Facts and Contentions
Here's an article about moderate Republican Jim Leach mulling whether or not to vote for the GOP kill the poor budget:
Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa said Monday he is "skeptical" of a $54 billion GOP budget-cutting bill, expected to be voted on the House this week, that would pare social programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, child support enforcement and student loans. . . .
Democrats contend that the five-year bill actually would increase the cost of the deficit because it would be paired with legislation that would extend current tax cuts at a cost of $70 billion.
This Democratic contention seems to raise some obvious issues for a reporter to grapple with. Is the bill paired with legislation that would extend current tax cuts at a cost of $70 billion? Why yes it is! Is $70 billion a larger number than $54 billion? I believe so! So would the Republican budget make the deficit smaller or make it larger? That would be larger! The truly shocking thing, media-wise, is that the article in question is much better about the quote-unquote nature of the "deficit reduction" in this package than most stories I've read.
At any rate, refer back to the first paragraph and recall that the president got a lot of mileage in the first campaign out of scolding congressional Republicans for trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Now the GOP is all about taking food and medicine away from poor people. The student loans thing mostly hits the middle class and is especially egregious because there are actual ways you could cut student loan spending without hurting students if your political party wasn't owned by the financial services industry. And child support enforcement? Family values?
As un ideal as these things may be, I think it's a good idea for Democrats to get on board for supporting some modest cuts to entitlement spending as an act of good faith. Then they can use that as leverage against the Reepers to put up or shut up. It would be ideal way for Democrats to publicly challenge the GOP on whether they are serious about defecit reduction, or they just consider runaway spending a bad PR problem.
November 8, 2005 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a good idea for Democrats to get on board for supporting some modest cuts to entitlement spending as an act of good faith.
Because as Tom Daschle and all the Senate Democrats that voted in favor of the Iraq resolution can tell you, nothing gets rewarded quite like giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt.
It would be ideal way for Democrats to publicly challenge the GOP on whether they are serious about defecit reduction, or they just consider runaway spending a bad PR problem.
The thing is, they can already do that, because that's what the post is talking about: Congressional Republicans split the budget bill into two parts to conceal the fact that the entire thing actually increases the deficit by 30 billion dollars. This means that (1) the GOP is not serious about deficit reduction, and (2) they consider runaway spending purely a bad PR problem, to the point to where they will simply lie about what they are doing.
So, given how unwilling the MSM and all the conservative deficit hawks out there are to call them on this, perhaps if Democrats agreed to screw the poor, too, that would allow them to get their message out better...which is, "screw the poor less." Sounds like both a principled and politically successful position.
November 8, 2005 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush has no choice but to place the burden of budget cuts on the backs of the poor...especially if he refuses to back away from the tax cuts. Student loans, funding for the VA, medicade, food stamps, child support enforcement all is on the chopping blocks so the wealthy can have their tax breaks in "war time". The wealthy have made generous campaign donations (tax deductible I suspect) to make sure these politicians give them their tax breaks and by God the politicos who took the money want to keep getting it, so tax breaks there will be.
So the downtrodden opressed people of obscene wealth feel persecuted because they can not buy that Swiss chalet they wanted. Meanwhile men and women in our military are fighting for their right to amass mind boggling fortunes but the wealthy can not pay their far share to take care of the people when their tours of duty are done. NAFTA is in place allowing these wealthy people can expand their wealth farther into the 10 and 11 digit range while they are paying their workers so little some of the working poor have to receive government assistance to survive.
Sorry, I have no empathy of the "plight" of the wealthy and their precious goddamned tax cuts...
November 8, 2005 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK left blogosphere:
It's time to make a decision.
Is the deficit something to make little jokes about at the expense of the Republicans and the Republican-leaning media or are the Tax Cuts "Social Security 2006"?
In Social Security we knew what we wanted: Keep Social Security the way it is and maybe Democrats will really fix it later.
With the Tax Cuts what do we want? Get rid of these tax cuts
In Social Security we knew why we wanted it: The program is a cheap way to ensure that nobody starves after a lifetime working!
With Get Rid of The Tax Cuts why do we want it? Um, we prefer if the rich pay their fair share? There may not be a crisis yet, but one day there may be? The tax cuts may raise interest rates under some models and therefore put people out of work/out of higher paying jobs? Deficit spending makes China more powerful? Deficit spending doesn't make China powerful yet, but one day it may?
Aaah forget it. Let's just tell little jokes about the media.
Now Health Care can be Social Security 2006, if the Democrats decide to run on that and develop a Contract with America-style plan. Because this is health care, we can win the argument that there is a crisis by just showing that one American died who didn't have to (and don't let that American be related to a veteran).
The same mobilization that won Social Security can win Health Care if we decide early enough.
November 8, 2005 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The purpose of getting on board for reducing entitlement spending is not to be rewarded by the GOP or get a pat on the back. It's to demonstrate that, when it comes to defecit reduction and curbing the growth of spending, Democrats are willing to put their money on the table and demonstrate to the public that this is an issue they take seriously and not just give lip service to by agreeing to cuts in programs favored by most Democrats. The ball is then in the the GOP's court to commit to their part to the package by agreeing to some tax raises. If they balk, they lose face and we score points.
"The thing is, they can already do that, because that's what the post is talking about: Congressional Republicans split the budget bill into two parts to conceal the fact that the entire thing actually increases the deficit by 30 billion dollars. This means that (1) the GOP is not serious about deficit reduction, and (2) they consider runaway spending purely a bad PR problem, to the point to where they will simply lie about what they are doing."
I don't doubt the GOP's insincerity for a split second and my replies on this subject are in full knowledge of what the GOP did to try and conceal it's latest round of tax giveaways disguised as fake defecit reduction. I'm arguing that in addition to laughing this 'kill the poor' bill out of the room, Democratic leadership should publicly commit to some modest reductions in entitlement spending and then publicly challenge the GOP put up or shut up on defecit reduction by agreeing to tax hikes. If they balk, game point us.
November 8, 2005 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As politics goes, I think proposing such cuts is counterproductive
because it takes focus off the Bush tax cuts for the rich as the source of our fiscal problems and plays into the GOP narrative that runaway spending (on the poor, of course) is the problem.
Dems have to hit this narrative head on and directly tie the fiscal catastrophe that Bush has presided over to his tax cuts. The narrative needs to be that the GOP takes from the many to give to the few. The Dems need to tie the tax cuts to the cronyism to the K-Street scandals in one neat package. "Responsibility" can wait until the Dems actually have some say in shaping policy again.
November 8, 2005 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 9, 2005 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink