealthy creating business and jobs and I’m sorry but I don’t buy either. Please consider this: Pizza Hut was started in an old baber shop by two college students trying to pay their college tuition, Coca Cola by a pharmacist in his one and only drug store,
Apple in a garage, again by a college student, Beech Aircraft was started in a barn by two men, a woman and a dream, White Castle was started in Wichita as
hanburger joint by a guy who wanted to feed his family, Coleman of the camping Colemens, started his business in an old shed with his kids to help. Look how Sam Walton started, one store in Arkansas.
It is not the wealthy who start the businesses, it is the dreamers, the people who want more than they have in life people who have an idea or a desire to get out in front of the pack.
Chuck, I hope you pull through. It’s heartbreaking to start something and have it fall through from no fault of your own.
And my opinion of most of our politicans,
There is no distinctly native American criminal class…save Congress.
– Mark Twain
Have to agree with you on Obama’s comments. Dismissing the posibilities when it comes to the legalization of pot is a substatially boneheaded move on his part. I mean, all things considered, imagine the decrease in spending when it comes to law enforcement in that area. We would save a ton of money on that. Then there’s the potential increase in tax revenue. There’s a potential job market. You already have laws in place to regulate it. And there are geniune, practical medical uses! I’m sure the prescription drug companies, ever ready to make a quick buck, are ready to pounce on this one.
But we both know why he said what he said. It’s purely political. He’s trying to make a little bit nice with the far right, and if there’s even a hint of discussion regarding legalizing pot, you’ll never hear it from some folks down here.
And I don’t care how many times folks say it… “President Obama” or any form of it just doesn’t sound right. It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?
Gaia, I couldn’t agree more about who starts businesses. People who have a need and a dream seem to create the best businesses. The wealthy expand on that, it seems, but it also seems that corporations tend to veer companies away from that original dream that made them what they are. Sam Walton would be a perfect example. I still remember his “buy American” campaign for Wal-Mart and his commitment to quality and good employment practices. What a difference from the Wal-Mart we see today!
The biggest problem I see with corporations today is that their focus is squarely on the bottom line, and there is little thinking ahead. When a company faces a lower profit margin, the first thing you’ll hear them say is that they should cut costs. Rarely do you see any real focus on increasing profit. It is rare that I see a push to diversify the product offered or to do more R&D to make sure that they’re offering a product people want. Lots of people cancel accounts with various services because they get annoyed with the customer service, and yet you will rarely hear an executive suggest that they should offer better wages and benefits to attract higher quality customer service. You won’t hear many suggest that perhaps they should create a better quality product that lasts longer to encourage more people to buy it. Why? Because those things require actually spending more money in the short term to make money in the long term. Rather, you hear them talk about moving customer service out of the U.S. to decrease labor costs or using a cheaper paint on X toy.
I’ve suggested that a great way to help save the auto industry is for them to offer the option to purchase a hybrid upgrade kit for their cars so that they can compete with foreign hybrids and yet offer something cheaper than the purchase of a new car– something people can afford to buy. They could focus (in the short term) on expanding the life and performance of existing cars that they sell by pushing those areas of their company. Dare I say, there’s even potential for them to break into other industries, like toys. But all these things would require them to spend money right now to get them to expand. This would also create more jobs which would add to the consumer base, and with an employee discount, they’d have an incentive to buy your product over your competitor. That’s not going to happen, because it goes so very far against what the typical corporate thinking allows.
A/M – “…hybrid upgrade kit…”; the problem is that it would cost more to upgrade a car to hybrid technology than it costs to build a new hybrid.
“Rarely do you see any real focus on increasing profit.” – Then why have so many companies invested large amounts of money in training their employees (investing in their employees) in techniques such as Lean Manufacturing, JIT, Six-Sigma, ISO 9000/TS 16949, etc? These programs help to decrease costs and increase productivity and quality without reducing employees. Further, the employees who receive this training increase their value to their employer, and also make themselves more marketable, more valuable, to other employers if they look for another job.
ALl of the companies that I interact with are constantly trying to improve their product quality and lower their costs and prices.
Gaia – “Trickle down” was your terminology, not mine. I agree, virtually every business alive today started as a small start-up with a small handful of employees or less. Cutting their taxes helps them afford more employees, or more R&D, or newer equipment – all of which helps them grow and add even more people and buy even more equipment, etc.
If you increase their taxes the reverse happens.
I am interested to know when Gaia or A/M talk about corporations, what exactly is in your mind as a definition of a corporation? When I think of corporations I think of businesses that employ 30 or 40 people, the owner(s) usually runs the place, and they strive to improve and grow every year. But when I read your disgust with corporate practices, you seem to only focus on the huge multi-nationals that are by far the exception. Most corporations never grow into multi-billion dollar behemoths. But most people in this country are employed by corporations of all sizes.
Gaia, What exactly do you not buy? I said: “tax cuts for everyone, not just the wealthy”; “the wealthy invest in businesses both large and small”; (when they have more money, they invest more money); when less wealthy people have more money they spend more money (tax cuts don’t just produce a supply-side effect, but also a demand-side effect). When I use the term “businesses” or “corporations” I am talking about the company with 5 or 10 employees as well as well as the company with 10,000 employees.
A/M – I hope the storms that rolled through Alabama today missed ya.
The problem with Bipartisanship is that both sides claim to want it. Demand it and are willing to give it a go. They preach about it. Demand it. Make speeches about it. Acknowledge that the People want it and that they have been elected to work along side their political opponents to make things happen.
We all know that Bipartisanship is the best way to govern in America.
The problem?
Both sides are standing with their heads down being asked to apologize by the nation with hands in pockets and their lips pursed tightly shut saying……………..
YOU FIRST!
“A/M – “…hybrid upgrade kit…”; the problem is that it would cost more to upgrade a car to hybrid technology than it costs to build a new hybrid. ”
Not necessarily. I’d say you haven’t looked at many of the patents online. Depending on the model of vehicle, it could be substantially cheaper. The only situation where it would cost more is with much older models. Plus, that’s kind of the job for R&D and engineers hired by these companies. Besides, that’s merely one suggestion from one person. I can’t imagine the possibilities that they’d come up with if they put some good money into R&D.
Every company (unless run by idiots) is going to train its employees. Period. But teaching employees to be more productive and building the same product is a form of cost reduction, as is employee retention and decreased employee attrition. It does not increase sales or the number of clients. Additionally, further training does not guarantee that employees will not quit, and it’s very expensive to train a new employee. Increased worker value also implies that you pay them more because, well, they have more value. Unfortunately, that seems to be lost on a lot of companies.
When you cut costs, you typically also lower the quality of the product. For example, say you cut labor costs by having toys made in China… I think you can fill in the blanks on that one. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t exceptions, but this is the rule.
You might also note that under the Bush tax cuts, large corporations and large income earners were among the largest beneficiaries. Few small business upstarts saw any real change. It’s also interesting to note that under the proposed tax plan presented by Obama, these same small businesses would receive MORE of a tax benefit than under the Bush cuts. Now, the natural response by some is that a lot of small business owners report their earnings under individual taxes; however, if you’re making that much money in your small business, you should be able to afford the assistence of a good CPA who can help you file taxes in a more beneficial manner. If you choose not to take advantage of the tax benefits of having a seperate incorporation, then that’s a personal responsibility issue.
When I refer to corporations, I’m referring to the larger ones, not small businesses. There are smaller corporations that don’t opperate under boards and top-earning CEOs. Those larger corporations are the ones that I refer to in terms of killing the dream upon which the smaller businesses started. Yet, these are the corporations that received the huge benefits that were supposed to allow for the hiring of new jobs– not the smaller ones.
“Supply-side” is not a guarantee. “Demand-side” is. You can’t count on folks who don’t particularly need anymore money to use it for the greater good when there’s no demand for their supply. In fact, it doesn’t make sense to hire anyone if you don’t need them. It contradicts too many good business practices. Investing only benefits those who already have money to invest.
But you CAN be guaranteed that the lower and middle classes, if they have more money, will spend it. And if there is a large demand out there, you can be guaranteed that the companies will hire more out of need, even if they’re paying a higher tax bracket or have restrictions on those they hire.
The storms didn’t miss us, but we’re fine. Thanks for the concern.
Reading the Rushpublican comments on here is always entertaining. It’s nice to see the Rushpublicans are still living on Planet Huh?
As for “Junket John” Boehner…. he needs an intervention. Badly.
