All Posts Tagged With: "Republicans"

Taking a break from something can often give you some perspective that you may not get in the day-to-day grind. This 28-day (more or less) hiatus from blogging was good for me. It gave me some extra time to concentrate on some other things and it allowed me to step back from the blogosphere and view it from a casual observer perspective instead of an active participant. And it was eye-opening.

Since the latter part of last year, my blogging has been disproportionately focused on politics. The political commentary often evolved (or devolved, depending upon your perspective) into a response/counterresponse interaction with other bloggers and commenters — some of which escalated into ever-increasing caustic comments that became more personal and less substantive. I confess that I haven’t always lived up to my own standard of civility, respect and reason. And when I find myself wallowing hip-deep in the same mud as the other mudslingers, it’s time to reevaluate. And that’s what I did during my break.

When you step away from it, it’s amazing how juvenile it has become. The level of animus and disrespect among the dueling blogs is really amazing — and, quite frankly disheartening. It’s a microcosm of the larger “war” in this country between the firmly entrenched ideologues, who by their actions demonstrate that partisan loyalty comes first before the country’s bests interests. It’s not confined to the right wing and the GOP; the Democratic soldiers and left wing are just as unyielding. And as each side pulls the nation toward its position, the country is ever-so-certainly being torn asunder. And that, more than any other foreign threat, is the biggest danger we face as Americans.

We are facing the worst crises in nearly a century. Yet, partisans are more focused on winning the ideological fight than they are with saving our nation from economic devastation that few in this country are equipped to handle. The Republicans have disgusted me in ever-increasing ways with their grandstanding obstructionism; at the same time, Democrats have further convinced me why I will never join their ranks with their politically motivated power grabs and undemocratic governance of Congress. It’s all enough to make me want to throw up and simply give up.

It doesn’t seem to matter any more. Nothing that we say really makes a difference in Washington. Republican and Democratic politicians share at least one common purpose — to maintain and expand their grip on power and to pander to those who fill their campaign and personal coffers. Corruption is not the sickness of any one party. They are all mired in varying levels of corruption with very few exceptions. Money talks; constituent needs take a hike.

Meanwhile, the loyal minions of each wing war with each other in the blogosphere, discussion boards and chat rooms — unaware that Washington doesn’t care. Little that is said in the blogosphere changes anyone’s mind. Very few actually listen with an open mind. Fewer still take the time to truly educate themselves on the very issues they so passionately argue about. Misinformation, distortions and misrepresentations abound, which muddies everything to the point that it’s difficult to debate the merits of issues when the facts of those issues are so much in dispute. So often, it’s like arguing with a wall — pointless, fruitless and maddening.

To be honest, my break from the tit-for-tat spats in the blogosphere was refreshing. The absence did not make my heart grow fonder. Which is why I’m, once again, changing how I blog.

I’ll still opine about current affairs and politics, but certainly not nearly as often. In fact, my blogging over all will be much less prolific than previously. Instead, I’m going to go back to doing more non-political blogging. Yes, I’m indeed changing course once again. But as yesterday’s quotation by Heraclitus said, “Nothing endures but change.”

Stay tuned.

If Republicans can’t have a perfect bill to stimulate the economy,
they’d rather have no economy at all.

(Note: Video may take a moment to load)

President Bush, along with a sloppy and incontinent Republican majority in Congress, managed the feat of discrediting free market economics without ever practicing it. It was the Republicans who passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, and the bloated farm bill, and the transportation pork. This disqualifies most Republicans from challenging the gigantic new trough feeding that is about to begin under the Democrats.

— Mona Charen, nationally syndicated neoconservative
columnist, political analyst and author

Republicans are taking a stand, says Josh Marshall:

RNC members decide they no longer like President Bush, just in time for his no longer being president anymore.

In a comment about my earlier post about the family planning money likely being dropped from Obama’s stimulus plan, Daniel said he opposed family planning provisions in the House Dems’ stimulus proposal because he opposes pork in the stimulus bill. On that point, I would agree. I don’t know that I necessarily agree that this family planning money fits the classical definition of pork since it is available to any state that wants to participate and that it has the potential to save the government hundreds of millions of dollars. Having said that, I have no loyalty or passion for this provision, so I really don’t care whether it stays or goes. I would prefer to spend stimulus money on infrastructure, public investment and aid to the ailing states.

What I take issue with in Daniel’s comment is this statement and accompanying un-sourced quote:

Most of the money that will be spent won’t even be spent until after the ‘10 elections.

The government wouldn’t be able to spend at least one-fourth of a proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan until after 2010, according to a preliminary report by the Congressional Business Office that suggests it may take longer than expected to boost the economy. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said. About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019.

The problem with his statement is that it’s simply not true. Whatever his source, it cites a “preliminary report” that really wasn’t any official CBO report at all, as ThinkProgress noted yesterday:

As the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim and the American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz reported last Friday, the CBO report being touted by conservatives and the media isn’t an actual report. “We did not issue any report, any analysis or any study,” a CBO aide told the Huffington Post.

Instead, the CBO “ran a small portion of an earlier version of the stimulus plan through a computer program that uses a standard formula” to determine how quickly money will be spent. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lily notes, even that CBO analysis is based “almost entirely on a review of historical data on program performance,” which likely applies “less during an economic crisis like the one we currently face.” OMB Director Peter Orszag says that 75 percent of the stimulus plan “will be spent over the next year and a half.”

Today, The Washington Post reports what the official CBO report actually says:

Approximately two-thirds of the spending and tax cuts contained in an economic stimulus package crafted by House Democrats would flow into the economy by the end of fiscal 2010, producing a “noticeable impact on economic growth and employment,” congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

In an eagerly awaited analysis of the stimulus package, which is set for a vote in the House tomorrow, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the measure would cost the federal government about $816 billion over the next 10 years and that approximately $526 billion, or about 65 percent, would be spent by the end of September 2010.

The reality is, according to the CBO report, most of the money would be spent before the 2010 elections.

Now, what is true is that some portions of the stimulus package will be spent at a slower rate than other portions. For example, the CBO estimates that only 40 percent of the package devoted to highways, schools and other infrastructure projects would be spent by the end of 2010. Other portions that include tax cuts and direct aid to the poor and unemployed would be spent at a faster rate. But we shouldn’t reject infrastructure projects simply because they take longer to ramp up. This nation is in desperate need of infrastructure improvement — especially with its bridges. This portion of the stimulus will continue to inject investment into the economy beyond 2010, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

The point is, if you’re going to challenge the merits of something, you should probably understand that thing enough to know what its merits may or may not be.

Who says (with any intellectual honesty) that Obama’s not reaching across the aisle and listening to Republicans? From TPM:

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama’s scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

Under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services — including contraceptives — under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.

That’s one less thing the GOP can use as an excuse not to work with the president on this stimulus plan. So far it has been the president who has done the most compromising, at the detriment of his own party, to try to achieve compromise and agreement. I don’t see the same effort on the part of the GOP to come to a consensus. Are the Republicans going to be part of the solution or just an obstacle to any solution?

(Note: Video may take a moment to load)

So charges House Minority Leader John Boehner. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the provision in question.

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

With all the distortions, oversimplification and insults (like Limbaugh’s cheap shot), ThinkProgress provides the actual text from the stimulus package’s summary:

State Option to Cover Family Planning Services. Under current law, the Secretary has the authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to grant waivers to states to allow them to cover family planning services and supplies to low-income women who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The bill would give states the option to provide such coverage without obtaining a waiver. States could continue to use the existing waiver authority if they preferred.

And TP adds some much needed context:

Like other portions of the stimulus bill, this measure would not only aid states, but also provide preventative, cost-saving health care to help low-income women support their families and keep working. It focuses on access to recommended services and contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancies and promote maternal and infant health — not abortion. ThinkProgress has learned that an upcoming Congressional Budget Office report estimates that this change would save $200 million over five years and $700 million over 10.

No one would be forcing states to pay for family planning services. States can now cover low-income women if they get a state waiver, but approval can take a long time. Despite these bureaucratic hassles, 27 states have already “obtained federal approval to extend Medicaid eligibility for family planning services to individuals who would otherwise not be eligible.” This bill would simply allow states to skip the administrative delays.

*
Isn’t preventing unwanted pregnancies through contraceptives a good thing? Wouldn’t preventing unwanted pregnancies, especially among those who can least afford it, reduce the number of children on public assistance? Wouldn’t preventing unwanted pregnancies reduce the number of abortions?

Isn’t that what pro-lifers ultimately want? I know I do. If one way to achieve that is through contraceptives provided for low-income women and families (or anyone for that matter), why wouldn’t that be a good thing? Isn’t the best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place?

Obama to GOP: ‘I won’

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Hugh Hewitt makes some great points worth considering:

In that question is the new president’s greatest political danger. He’s about to oversee the spending of an unthinkable $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars ($350 billion in the second half of the bank bailout, and at least $700 million in the stimulus package.)  Even if growth returns as expected in the second half of 2009, voters in 2010 and beyond will be wondering, and Republicans will be asking: “Where did it go?  What did it buy?  What do we have to show for it?”

If President Obama oversees the payout of more than a trillion bucks and cannot point to anything but statistics to show for it in two years, he’ll have a political nightmare on his hands, and he’ll deserve it.  The enormous size of the stimulus is a never-before-seen-in-American-history splurge, and the Democrats thus far show no sign of treating it as other than a vast payout to their friends.

If President Obama was to demand the funding for and enabling legislation to kick start the construction of the dozens of new nuclear power plants this country needs, as well as the wind turbines envisioned by T. Boone Pickens and the grid expansion everyone knows is necessary, not only would he be creating thousands and thousands of great jobs, he’d be powering the U.S. up for a second American century.

I agree, except that it won’t just be Republicans asking “”Where did it go?  What did it buy?  What do we have to show for it?” Every taxpayer who’s paying attention will all be asking those same questions, regardless of their political identification.

If we’re going to infuse trillions of taxpayers’ dollars into the economy by way of astronomical deficits, then it better be for worthwhile investments into long-lasting projects that not only infuse capital into our economy but also addresses some of our nation’s long-term fundamental needs — like infrastructure and energy. As Hewitt noted, the nation’s power grid needs some serious work, including beefing up its security. Roads and bridges across the country, including right here in Oklahoma, are in desperate need of repair, rebuilding and new construction to replace the aging, outdated and obsolete structures designed for an era long past with much less traffic loads. And the nation certainly needs massive investment in innovation and infrastructure building for alternative energy sources, whether for our cars or for our commercial and private energy needs.

This can’t be a political pork feast with the most senior members of Congress getting the best chunks for their districts at the disadvantage of the country as a whole. The party in power needs to exercise its power with prudence and not with greed. I know that’s a lot to ask, but let’s just try it once since our nation literally sits at a precarious precipice. This not the time for politics and grandstanding but for meaningful and effective bipartisan solutions.

I’ve got a suggestion of my own. If in two years there is nothing to show for all this massive spending, we fire all of them — all 535 members of Congress — with a four-year ban before they can run for that office again. So, if they can’t set aside their political posturing and grandstanding and come together to diligently and honestly work on solutions for this country, then they are terminated for failure to perform. The stakes are too high for business as usual on Capitol Hill.

In two years (and again in four years), I will ask this Congress and this new president, “what do we have to show for it?” There better be some good answers. We certainly haven’t had must to show from the last big stimulus package nor from the economic policies of the last eight years. It’s certainly time for serious change and it’s most definitely time for complete accountability.