Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Republicans Splintering on Size of Cuts”

Going Gingrich?

Notes TerryH, who sent along the link, “I suppose you could say it’s better than nothing. […] However, given the huge deficits embedded within Medicare, Social Security, ObamaCare, etc would it be more accurate to say that ignoring entitlements is worse than nothing in that it ignores the root cause of the deficit problem?”

To which protein wisdom responds: Ahyup.

More here.

36 Replies to ““Republicans Splintering on Size of Cuts””

  1. McGehee says:

    This is why the Marine Corps puts its recruits through a test it calls The Crucible. Any member of Congress who can’t take the pressure of making real cuts, is dross — to be discarded.

  2. sdferr says:

    Rats leaving a sinking ship? Jon Kyl announces retirement. He’s got his.

  3. Joe says:

    I think $100 billion is a good start for cuts. What is the GOP trying to be, the perpetual fat chick at Weight Watchers who loses 5 lbs one week only to gain 7 lbs the week after?

  4. Squid says:

    Being the glass-half-full guy that I am, I must observe that for the first time in memory, there is a real argument going on regarding cuts to federal expenditures. Not arguments about holding growth to a certain ‘moderate’ level; not arguments about how much to try to get from the Democrats in exchange for letting them establish yet more overreaching programs. Arguments about actual cuts.

    Yes, there are significant remnants of the old guard who still can’t wrap their minds around the idea of significant cuts. But there is a vocal new faction that’s refusing to sit down and shut up. I’d like to think that they’re going to keep pushing, and keep pushing, until the old guard comes around or gets voted out. Let the Dems gloat about how the GOP is divided. When the alternative is a GOP that’s united in enabling the Dem agenda, I’ll take what we’ve got.

    It’s not enough; not by a long shot. But it’s a start.

  5. McGehee says:

    What is the GOP trying to be, the perpetual fat chick at Weight Watchers who loses 5 lbs one week only to gain 7 lbs the week after?

    Reminds me of something I once said about the local government when I lived in Alaska. The pols kept bragging about how they reduced the property tax mill rate every year, yet everybody’s actual tax bill — and the size of the budget — kept going up.

    I compared it to someone bragging about this great diet he’s on, while constantly having to take his pants to the tailor to be let out.

  6. McGehee says:

    It’s not enough; not by a long shot. But it’s a start.

    I have to admit, I agree with you there, Squid.

  7. happyfeet says:

    isn’t there a kabillion dollars of unspent stimulus monies what are just gonna go enrich Obama’s illiterate fat-ass union thug pals and lazy overpaid government workers?

  8. Pablo says:

    It’s not enough; not by a long shot. But it’s a start.

    Yes, it is. We have to keep in mind that 2010 was a victory in one battle, not the war. There is much work left to be done and many of the people who just won’t do it have yet to be replaced. We’ve only just begun.

  9. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I thought Kyl was one of the good guys. Are we sure he’s a rat?

  10. sdferr says:

    Is he a politician? Isn’t that the measure nowadays?

  11. Joe says:

    I like the $100 billion initial cut because it at least rolls back some of the damage of the last two years. But it is only a start. The big test is rolling back entitlements. Certainly Obamacare has to do, I would also add to that Bush’s prescription drug plan needs to get the boot (even Obama said that was bad), followed by reasonable cuts or eligibility restrictions in Social Security and Medicare. Medicare is unsustainable when it pays out 3x what people put in. Either raise the Medicare tax for all (wouldn’t that make you pop-u-lar Mr. Obama) or cut the payout to sustainable amounts. It is that simple.

  12. happyfeet says:

    maybe Mr. Shadegg will run he’s very alert about the spendings

  13. Jeff G. says:

    It’s not really a start when you are proposing cutting less than the announced bullet train program will cost.

    We need to get serious. I wish Rand Paul wasn’t silly on foreign policy. I’d nominate him myself.

  14. sdferr says:

    Kyl was happy to stick around as long as the spendings were outgoing and upgoing. Soon as they have to turn around and get cut, causing politicians everywhere no end of trouble for pissing some people off, no doubt, he’s outta there. Not all that hard a read, is it?

  15. Joe says:

    What is with Democrats and trains? Did their daddies never buy them an HO set as a kid?

    That was mean. Obama almost certainly did not get a train set as a kid.

  16. JD says:

    I kind of see this as a glass half full too. They have only had the House for about 1 month now. I suspect that the process to deform Medicare and Social Security and Defense and the other non-discretionary components will take a little time. Plus, isn’t this the budget just for the remainder of this year? I am happy they are talking about cuts instead of reducing the rate of growth. But there is waaaaaaaaaaaay more work to be done.

  17. Joe says:

    Entitlements are the third rail of politics. But we all know imposing fiscal santity to government requires scaling back entitlements. Okay, you have to treat it as an electrican would treat a third rail, cautiously and competently.

  18. Jeff G. says:

    You cut while the will and momentum is there to do so.

  19. Bob Reed says:

    I’ll take one hundred bil off of the rest of 2011’s budget to start, but they need to get all Rand Paul on that thing for 2012. At least 500 billion…

    And the first question answered at every House press conference about budgetary items has to begin with a well rehersed mantra about Obama needing to show some leadership and take point on cutting entitlements.

  20. LTC John says:

    I hope for arguments about $500 billion or more in real cuts. I’ll offer up my future Soc Sec (ha!) and throw in my VA benefits too.

    I suspect there are plenty of folks who would give up something to make it work. But we won’t find out if it never comes up in the first place.

