quote:WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday will issue a legislative blueprint called “A Pledge to America” that they hope will catapult them to a majority in the November elections. Its goals include a permanent extension of all of the Bush-era tax cuts, repeal of the newly enacted health care law, a cap on discretionary federal spending, and an end to government control of the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
With control of the House, the Republicans said they would seek to immediately cancel any unspent money from last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus program, to freeze the size of the “non-security” federal workforce, and to quickly slash $100 billion in discretionary spending. But the blueprint, with echoes of the 1994 Contract with America, does not specify how the spending reductions would be carried out.
While the agenda is drafted broadly, offering bullet points of overarching objectives rather than detailed proposals — and any legislation championed by Republicans in the next Congress, of course, could be subject to a veto by President Obama — the document represents the most concrete presentation of Republican goals so far this year. Aides said it was intended to show the party was prepared to govern, and that in many cases legislation had already been drafted for many of the proposals in the plan even though specific bill numbers were not cited..
The blueprint was also clearly designed to provide fresh ideas to answer allegations by President Obama and Democrats that Republicans simply want to return to the policies of the Bush administration. Still, many of the proposals represent classic Republican ideals of small government and low taxes pursued for generations by Mr. Bush and other party leaders. Among the specific policy points is a proposal to allow small businesses to take a new tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income. Aides said the proposal was first put forward as part of the Republican alternative to the Democrats’ economic stimulus plan at a projected cost of $50 billion over 10 years.
While the document emphasizes a goal of long-term fiscal stability, including reductions in the deficit and a “path to a balanced budget,” it offers no specifics about changes to big entitlement programs including Social Security and Medicare that would be required to achieve such stability.
I went through this proposal very carefully before checking out opinions about it. I wanted a direct look at the system and agenda it proposed. It came off as radically self-defeating. My best interpretation is that the document was in no way seriously constructed to be implemented, nor did its drafters have the illusion that it could be implemented. It is solely designed to hit mental triggers of conservative voters — debt is bad, repeal the health care bill, protect traditional marriage. Outside of that, it is an incoherent and immolating plan. I tried to crunch numbers on it and failed, before consulting op-ed:
quote:On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.
True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.
So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”
The “pledge,” then, is nonsense. But isn’t that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent.
quote:So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?
The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.
quote:You're also left with a difficult question: What, exactly, does the Republican Party believe? The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt -- but offers a raft of proposals that would sharply increase it. It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican Party will commit itself to "greater liberty" and then, in the next, that it will protect "traditional marriage." It says that "small business must have certainty that the rules won't change every few months" and then promises to change all the rules that the Obama administration has passed in recent months. It is a document with a clear theory of what has gone wrong -- debt, policy uncertainty, and too much government -- and a solid promise to make most of it worse.
Take the deficit. Perhaps the two most consequential policies in the proposal are the full extension of the Bush tax cuts and the full repeal of the health-care law. The first would increase the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more after that. The second would increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more after that. Nothing in the document comes close to paying for these two proposals, and the authors know it: The document never says that the policy proposals it offers will ultimately reduce the deficit.
Then there's the question of policy uncertainty. The health-care law, which is now in the early stages of implementation, would be repealed. In its place, Republicans would write a new health-care bill. They offer some guidance as to what it would look like, but as every business knows, the congressional and regulatory processes are both long and uncertain. That's joined by three sentences on shrinking and reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the policy's anticipated effects on the housing market, where the two mortgage giants are backing nine out of every 10 new loans, are not mentioned -- and a promise to force a separate congressional vote on every regulation with more than $100 million in economic impact, which would force businesses to figure out a new, dual-track regulatory process.
The agenda is least confused on the subject of reducing government. Though it says little about specific cuts it would make, the pledge includes a cap on non-security discretionary funding, the aforementioned congressional review process for big-ticket regulations, a hiring freeze on federal employees, and weekly votes on spending cuts. None of these policies are spelled out in any detail, but nor are they contradicted by other elements of the plan. If you believe, as the Republicans say they do, in the benefits of reducing the number of public jobs and the amount of public spending in an economy that has too few jobs and too little spending, then this makes some sense. Otherwise, it doesn't. And as Republicans have been hammering Democrats over recent jobs reports where public payrolls fall and private payrolls rise, it's not even clear that they believe this.
Of course, you could say that about most of the plan. It is hard to believe in both deficit reduction and policies that would add trillions to the deficit. It's also hard to warn of the dangers posed by regulatory uncertainty and then propose changing all the rules.
At the end of the day, America may be an idea -- but it is also a country. And it needs to be governed. This proposal avoids the hard choices of governance. It says what it thinks will be popular and then proposes what it thinks will be popular -- even when the two conflict. That's an idea that may help you win elections, but not one that'll help you govern a country.
Now, I wish I could say that I was surprised! Barring that, I wish I was confident that such a transparency infeasible plan — that amounts to a similarly transparent and callous ploy to elicit a pavlovian response from conservative voters — was not going to work.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have come to believe that conservative voters appreciate being pandered to. "Oh, you're paying empty lip service to this talking point? Thank you!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.”
This is a good summary. The Republicans won't be the party of small government until they switch from a policy of "cut taxes, raise spending". You have to shrink spending if you want to shrink government - and all spending will be paid for, whether its now or later.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government.
I don't really have anything intelligent to say about this. I'd be stunned at their brazenness if it was new, but it isn't. The whole thing is bizarre and scary.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this was a badly written document. It is a way to score political points with the base, much like Harry Reid including Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Dream Act in the defense budget.
The Contract with America helped Republicans get elected in 1994 during a mid-term election. They are hoping it helps again.
There are plenty of people that will identify with one or more of the points in the document and will vote accordingly, even if they do not know the reasons they aren't a good idea.
Most people here on this forum are smart enough to do their research. There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats that don't. They just vote for whoever sounds better.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We plan to do all the things we've been saying we plan to do ad nauseum. Only now we've written it down. Aren't you impressed by our literacy."
*sigh*
I suppose it's way, way, wayyyyy too much to expect in the current climate that anyone will suggest something as radical as a public forum on whether any part of the platform is a good idea...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have come to believe that conservative voters appreciate being pandered to. "Oh, you're paying empty lip service to this talking point? Thank you!"
The political spectrum thrives on platitudes and fuzzy phrases. It's hardly a conservative phenomenon. The majority voters don't research actual issues so we're subjected to branding and trademarks on both sides.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Geraine: do you seriously think the Dream Act is a bad idea?
My feeling on the Dream act are irrelevant to the matter. Harry Reid placed it in there to score political points. There is a large hispanic community living here in Nevada, and this helps him. This simply gives him more ammunition to support his "Republicans are obstructionists" argument.
As far as Don't Ask Don't Tell is concerned, this also was done for political gain. Do I think it should be repealed? I do. Do I think putting it into a budget along with other controversial legislation KNOWING that the budget will get blocked because of it is a good idea? Hell no.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is pathetic. They took all the crap they've been saying over the last two years and wrote it down, and we're supposed to be impressed?
All this tells me is that they've managed to hire a competent clerical assistant to dictate to. Nothing new, few specifics, and no real answers. Even if I had disagreed with them, I might have been convinced it was a good idea for them to win if they had a concrete plan on what to do, like they did in 1994 when they had a list if specific bills to pass, and not vague notions. What a let down.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually kinda interested in seeing what conservative radio commentators have to say about this. I'm sure folks like Hannity will crow about it, but I wonder what Scarborough and Beck will have to say about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Geraine: do you seriously think the Dream Act is a bad idea?
My feeling on the Dream act are irrelevant to the matter.
No, they're not. Do you think the Dream Act is a bad idea?
quote:This simply gives him more ammunition to support his "Republicans are obstructionists" argument.