A/M – “Not necessarily. I’d say you haven’t looked at many of the patents online.” – Actually, I have. In fact, I am listed as co-inventor on a couple of those patents – specifically for technology related to composite bi-polar plates for fuel cells. I do have a dog in this race and I would love to see fuel cell cars on the road, but I’m realistic enough to know that it isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
I love it when Jolly-Obamabot-Roger chimes in. Always good for a laugh
A/M – “It does not increase sales or the number of clients.”; Improved productivity allows price reductions, and improved quality speaks for itself – both of these help increase sales and the number of customers. Other than that, it seems like you’re agreeing with me in that paragraph?????
“Investing only benefits those who already have money to invest.” – It also benefits the small business owner that the rich guy invests in, and his employees.
There are no guarantees. Even on the “demand-side”, those who receive tax cuts sometimes spend the money on paying down their debt rather than spending on goods.
One more thought on the whole Obama Budget mess –
Thomas Jefferson once said; “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
Interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson… I’m surprised, then, that you’d support the amount of power given to the federal government to spy on its own citizens and suspend habeas corpus during the previous administration. “Conservatives” also wish to outlaw prostitution and gambling and marijuana and tell me which medical procedures should and should not be allowed because they are morally opposed. For people who call themselves “conservative,” those seem like fairly big government concepts.
The Bush Administration was not conservative. It was red-flavor liberal. The current Obama budget shows that, since the biggest chunk of it is military spending that had previously been hidden in the Bush budget.
That’s why I consider myself a moderate. No, I do not believe that government should need to control every aspect of our lives. I don’t believe that AIG and others should have ever been bailed out because their fall was a direct result of the bad business decisions that they lobbied for the right to have. I also agree with Lincoln that a corporation, while run by people, is not itself a person and should not have the same rights. But I do realize that some power is needed so that we do not have anarchy.
I believe that what little power is given to the government should be to protect and serve the people. Police departments and fire departments and schools are all what you’d probably call “socialized,” but I would never want a person in this country to not be able to receive any of those based on his or her income.
And the basic right to life falls on our ability to receive proper medical treatment, so yes, I think that’s going to be needed as well. Our insurance companies and health care industry is out of control, and even those who pay for insurance can’t get coverage half the time. The decision of whether a human being lives or dies should not be based on whether or not there is a profit.
I think the government is responsible for making sure that roads are built and for monitoring natural disasters so that we can prepare ourselves. I do not believe that these things come free, but I believe that they ultimately do come cheaper when our ability to fulfill basic need is not based on our ability to purchase them. Government was never meant to make a profit.
And I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that the people are protected by salesmen selling snake oil and calling it hair tonic– or the modern day equivalent. I believe that privately run corporations should not be allowed to get so large that they could collapse the economy and hurt people who were never involved with them when their leadership makes bad decisions.
I do not believe that the U.S.P.S. is a need any longer and should be phased out so that similar private services can take over, but again, they should be regulated so that they do not become a monopoly or so large that they become “too big to fail.” Capitalism is nice, but it’s fundamentally rooted in the concept of competition.
Those things aren’t making a government big enough to give me everything I want. Those things are basic responsibilities that a government should have to protect its people.
Nation building, unwarranted searches, holding someone without charge, and not allowing them the right to a speedy trial… THOSE are MAJOR concepts that go directly against the most basic rights given to us by our Constitution. And our founding fathers didn’t believe that we were the only ones entitled to them. They just realized that we were the only ones they had the power to give them to. So don’t bullshit me about conservatism and small government. From what I’ve seen, big government is a-okay with the far right as long as it’s being instilled by someone who has a (R) next to his name.
In your first paragraph; both parties are generally guilty of most of those things. The main disagreement comes where you mention “medical procedures”. I would guess you’re talking about abortion, since that’s about the only ‘medical procedure’ that has been legislated. Personally, I see abortion as murder, not a medical procedure, and it should be treated as such.
I also believe that the Federal Government should butt out. I totally agree with the paragraph about basic community services – police, fire, etc.
Nationalized health care will fail. People will have even worse coverage than now. National insurance for people who need it may be necessary, as is Social Security, Medicare, etc.
The Fed’s should only be involved in roads, etc. in so far as they involved inter-satet commerce. Intra-state roads are the responsibility of the state.
The Fed’s should only be involved in protecting people from ‘snake-oil’ salesmen when it involved inter-state crime. Intra-state crime should be handled by the states.
I agree, the post office is no longer needed.
The federal government under both parties has grown beyond its usefulness. If it is no longer useful to We The People, then it is up to us to trim it back to size. But don’t look for this to happen anytime soon. Obama and the left are growing government beyond the far rights’ wildest dreams.