  21. Joe says:

    Personally I think cutting $100 billion this year is the domestic equivalent of canceling satilite radio, cable tv, and a few magazines. If you can’t do that, you are probably going to end up having someone do it for you.

  22. sdferr says:

    Republicans at odds with one another has become a minor theme in the news pages of the WSJ. More thoroughgoing readers of the Journal might better be able to say if comparable attention is paid there to the disputes among the Democrats, as I don’t know.

  23. Ernst Schreiber says:

    sdferr,

    The editorial page is solid. The news pages however, are infested with the same secprogg groupthink as every other major newspaper in America.

  24. sdferr says:

    I’m more or less aware of the difference between the sections E, but papers like WSJ have a tendency to cover their asses by publishing one thing or another in situations like this, so’s they can point back and say, “Look, we covered the BlueDogs’s dispute with Pelosi blah blah blah blah”. SOP

  25. Stephanie says:

    When asked what sort of “broad spectrum” of people he expects to draw his support from, here’s what he said. Quote:

    “Political figures and business people,” he said, “you know, thought leaders. Even at this late date, that would not be a stopper.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/10/mitch-daniels-if-i-run-my-fundraising-and-letterhead-will-blow-your-mind/

  26. sdferr says:

    Carrying Politico’s water now? Why?

  27. bh says:

    Take a look at the extended portion below and wonder why Allah keyed on two fucking words instead. Well, I know the answer. It’s boob bait for those in his comments.

    As you read it, wonder why people other than Allah keep pulling this bullshit.

    He’s cut spending in Indiana — a state Obama won in 2008 — but prospered politically, with favorable ratings in the 60s. And now Daniels is on the verge of enacting one of the most sweeping educational reforms in the country, boosting charter schools and private school choice, instituting merit pay and limiting the collective bargaining power of teachers unions. The legislation brought over a thousand angry teachers into the state Capitol this week and prompted a banner headline – “War Over Charters” – in the Indianapolis Star on Wednesday of the sort that will delight GOP primary voters. This, coupled with governmental reforms working their way through a legislature he helped turn heavily Republican last November, could serve as a powerful sendoff to the national stage.

    Yet from there, things could get tricky. Daniels said he would carry a message many people might not want to hear.

    Sitting next to the fireplace in his spacious Capitol office and looking fit for an L.L. Bean catalog in corduroys and a fleece vest over a flannel shirt, the governor talked at length with no staff present about what ails the country and his solutions for its problems.

    Asked what worries him about his own party, Daniels turns to what for him is the central issue facing the country: “That we might continue procrastinating for fear of, you know, presenting a bold case to the American people for the kind of changes that will … restore us to fiscal and economic health.

    “I’ve said that, you know, it wouldn’t avail us much to simply displace President Obama,” he continued. “We’re going to have to do some fundamental things. We’re going to have to make some fundamental change.”

    And if that doesn’t happen?

    “I’m not saying this is likely, but it is not impossible that the debt problem manifests itself as a long, slow erosion,” he explained. “There could be an inflection point in there, and a lot of people have pointed to this, you know, that loss of confidence, people start selling off our bonds. Things could go very bad very fast. So that’s one reason not to wait. Let’s don’t take that chance.”

    That sounds familiar — lots of politicians want to get serious about fiscal issues.

    But where Daniels goes his own way — and where he courts anger within his own party and among the broader electorate — is with the details.

    On Social Security, he proposes for workers not currently in the system or nearing it a higher retirement age, means-testing and benefits that aren’t as “overprotected” for inflation as it is today.

    Daniels would also means-test Medicare and make it a defined contribution system while doing away with what he called “the command-and-control” distribution of benefits.

    And he wouldn’t spare the Pentagon, saying flatly that he’d make cuts there.

    “I think you have to start by reviewing the missions that we’ve committed to,” he said. “Is every one of them essential?”

    Such talk is often heard from the likes of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) but it goes significantly further than many Republican leaders are comfortable with for fearing of handing Democrats ready-made attack fodder.

  28. bh says:

    I mean, Jesus, is it that hard to imagine how differently that Hot Air post could have been written given the available material?

  29. happyfeet says:

    Hot Air is fags

  30. happyfeet says:

    “I’ve said that, you know, it wouldn’t avail us much to simply displace President Obama,” he continued. “We’re going to have to do some fundamental things. We’re going to have to make some fundamental change.”

    yup Mr. Daniels you’re right about that cause of the America’s decline is on an exponential trajectory like the blockbuster or the nokia or the lindsay lohan

    While all the other feckless team R pussies try to blow Reagan up everybody’s ass you’re speaking grimly and realistically and I just want you to know that I very much appreciate it.

    thank you so much.

  31. JD says:

    Bh – there has been a concerted effort there, and that post is an extension of same.

  32. Stephanie says:

    Misunderstood me. I was linking the idiocity (is that a word) of AP’s latest dog squeeze analysis.

  33. bh says:

    Sorry, Steph.

    Probably wasn’t clear enough. That was entirely directed at Allah and Politico.

    Well, not entirely. It was also a shot at the goofballs in their comments. Don’t understand why they don’t see through Allah’s “shit stirring for hits” game. Hell, he does the same thing with Palin almost every single day and it bugs the shit out of me that it actually works.

  34. JD says:

    Bh – he is being a cock. Intentionally. That is where the unilateral truce BS came from.

  35. Stephanie says:

    No problemo. I find it amusing that with all the good points to note in the body of the article, the takeaway we are supposed to note is the optics of spiffy letterhead v that Obama logo inference. Damning with faint stupidity.

Comments are closed.