Given that the 110th minority congress is, by an order of magnitude, the most obstructionist in the history of our country, you don't need the Dream Act to support this, nor is that the point of the Dream Act. The fact that, at this juncture, the G.O.P. is severely obstructionist stands on its own.
Here, have a wonderfully lovely quote:
quote:"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us. Democrats are taking the blame for not getting anything done."
posted
Wow, that's surprisingly blunt. And he knew he was on the record? How wasn't this a bigger story?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm actually kinda interested in seeing what conservative radio commentators have to say about this. I'm sure folks like Hannity will crow about it, but I wonder what Scarborough and Beck will have to say about it.
Beck suggested that these changes were not enough and that it would be best to pull back our government to how it was in about 1906
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wow, that's surprisingly blunt. And he knew he was on the record? How wasn't this a bigger story?
Well, because he's right. It's been an admirably successful strategy to save Republicans from dire straits; any cooperation with the function of legislature hurts them, but if they block everything and use this to paint the democratic party as being ineffectual, it helps them in the short term. It works. It comes at a major detriment to the country (and just wait until we have complete legislative deadlock after the midterms), but it allows them to survive for now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
geraine was pointing out the absurdity of including legislation such as the dream act in a defense budget and that bundling legislation in such a way is used for political posturing and campaign strategy.
obstructionist actions by conservative politicians are often calculated maneuvers in a general climate of brinksmanship; a carefully played game of brinksmanship can be very advantageous as the immediate detriment in some cases is more desireable than the lasting, longterm consequences of giving the oppostion any ground.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm actually kinda interested in seeing what conservative radio commentators have to say about this. I'm sure folks like Hannity will crow about it, but I wonder what Scarborough and Beck will have to say about it.
Beck suggested that these changes were not enough and that it would be best to pull back our government to how it was in about 1906
He's been on that horse for a little over a year now I believe. He adores Calvin Coolidge for apparently solving a depression that went deeper than the Great Depression, and that that is a major historical lesson no history professors teach.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: obstructionist actions by conservative politicians are often calculated maneuvers in a general climate of brinksmanship
This is not a general climate of brinkmanship. The GOP's open goals are not a threat to make everything worse, they make the claim that their obstruction is the only thing that is keeping America from falling prey to unchecked liberal spending. The goal of the obstruction is not to foster a goal outside of the obstruction that they want to force the Democrats to engage upon in order to avoid the obstructionism, the goal is to obstruct. So I disagree with the idea that they have fostered a 'climate of brinkmanship' — which is thankful, as that would be more detrimental and more repugnant.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wow, that's surprisingly blunt. And he knew he was on the record? How wasn't this a bigger story?
Well, because he's right. It's been an admirably successful strategy to save Republicans from dire straits; any cooperation with the function of legislature hurts them, but if they block everything and use this to paint the democratic party as being ineffectual, it helps them in the short term. It works. It comes at a major detriment to the country (and just wait until we have complete legislative deadlock after the midterms), but it allows them to survive for now.
Well sure I get that, but Democrats have scored big points by labeling Republicans as obstructionists. Republicans have argued that they aren't just saying no to say no, but here he's saying that that is in fact the case. He's basically saying they have zero interest in governing, they just want to run out the clock until they get back in power.
Not a great PR point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, him admitting it directly is not. But the existing mechanisms for managing perceptions — via media and targeted political advertising — are so strong that direct and bold admissions of the strategy and the harm will not keep the strategy from succeeding.
Nor too will pointing out that the Pledge to America is a wholly unworkable document. You can point this out until you are blue in the face. You can cite whatever you want. It will still get conservatives to vote for conservative candidates, and it is designed to do that no matter the impact on its feasibility as an actual plan. Very scripted. Very predictable. A wonderful demonstration of electoral gullibility. I'm sure that absent any tangible means of defending this document as a feasible plan, I'll start getting equivalence arguments: "The Democrats are just as gullible." It's guaranteed.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're wondering why the GOP's "Pledge to America" didn't recommend any specific spending cuts, here's the answer: There's no such thing as government waste, at least not as politicians define it.
Most people think government waste is the government getting a very low return for the dollars it spends; paying someone to make copies and then paying someone else to throw them away. When politicians talk about waste, they mean the government spending money that no one will miss if they take it away. But there's very little of that, as every staffer in every congressman's office is always looking for an easy pot of money that can be used to pay for their boss's initiatives. The authors of the health-care bill, for instance, scoured the federal budget looking for easy money they could put toward the program.
Rather, what experts agree is waste - think farm subsidies - is protected by powerful constituencies and politicians. So most of that stuff is hard to cut. Then you have the expenditures that people of a certain ideology think are waste, such as the Department of Education or many of the Pentagon's projects. But there's not nearly enough agreement to cut them. Then you have a lot of stuff that just isn't waste but costs a lot of money.
That's why the Pledge is so vague. Jonathan Martin, a reporter at Politico, tweeted Friday that Kevin McCarthy, one of the Pledge's authors, "can't name a single program House Republicans would cut." This means that, at this moment, there's not a single current program the House Republicans would cut.
If you want to think about what it would mean to balance the budget based on spending cuts, the Center for American Progress tried to develop a realistic plan for doing that. What it shows is that you end up slashing a lot of highway funding, a lot of much-beloved tax expenditures, the NIH and, well, pretty much everything else. Veterans' benefits. Border security. The Federal Aviation Administration. The National Park Service.
It's hard to imagine politicians who aren't brave enough to even name their spending cuts withstanding the ferocious opposition that actually cutting spending would elicit.
The caterwauling of some liberal rag? Not hardly. And yes, fiercely evidenced. They probably wouldn't even realistically touch the new health care bill; they know better. All you have to do is keep making it a point that you would repeal it if you could, but actually doing so would be a coup for your opponents.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: obstructionist actions by conservative politicians are often calculated maneuvers in a general climate of brinksmanship
This is not a general climate of brinkmanship. The GOP's open goals are not a threat to make everything worse, they make the claim that their obstruction is the only thing that is keeping America from falling prey to unchecked liberal spending. The goal of the obstruction is not to foster a goal outside of the obstruction that they want to force the Democrats to engage upon in order to avoid the obstructionism, the goal is to obstruct. So I disagree with the idea that they have fostered a 'climate of brinkmanship' — which is thankful, as that would be more detrimental and more repugnant.
the ultimate goal of the conservative obstruction reflects better the consequences of brinksmanship than those of obstruction. the goal isnt only to force the hand of democrats but also to cause them to fail (or at least appear to fail. politics is 99 percent appearance). in the mean time, problems arent being addressed and opinions are becoming polarized. despite that fact that the consequences of inaction are real and obivious, the conservatives, specifically those assosicated with the tea party movement, are going to push the unrest, the tension to the edge, all in order to advance their cause and halt the liberal agenda. when one party acts in such a way, the opposition must backdown and make concessions or stand firm in face of impending collapse, its binksmanship.
tea partiers are waiting for the progressives to submit. they dont appear to be kind of party to bluff or make concessions. november 2 is looking very good for conservatives across the nation and this blessing cant all be attributed to dumb luck; a calculated and meticulous counter-attack is paying off.
in any case, you claim to have identified the republicans blueprint for the midterm campaign but what do you propose liberals do to regain lost ground and to counter the shifting of power (granted, not much left when you think about it or else these 'obstructions' wouldnt be able to happen) back into conservative hands?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lose, and then do nothing. That's the best thing they can do, and actually, losing big time now is a fantastic way to help Obama get reelected.
The problem for Republicans is that once they get in control, they have no plans. People are clamoring to fix two things: They want government spending reduced, and they want the economy back. If the economy comes back, Obama gets a piece of the credit. If it doesn't, Republicans share in the blame as well. But Democrats can win big by doing nothing, and I don't mean obstructionism. When it comes time for the budget to be released next year, don't release one. Wait for Republicans to release theirs, and then pounce when there's still a huge deficit. Obstructionism is awesome when you're in the minority, but it cuts both ways, and they just poisoned the well. Plus, Republicans are going to push huge tax cuts across the board that will balloon the deficit. Should be fun to watch.
Obama and Democrats should introduce a budget with big cuts. A non-military spending freeze means nothing, and it fools no one. It's insulting that they even bother sticking to it like it's actually progress.
I hope Republicans take all of Congress, but I doubt they'll take the Senate at this point. If they take it, they'll find it very difficult to defend. It'll make 2012 really interesting. Pelosi getting canned is a big part of a Democratic come back as well. If the House is lost by more than 15 or so, expect her to go bye-bye.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wow, that's surprisingly blunt. And he knew he was on the record? How wasn't this a bigger story?
Well, because he's right. It's been an admirably successful strategy to save Republicans from dire straits; any cooperation with the function of legislature hurts them, but if they block everything and use this to paint the democratic party as being ineffectual, it helps them in the short term. It works. It comes at a major detriment to the country (and just wait until we have complete legislative deadlock after the midterms), but it allows them to survive for now.
Well sure I get that, but Democrats have scored big points by labeling Republicans as obstructionists. Republicans have argued that they aren't just saying no to say no, but here he's saying that that is in fact the case. He's basically saying they have zero interest in governing, they just want to run out the clock until they get back in power.
Not a great PR point.
Well the thing is they don't have to show that they have an actual plan once they get back in office. They just have to point out how bad the incumbents are doing and people will vote for them. It's sad but it gets the job done.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. That's how our country works now. If we had a voting population that knew how to rub two neurons together though, you wouldn't vote for the guy who just said that he is actively shunning governance because of a power play. The fact that he probably knew he could say that with zero repercussions is all the more galling.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Also, some healthcare experts went line-by-line through the document and noted that the Republican 'alternate plan' that they offer after the necessary revocation of the Democratic health care reform bill is .. essentially identical to the Democratic health care bill.
Also, some healthcare experts went line-by-line through the document and noted that the Republican 'alternate plan' that they offer after the necessary revocation of the Democratic health care reform bill is .. essentially identical to the Democratic health care bill.
Think about that.
Hmm could you source that? That sounds like a real interesting read. I've heard almost nothing but backlash against the new blueprint. It seems more like a call for attention than anything. I don't think we'll start to see any real substance coming from the right until next year when they start preparing for the coming election.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Geraine: do you seriously think the Dream Act is a bad idea?
My feeling on the Dream act are irrelevant to the matter.
No, they're not. Do you think the Dream Act is a bad idea?
I agree with some of it. I think the Dream Act is a good way to keep military numbers up and would be a good recruitment tool. If someone wants to earn their citizenship by active military service, I think it is a good thing. If they want to contribute to the country in that way, then they should be able to receive citizenship. I would say though that I would put a priority on those that currently live in other countries that want to come here legally. You should not be excluded because you didn't jump a fence as a child.
I do not agree with the college portion. If the person wants to get an education, that is great. I don't think they should be awarded automatic citizenship for simply going to school.
The Dream Act could help the country. The problem would be implementation and regulation. Do we start to take military recruits from oversees, or do they have sneak into the country first? If a child of an illegal immigrant cannot pay for college due to financial trouble, does he still have a chance to get citizenship? People with mental health issues? What about physically or mentally handicapped people? How do they become citizens?
Huh. It'll be a bit disturbing if this yields any net reward for the GOP. Then again, the healthcare reform Obama promised turned out to be a sprawling, few thousand page long document that would take most sane people months to comb over (not that that was his fault). If the GOP presents the same ideas in a more concise document and totes it as the 'alternative' to Obamacare it could actually work out for them, even if how they plan to make it all work is left vague.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
