As predicted, the recent budget deal and the Ryan plan have the Democrats wishing in the direst way they’d hopped on Simpson-Bowles. But among Democrats, Simpson-Bowles was dead on arrival: There simply is no plan that credibly controls spending that Democrats are inclined to accept. Now that Republicans have proposed something well beyond the Simpson-Bowles framework, Democrats are ready to celebrate a plan that they dismissed out of hand — “simply unacceptable,” the lady called it.
Ryan and the Republicans will accept the strongest deficit deal they can get; Obama and the Democrats will accept the strongest deficit deal they are forced to: That’s the basic dynamic that shapes this debate between now and November 2012. They have no credible budget plan — they didn’t even pass a budget last time around. Welcome to the Party of No, Mr. President; Mrs. Pelosi will show you the secret handshake.
The Democrats want 2012 to be about anything other than deficit-reduction. Expect an onslaught on the social-issues front, from abortion subsidies to gay marriage. Conservatives should not let them change the subject.
And for all of you thinking that Wag the Dog was just a Bill Clinton phenomenon.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan Congress pass some law that dictates that the military will always be considered essential personnel in the context of government shutdown, so they get paid? Or are such decisions always going to be up to the President?
It would remove a lot of leverage. Were I an enemy of this country, I would have troops ready to invade next time the government shuts down. I anticipate our troops will fight anyway, being duty-oriented, but I cannot believe the CinC doesn't consider them worth paying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. We can all argue over the social issues later, when we have the luxury of doing that. Right now, the main battle is to save our country from fiscal meltdown.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Democrats assert that any law that protects constitutional functions such as the military, more than unconstitutional functions such as Education, Medicine, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Agriculture, Energy, HUD or Title 10 funding of abortion providers is unfairly playing politics...
Of course that charge will be given wide play, compared to the truth, that of course, it is politics to hold up constitutional functions to protect unconstitutional functions. Further, those who promote unconstitutional functions are in violation of their oath of office.
And their answer is "So?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhenever the Dems bring out their parade of horribles that budget "cuts" will do (kill women, starve old people, etc) each members of the GOP should simply respond with "we're broke. we can't afford that."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, abortion subsidies and gay marriage are winning issues for both conservatives and the GOP. It is a mark of how desperate the Democrats are that they are attempting to shift the ground from where they are currently getting pummelled to where they are likely to get pummelled.
Of course, deficit reduction should be the main issue- but the GOP can't run from other winning issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@rimfrel: From what I read, both the military and "essential personnel" would have had to work and not get paid until later.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe repubs should continue to do what they did in the CR deal. Constantly propose their social changes, in addition to spending cuts, so they have bargaining chips to trade away. Then when it comes time to make a deal, trade away the social changes, in exchange for getting most of the spending cuts. This allows the dems to mollify their base, by saying they stopped the social issues, Independents get a bipartisan deal with large spending cuts, the Tea Party gets the spending cuts they want, and the country needs. And the social issues remain on the table to modivate the socons to help repubs win in 2012.
If repubs get control of the senate and WH in 2012, then they will have a strong enough position to try and pass both the spending cuts, and the social issues, so the socons finally get rewarded for their patience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGovernment-paid abortions and gay marriage are indeed issues where conservative positions still enjoy broad support in the general public, but Democrats are hoping to energize young people, particularly young women, and gay donors for 2012. They have little else to get anyone on their side of the aisle excited, or attract any of the independents who deserted them in 2010.
The swing voters aren't terribly conservative on social issues, either, and the more they can be convinced the whole budget argument is a smokescreen to enact conservative social values into law, the more likely they are to stray back into the Democratic fold.
When my father first bought some rural property, a man convinced him to let him plant peas on a field for shares. When the crop had come in, Dad went by to collect, but the man was evasive. Dad told me, "He would speak at length about any subject, but he would NOT talk about peas."
So the Democrats cannot talk about deficits. Their only (partial and ineffective) cure is tax increases, which don't win many friends, and any talk of spending cuts disheartens their parasitic constituencies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll military troops are essential. However, the personnel office that processes the paychecks is not considered essential. So, troops accrue pay but receive no paycheck. Along the same lines, bills are unpaid incurring fees, and contract shutdown costs are billed for work required to shutdown and restart. Closing the federal government is not always a fiscally responsible step.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSimson Bowles had more taxes than I cared for, but from a spending and deficit point of view was actually fairly good. If the Ryan plan causes the dems to embrace Simpson Bowles, that is good progress. If you take Simpson Bowles, add on Obamacare repeal and some medicare reform, you would have a reallly good deal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2 things
1) how did they infuse the stimulus that increased the annual budget (I think) 83% and not have any cuts going forward?
2) how did a person with a British subject father and later an Indonesian adopted father get qualified as a "natural born Citizen" as required in Article II of the constitution. It doesn't say "naturalized" and it definately doesn't say "dual citizen"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo counter the Democrat Party's parade of horribles we need one of our own. We are selling our descendants into indentured servitude. We are selling ourselves into indentured servitude. A horrible outcome for all trumps a horrible outcome for some, especially when it is personalized.
You, yes you, are being sold down the river. It needs to get that personal because it *is* that personal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlanned Parenthood is a Democratic money laundering scheme, on that grounds alone, it shouldn't be getting any government money. That's also one of the reasons the Democrats will throw so many other things overboard to save it.
As the video sting revealed, PP is perfectly willing to be accomplices to crimes, their corruption is another reason they shouldn't get any government money.
Strategically, I'm willing for the Democrats to chain themselves to the PP, it's an anchor that will drag them down, if we only keep the truth out there. And, yes, it makes a good negotiating tactic as well, threaten PP and they'll be willing to agree to cuts elsewhere to protect them.
Rimfrel, what I'd like to see is a budget passed line item by line item, so that the important items can't be held hostage so much to the pork.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitch "truce" Daniels agrees with this line of thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Democrats want 2012 to be about anything other than deficit-reduction. Expect an onslaught on the social-issues front, from abortion subsidies to gay marriage. Conservatives should not let them change the subject."
Not sure about conservatives, but Republicans will definitely let them change the subject. When it comes to setting the terms of the debate the Republicans almost always make the mistake of ceding that to the Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFuture action on social issues, if any, can be debated by Representatives and Executives elected to halt the fiscal ruination of this country.
Whether those people's opinions resemble Jimmy Falwell or Rachel Maddow should be secondary issues. We can all live - that is, literally continue to draw breath - in a country where people we disagree with are holding sway on social issues. (Well, those of us too old to be aborted, anyway.) It is highly uncertain how many of us will survive a future where leftists and feel-good ignoramuses hold sway for just another few years.
If it means stopping Armageddon, I would just as soon vote for someone who would chain pregnant women to breeding beds as someone who would amend the Constitution to make 9-month abortions a government funded human right. Social issues can be worked out once we've secured a future in which they matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI should also note that Congressional representatives are completely irrelevant to most social issues. Since court liberals proudly and willfully defy the nation's organization of government by declaring their opinions to be human rights, the only thing that really matters is who is picking the judges.
Nothing is more jarring - from a liberal or a conservative - than to hear that someone voted for a congresscritter because of their opinion on social issues. Legislatures pass uniformly conservative laws, if any at all; the courts declare them void in light of new "rights."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe winning formula for the right is to try and preserve social security and medicare (not necessarily medicaid--most voters don't really care about it) at the expense of everything else. When, after the draconian cuts have been made and most people are off the dole, if further cuts are necessary people will look at the potential for cuts in these big dollar programs with more of a gleam in their eye than the terror they do now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe way to attack social issues without losing the swingers?
"No government funding for...."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse