Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    March 2024
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘big government’

Stop the TSA power grab

Posted by Richard on March 14, 2012

That TSA story I just posted about reminded me of something David Aitken linked to that I meant to pass on. The TSA advertises for security screeners on pizza boxes and gas pumps. The people it hires are given a bit of classroom and on-the-job training (far less training than it takes to get a cosmetology license in the District of Columbia). It’s enough for the relatively simple work they do.

But now the Obama administration, in keeping with its “we don’t need no stinkin’ Act of Congress” way of governing (remember when liberals fretted about the imperial presidency?), has “administratively reclassified” these security screeners as Transportation Security Officers, complete with federal law enforcement uniforms and badges. All they lack is law enforcement training. And guns — but they’re already pushing to get those.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) details the whole story in an excellent Forbes op-ed column, including the way the TSA is extending its tentacles far beyond airports. Not content to rifle through luggage and grope genitals, the newly-minted TSOs can be found at train and subway stations, ferry terminals, and along Tennessee highways randomly inspecting cars and trucks.

Rep. Blackburn has introduced a bill to rescind this “administrative reclassification,” and it deserves your support:

In order to help rein in the TSA I introduced H.R. 3608, the Stop TSA’s Reach in Policy Act aka the STRIP Act. This bill will simply overturn the TSA’s administrative decision by prohibiting any TSA employee who has not received federal law enforcement training from using the title “officer,” wearing a police like uniform or a metal police badge. At its most basic level the STRIP Act is about truth in advertising.

As TSOs continue to expand their presence beyond our nation’s airports and onto our highways, every American citizen has the right to know that they are not dealing with actual federal law enforcement officers. Had one Virginia woman known this days before Thanksgiving she may have been able to escape being forcibly raped by a TSO who approached her in a parking lot in full uniform while flashing his badge.

Please contact your congresscritters and ask them to support H.R. 3608.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Religious liberty in the Age of Obama

Posted by Richard on March 14, 2012

Item: The federal government has exempted an Indian tribe from the Bald and Golden Eagle Act to accommodate their religious beliefs.

A pair of Wyoming bald eagles now qualify as a really endangered species.

The Northern Arapaho Tribe secured an extraordinarily rare permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing the Native Americans to kill two of the national birds for religious use.

The national agency, in a 2009 report, said it has never issued a license for the killing of a bald eagle — making it likely that the tribe was the first group to ever get the legal go-ahead.

Federal law bars the killing of any bald eagle under almost any circumstance. The Wyoming tribe argued that the ban was a violation of their religious freedom.

Item: The federal government has refused to exempt Catholic institutions from the mandate to provide birth control and “morning-after” (abortifacient) pills to their employees. The Catholic institutions argued that the mandate was a violation of their religious freedom.

I’m not religious, or anti-abortion, or particularly pro-eagle. But I’d love to have someone explain to me on what rational basis the federal government can choose to accommodate one group’s religious beliefs, but not the others’.

Does the phrase “equal protection under the law” have any meaning at all anymore under the Obama administration?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

The war on raw milk

Posted by Richard on March 13, 2012

In California, dairy farmer James Stewart is being prosecuted for selling unpasteurized milk to unsuspecting consumers. No, wait, I got that wrong. He sold it to consumers who eagerly sought him out and stood in line for the opportunity to buy it.

In France, you can buy raw, unpasteurized milk in vending machines, and Mark Perry noted the irony:

… We always hear about France being an example of heavy-handed government bureaucracy and “European-style socialism,” but that seems to more accurately describe California’s approach in this case while France takes the “laissez-faire” approach.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is putting pink slime in school lunches.

Because the government knows what’s best for us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not just the rich who’ll pay for Obama’s budget

Posted by Richard on February 15, 2012

According to Investor’s Business Daily, it’s not just the rich who’ll pay for the massive expansion of government envisioned by the latest Obama budget (no surprise; it can’t be just the rich because there aren’t enough rich people). And, typically, the administration is looking for an international way to cram their plans down America’s throat (emphasis added):

Discussing President Obama’s new budget, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economist, said “we need a global minimum tax” so no one escapes paying “their fair share.”

This idea is not just bad; it’s likely unconstitutional. In any event, it starkly reveals the underlying premise behind Obama’s latest budget plan: To hike taxes massively on all Americans to pay for an unprecedented expansion of federal government.

To pay for it, the president and his aides are using class-warfare to build a case for a big tax hike on “the rich.” But beware: The Obama budget includes a $2.8 trillion jump in total taxes over the next 10 years, $1.5 trillion coming from income taxes alone. That amount is so large it can’t come solely from the well-off. It will require huge new taxes on all Americans.

Americans for Tax Reform has just totaled up the tax increases in Obama’s budget. It makes for scary reading:

• ObamaCare alone includes 20 separate tax hikes.

• Tax rates on most small businesses are expected to go up to 39.6% from 35%.

• Tax rates on capital gains, the fuel for economic and job growth, will jump to 23.8% from 15%.

• Rates on dividends surge to 43.4% from 15%.

• The death tax will jump to 45% from 35%.

• Large businesses will take a job-killing $147 billion tax hit as the U.S. double-taxes overseas profits.

• Families will pay a $100 billion energy tax over the next decade as oil, gas and coal companies get hit with new levies that they will simply pass on to consumers.

• The proposed new “Buffett Tax” will hit wealthy Americans with a marginal tax rate of 90% or higher.

Such massive tax increases will cripple the American economy, retarding economic growth and ensuring high unemployment for the next decade. It’s hard to imagine that all the brilliant Ivy-league-educated people in the Obama administration don’t understand that. Either that’s their goal — to preside over the decline of America, to diminish this country — or they simply don’t care as long as their redistributionist goals are achieved.

The current administration and the Democratic Party leadership are going to destroy this country in the name of egalitarianism if they aren’t stopped. If only there were an opposition party leadership and an opposition party presidential candidate capable of passionately, articulately, and with conviction making that point and offering an alternative of freedom, opportunity, limited government, and individual sovereignty. If only there were someone capable of contrasting their own vision of a “shining city on the hill” with the grim future of dependence and shared poverty offered by the leftists/progressives. If only there were another Reagan.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Obama’s budget insanity

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2012

The Fiscal Year 2008 Bush budget (the year before Hank Paulson panicked Bush into bailout mode with warnings of impending economic collapse):

  • Spending: $2.9 trillion (that’s $2,900 billion)
     
  • Deficit: $455 billion
     
  • New taxes: None
     
  • Federal debt: $9.99 trillion
     

February 23, 2009 Obama speech to the National Governors Association:

“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to next budget, the next administration, or the next generation,” he said. “That’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”

Obama said he would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule requiring any new expenditure to be set off by a cut in spending.

The Fiscal Year 2013 Obama budget:

  • Spending: $3.8 trillion (that’s $3,800 billion) in FY2013; $5.8 trillion in 2022; $47 trillion over 10 years
     
  • Deficit: $901 billion in 2013 (but AFP says “if we strip out the budget’s unrealistic assumptions, yet another trillion-dollar-plus deficit is nearly certain. … The past three years the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the President’s budget.  They found the deficits were actually 20 percent higher than the President claimed.)
     
  • New taxes: $1.9 trillion over 10 years
     
  • Federal debt: $16.2+ trillion for 2013; over $25 trillion by 2021, according to ALG’s Bill Wilson

So how can the administration claim to be cutting the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years and yet have annual spending grow from $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion (a 53% increase)? There’s the double-counting of last year’s “cuts” and a good helping of what AFP calls tricks and gimmicks. But mainly it’s the baseline budgeting scam, which I explained last August. ALG’s Bill Wilson has some numbers (emphasis added):

The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) baseline for 2013-2022 says outlays will total $47.053 trillion. Obama’s proposed budget takes that to $46.959 trillion. Since spending actually increases every year under Obama’s proposal, the only cut is off of the baseline — and that’s just $94 billion of so-called “cuts”.

Meanwhile, OMB says revenues over the next ten years will total $38.391 trillion. Under Obama’s proposal, that goes up to $40.274 trillion — an increase of $1.883 trillion in taxes, mostly on job creators.

By our count, that’s about $20 of tax increases for every dollar of “cuts,” and those are not even real cuts to the actual budget.  Spending would still increase every single year under Obama’s proposal. Meanwhile, the tax hikes are real.

The latest Obama budget would be laughable if the numbers weren’t so sobering and the consequences of continuing down this path weren’t so dire.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Government inspectors now control what moms can feed kids

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2012

At the behest of the First Lady, the federal government has been creating lots of new “guidelines” regarding school lunches. But did you know that these “guidelines” apply not just to the lunches that the schools serve, but to the lunches that the parents pack for the kids to bring to school? This shouldn’t be a surprise, since more than a year ago, Michelle Obama declared that “We can’t just leave it up to the parents” what their children eat.

In North Carolina, at least, the “guidelines” are more than just guidelines — there are state inspectors examining lunches from home to ensure compliance. Carolina Journal reports (emphasis added):

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

So, thanks to the government’s school lunch nazi, instead of eating a turkey sandwich and a banana, the kid ate chicken nuggets. But at least what was on her plate conformed to the government “guidelines.”

Rush Limbaugh called the USDA guidelines and enforcement program “Michelle’s ‘No Child’s Behind Left Alone’ program.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Anti-capitalist conservatives

Posted by Richard on January 10, 2012

Yesterday, I mentioned in passing the leftist-sounding attacks on Romney by Gingrich and Perry. Bobby Eberle has much more:

In their quest for the Republican nomination, it seems these “conservatives” will embrace any idea in order to attack another candidate. The latest is an assault on capitalism… yes, capitalism! What’s next? Supporting higher taxes and bigger government?

As noted in a story on CNSNews.com, GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is under attack by his fellow opponents, namely Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Why, you ask? Because Romney ran Bain Capital, which would restructure and reorganize companies in order to make them profitable. In doing so, everything that would be involved in saving a company was on the table: selling assets, trimming work staff, modernizing… you name it.

Oh the horror of it all! Gingrich and Perry are blasting Romney for not relying on the government, not going for corporate bailouts, but rather, for handling corporate woes in the private sector.

In National Review, Jay Nordlinger writes, “The last two presidential election cycles have revealed a stinking hypocrisy in conservatives: They profess their love of capitalism and entrepreneurship, but when offered a real capitalist and entrepreneur, they go, ‘Eek, a mouse!’ And they tear him down in proud social-democrat fashion.”

I’m not writing this column as a Romney supporter. I too would prefer someone more conservative. But in this race, the so-called conservatives are sure NOT sounding conservative to me. They are blasting Romney for engaging in capitalism. They are hounding him for turning companies around. That was his job, and apparently, he was good at it.

I said there’s no Reagan in this Republican field and no clearly best choice. The “conservative alternatives to Romney” have been making themselves less and less palatable to me.

Ron Paul is great on economic and fiscal issues and on the size and scope of the federal government, but he has some serious flaws: (1) that unfortunate association with the Lew Rockwell paleo-libertarians, (2) flirtations with 9/11 Trutherism and Bilderberger/CFR conspiracy theories, and (3) a dangerously mistaken and ignorant view of the Islamofascists.

I hate to say it, but Romney is beginning to look like the best (or least bad) that the GOP can offer this year.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Anybody but Santorum

Posted by Richard on January 9, 2012

I mentioned my dislike of Rick Santorum the other day. I’m not alone, and RedState’s Erick Erickson, a social conservative himself, has shown that you don’t have to be a libertarian to reject Santorum’s self-described “Big Government conservatism” (emphasis added):

Santorum is a conservative. He is. But his conservative is largely defined by his social positions and the ends to which government would be deployed. But he has chosen as the means to those conservative ends bigger government. We see big government conservatives most clearly when they deviate from the tireless efforts of people like Mike Pence and Jim DeMint and the others who were willing to oppose George W. Bush’s expansion of the welfare state. Rick Santorum was not among them.

I and some friends, none of us Romney fans, have set about exploring Santorum’s record since Wednesday morning.  Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc.

This is not the record of a man committed to scaling back the welfare state or the nanny state. Had he been up for re-election in 2010 instead of 2006, this is the record of a man who the tea party movement would have primaried. The only real justification for supporting him now is he is not Mitt Romney, but I still believe we can do better.

Check out Erickson’s very, very long list of Santorum’s votes for more spending, more taxes, more entitlements, more gun control, etc., etc., etc.

Adam Bitely of Americans for Limited Government, a free-market conservative, shares Erickson’s concerns about Santorum’s big government conservatism.

A real libertarian, Cato’s David Boaz, has also put together some damning evidence demonstrating that lovers of liberty must oppose Santorum, including this disturbing quote from Santorum when he was on NPR in 2006 (emphasis added):

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. … This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Not only do I find that an egregious point of view, I think his conclusion is flatly wrong. As Boaz noted, there has been an individualist society where government leaves people alone. “It’s called America.”

There is no Reagan in this Republican field, and there isn’t even a clearly best choice (I was somewhat of a Perry fan until he joined Gingrich in attacking Romney with leftist anti-capitalist, class-envy rhetoric). But there’s no doubt in my mind that Santorum is by far the worst of the lot. If there’s one thing libertarians, free-market conservatives, and social conservatives should be able to agree on, it’s that, as Erickson said, “we can do better.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Reid: It’s government jobs we need to create

Posted by Richard on October 20, 2011

It’s obvious to anyone who looks at how the 2009 stimulus bill spent $800 billion and how this year’s so-called jobs bill would spend another $450 billion that the jobs the Obama administration wants to “create or save” are government jobs and government contractors’ jobs. The only thing surprising about today’s outrageous statement by Sen. Harry Reid is that he’d admit this — and offer an absurd justification (emphasis added):

The Senate Majority Leader dropped this stunner in the context of explaining why Congress must drop everything and spend more money we don’t have to prop up public sector jobs.  Because, Reid apparently believes, government workers are the real victims of the great recession.  Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrat Party mentality, distilled:

“It’s very clear that private sector jobs have been doing just fine.  It’s public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers.”

The private sector’s official unemployment rate has been stuck above 9%, and the real rate (accounting for all the people who’ve given up and left the labor force or are involuntarily working part-time) is at least 16% and maybe over 20%. Sen. Reid thinks that’s “just fine.”

Meanwhile, the government worker unemployment rate is 4.7%. And that’s where Reid and the Obama administration want to “create or save” more jobs, by spending another few hundred billion dollars we have to borrow from the Chinese — or take away from people whose spending and investments might otherwise create private sector jobs.

I’ve tried in the past to remember Hanlon’s (or Heinlein’s) Razor (“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”). But the Socialist Democrats have demonstrated through both their words and their actions that their purpose is to create more jobs in government, where unemployment is at 4.7% (effectively full employment), and that they don’t give a rat’s ass about the 9-16% (or higher) unemployment in the private sector.

In fact, their massive new regulatory schemes can only make private sector unemployment worse.

Shrinking the private sector while growing government: The sum total of the evidence strongly suggests that this isn’t stupidity or happenstance — it’s their intent.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Ever wonder what the US debt looks like stacked up in $100 bills?

Posted by Richard on July 30, 2011

Go here to find out. It's one of the most effective uses of informational graphics I've seen in a very long time. Very nicely presented. And quite sobering.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

More food stamps, and many more government limousines

Posted by Richard on June 2, 2011

Billll noticed an interesting juxtaposition of data: food stamp participation is up 39%, and government limousine use is up 73%. Michelle Malkin has the depressing food stamp graph, while iWatch has more details on the Obama administration surge in government limousines (HT for both links: Doug Ross).

I'm not surprised by either statistic. We are governed by people whose goal is to diminish the private sector and increase dependency on government, while increasing the size and power of government. They are succeeding.

And as is typical of socialists, they're making sure that, as Orwell put it, "some animals are more equal than others."

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Happy Tax Day?

Posted by Richard on April 19, 2011

Tax Day is an unpleasant event for some of us, irrelevant for many, and a happy occasion for others. Nearly half of all households (45% this year, down from 47% last year) pay no income taxes.

About 40% of households profit from the income tax system. The earned income credit and other "refundable" tax credits far exceed what little they owe in taxes, so the government sends them a check for everything they had withheld and a bunch extra — a Happy Tax Day!

Today, more than a third of what's called "salaries and wages" is actually government transfer payments, a.k.a. handouts. Meanwhile, the more productive members of society are paying a far larger share of income taxes than their share of income. The top 10% of income earners, who receive 45% of the total adjusted gross income, pay 70% of all income taxes.

Still, our Socialist Democrat in Chief and his leftist friends continue to scream "tax the rich!" The Wall Street Journal pointed out what nonsense it is to claim we can put our financial house in order by making the rich pay, in the President's words, "a little more": 

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

If the IRS confiscated 100% of the income of everyone earning more than $100,000 a year, it wouldn't cover the Obama budget. And it's not like you can keep coming back and taking 100% of someone's income year after year. They wise up. 

They can preach class warfare and chant "tax the rich" all they want — the only way to balance the federal budget at today's insanely high level (26% of GDP) is to stick it to the middle class. That's where the bulk of the people are, and thus where the bulk of the money is. 

The Heritage Foundation figured out how much tax rates would have to go up to balance the budget without cutting spending. And they did it assuming there were no other tax law changes, so the relative share of revenue from each tax bracket remained the same:

To collect the additional revenue necessary to close the 2010 deficit, income tax rates would have to have been considerably higher than their current levels. Without altering other aspects of the tax code, if Congress collected the extra revenue by simply hiking each income bracket based on its portion of current tax collections, every tax rate would need to more than double.

For a family of four earning $50,000 that takes the standard deduction, its current tax bill of $766 would increase by almost $4,000. A similar family of four that earned $75,000 a year would see its tax liability of $4,500 increase by over $9,000 a year. If the same family earned $100,000, it would pay more than $15,600 above the $8,800 it actually paid in 2010.

The top rate in this scenario would be 85 percent. A top rate at that level would grind economic activity to a halt. Businesses would stop investing and creating new jobs because the tax-diminished returns would not be worth the risk. Many workers would cut back the hours they spend on the job. The end result would be a poorer nation with a bleaker future.

Today's 10% bracket would jump to 24%, the 15% bracket would become 37%, and the 25% bracket would need to be 61%. I don't know about you, but I'd make sure I never entered that 61% bracket. 

Then, just for grins, Heritage calculated what it would take to balance the budget at today's level if Obama kept his promise of not increasing income taxes on anyone earning under $250,000:

If, instead of raising taxes at all income levels, Congress collected it from just those making $250,000 or more per year, their rates would have to rise to levels that are not even possible. The top two rates would need to rise to 132 percent and 142 percent.

Of course, it is impossible to tax at a rate over 100 percent. Doing so would require confiscating savings, investment, or even other assets. Moreover, as a practical matter, it is impossible to get even close to 100 percent and still raise revenue because businesses, workers, and investors would simply stop producing, working, and investing as the government came close to confiscating almost every additional dollar they earned. Much of their economic activity would be driven underground.

As a practical matter, it's impossible to raise middle-class tax rates to 61% in a country with such widespread gun ownership. And a good thing, too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Tons of debt

Posted by Richard on April 16, 2011

The brilliant satirist Iowahawk has created a video that offers a unique perspective on the American government's debt and spending levels. It's at the same time entertaining and quite sobering. Please watch. And hit the Like button at the YouTube link. 


[Iowahawk link]
[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

America’s message to GOP: don’t cave!

Posted by Richard on April 7, 2011

The President’s meeting with John Boehner and Harry Reid ended a short time ago with no agreement, but all three claimed they were getting closer to averting a government shutdown. That concerns me, because if past history is any indication, getting closer to an agreement means the Republicans are giving ground.

Before they indulge in their natural inclination to cave and compromise, I hope Boehner and the GOP leadership take a deep breath and consider some recent poll results. For instance, this Rasmussen poll released Tuesday (emphasis added):

In the ongoing budget-cutting debate in Washington, some congressional Democrats have accused their Republican opponents of being held captive by the Tea Party movement, but voters like the Tea Party more than Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress.  Just 22% say their views are closest to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This shows little change from a survey in late March of last year.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters think the Tea Party movement is good for the country, consistent with findings since May 2010. Twenty-six percent (26%) disagree and say the grassroots, small government movement is bad for America. Sixteen percent (16%) say neither.

Or this one from last Friday (emphasis added):

A majority of voters are fine with a partial shutdown of the federal government if that’s what it takes to get deeper cuts in federal government spending.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think making deeper spending cuts in the federal budget for 2011 is more important than avoiding a partial government shutdown. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagree and say avoiding a shutdown is more important. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Or this Fox News poll from today (emphasis added):

American voters would rather shut down the government than raise the debt limit, even though most believe a shutdown would have a dramatic effect on everyday Americans.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday asked voters to imagine being a lawmaker in Washington who had to decide whether to increase the debt ceiling. The poll found 62 percent would vote against raising it — even at the risk of shutting down the government.

About one-in-four voters (26 percent) would raise the limit to allow the government to spend more.

Or this Tarrance Group poll from a couple of days ago (underlines in original):

Voters have turned the corner and have made clear their support for deep cuts to the budget. Nearly three quarters of voters (73%) say it is very important that the budget include “significant” spending cuts.  When it comes to $100 billion in cuts, only 23% say this percentage is too high, while a majority (63%) says $100 billion is too low (34%) or about right (29%). This is virtually unchanged from February, when 21% said $60 billion was too high, and a majority (67%) said the figure was too low (36%) or about right (31%).
Supporting $100 billion in cuts would result in a net positive political impact for members of Congress.  A majority (55%) are more likely to support their member of Congress if he or she supports these cuts, while only 24% are less likely.  This is also similar to February, when 52% were more likely to re-elect their member if he or she supports $61 billion in cuts.…

When presented with three arguments about raising the debt ceiling, less than a quarter of voters most agree with the argument that the debt ceiling needs to be raised in order to avoid things like a shutdown and Social Security checks not being mailed.  In fact, a plurality chooses to NOT raise the debt ceiling at all:

30%:  Some people say that Congress should only raise the debt ceiling if it can also guarantee real, significant spending cuts starting this year.  We will never balance the budget until we drastically cut the amount of money we spend.

22%:  Other people say that Congress must act to raise the debt ceiling regardless of whether it includes spending cuts, or else the United States government will shut down and will default on its obligations, such as not being able to make Social Security checks and salaries for police and teachers.

 42%:  Still other people say that we should NOT raise the debt ceiling even if spending cuts are made because the nation must eliminate the trillion dollar debt we face instead of adding to it.

The message to the GOP leadership is clear. The American people (at least those most likely to vote) have recognized the utter seriousness of this nation’s fiscal crisis and want bold action, even if it involves temporary pain. The Democrats are in complete denial, whistling past the graveyard. If the GOP wants to be taken seriously as the party willing to address our fiscal problems seriously, they must resist the urge to compromise, wheel, and deal. Stand firm for once, you bastards!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s called the stupid party for a reason

Posted by Richard on March 31, 2011

The Republicans have been pushing for $61 billion in spending cuts for FY2011 (significantly less than the $100 billion they promised before the election), and the Democrats have been denouncing even that modest cut as "draconian" and "extreme."

You'd think this would be a challenge the GOP would be eager to take on. If you have even a modicum of communication skills and public relations savvy, how hard can it be to ridicule the absurd argument that cutting $61 billion — 1.6% — out of a budget of $3,700 billion is "draconian" and "extreme"? It barely puts a tiny dent in the $1,600 billion deficit. Do they really fear that the average American can't grasp that point?

Let's put the federal fiscal crisis into comparable (approximate) household numbers that people can relate to: Let's say your household income is about $42,000 ($3500/month). But you're spending about $74,000 ($6167/month). And you're putting the $32,000 difference on your credit cards (on which you already owe over $300,000). Would cutting your spending by less than $100 a month really be "draconian"? Does it even seriously address the terrible financial situation you're in?

To me, this seems like an argument that's a slam-dunk win, especially in the political climate that gave us the Tea Party movement and resulting electoral tsunami of last November. And yet, the Republican leadership seems terrified of taking a hard stand and drawing a line in the sand. According to the Washington Post, they're ready to cave — settling for $30 billion in cuts and giving up on defunding anything — and Dan Mitchell isn't pleased: 

Yesterday, I analyzed how the GOP should fight the budget battle, but I may have made a big mistake. I assumed the Republican leadership actually wanted to do the right thing. I thought they learned the right lessons from the disastrous Bush years, and that the GOP no longer would be handmaidens for big government. And I naively assumed that the Republican leadership would not betray the base and stab the Tea Party in the back.

I thought the GOP leadership would fight and get a decent deal rather than unilaterally surrender. If the Washington Post report is true and Republicans act like the French army, it will discourage the base and cause a rift with the Tea Party. So it’s dumb politics and dumb policy.

And that display of cowardice by House Republican leaders follows on the heels of the report that Senate Republicans are going to agree to support a debt limit increase if the Democrats merely allow a symbolic vote on a balanced budget amendment. No, Democrats don't have to support it — they just have to allow a vote, which the Republicans are guaranteed to lose. A repeat of a vote they've already had (and lost), a vote that they could force by parliamentary means in any case. In other words, they're giving up their biggest leverage in return for … nothing.

Stupid party seems like such a mild and inadequate term.

There are a few shiny gems amidst the steaming pile of cow-flop that is the GOP. Sen. Marco Rubio won't vote for a debt limit increase unless it comes with a whole bunch of serious conditions: 

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America's debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Bravo. Read the whole thing

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »