(0 comments)Wow, here’s a story we’re going to see all over the mainstream media:
President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years. The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs… By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.Or maybe not… (via Sully)
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Official Gingrich-Cain 2012 response to Rick Santorum’s homophobia: “Rick, Rick, Rick. Don’t you know that the anti-gay bigotry only carries water if you have a few failed straight marriages under your belt?” Follow all their other words of wisdom here. (0 comments)Ron Paul Quote of the Week: Honest Rape
Here’s Grandpa Fustypants on rape and abortion:“If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.”
via (4 comments)Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
That's nice. If Bush tried to end those programs as well, they must have been particularly wasteful parochial giveaways.
And it's also great that the administration hasn't raised post-recession spending and taxes by a level of magnitude that dwarfs these cuts. Oh, wait…
All in good time. Taxes will certainly need to be raised. Bush ensured that with his reckless tax cuts in a time of multi-trillion-dollar war. What happens when you launch two unfunded wars that will ultimately cost us between $1.4 -- 1.8 trillion and pass tax cuts that ripped $2.5 trillion out of government revenue? Yup, tax increases.
The problem is not tax increases per se, it's tax increases with spending increases….such that new revenue streams are being squandered on giveaways.
Just as the problem during the Bush years was not tax cuts per se, it was tax cuts without spending cuts.
And the wars are a whole 'nother additional problem added on to this. Which is fine to point out, but that ship has sailed and doesn't justify continuing the earlier, underlying bad budget accounting.
i don't see a problem with tax increases right now or in the near future. we need them. Bush ensured that would be the case.
Your myopic point that tax increases are needed without regard to the other side of the budget (thus squandering new revenue with new spending) is every bit as pernicious as Republicans who correctly note that tax cuts are economically helpful without addressing the other side of the budget (the need for spending cuts to go with the cut revenue).
i'm not being myopic at all. this post is, after all, praising obama for pushing through some spending cuts. more is needed, as are more taxes to clean up the bush mess and reduce the deficit.
fiscal responsibility = responsible management of spending + responsible management of revenue
These cuts are obviously positive, but pale in comparison to the ever-worse budgetary situation we find ourselves in.
My point here is that you're praising some cuts while ignoring the much larger spending increases. Enjoy your tokenism.
jeez, got an axe to grind today? go grab a drink and chill out.
btw, "spending increases" is such a mash. what spending? on what programs? for what purpose? for how long?
Obama's budget is the most audacious progressive spending binge since LBJ, so I effectively oppose every increase. If you want to break it down further, see these numbers, and then this post for factoring in Bush's war spending.
Well that's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that its thelargest spending binge since… George W and the republicans. At leastour society will get something out of this besides the bodies ofhundreds of thousands of people killed by wars fueled by trillions
Yes Bush's war spending was bad. You know what else was bad? Hitler.
None of this excuses Obama's budgeting, though obviously I voted for it as the lesser evil.
Well, Scott Brown will be a great ally in your fight for fiscalresponsibility. Er, at least in terms of cutting taxes cutting taxesand cutting taxes.I can't wait to start hightlighting insane rightwing quotes from brownfor you when he takes office :)
You expect tax cuts during a time of large deficits and the largest Democratic majorities in…well, a very very long time?
Nay, I endorse Brown to restrain Democratic spending.
From a libertarian perspective any study of history will show that divided government produced the best results. I have little faith in the ability of politics to solve problems. It's most often best to create as much deadlock as possible to restrain them from creating new problems.
At this point I want Republicans to control the House, I want 41-45 Republicans in the Senate, and I want a Democrat in the White House focused on foreign policy. That's my ideal partisan composition for the foreseeable future.
While we're at it, I also want all our immediate problems to go away so we can get back to focusing on who blew the president… *best 1990s Republican voice* It's about the rule of law, people. Rule of law!
Yeah, well, that's the naive/simplistic way to look at it. What you're really voting for is across the board filibustering of every democratic initiative, whether wise or sound. Think they can get through a much-needed tax increase, even if they cut spending and the deficit more? No, the republicans will then have the numbers to filibuster ANYTHING.
PS. You know it, and I know it, and Bruce Bartlett knows it; we are going to need tax increases to pay for trillions bush and yes obama required us to pay for
Sure it'll restrain their ability to raise taxes--especially their ability to soak the rich. But it'll also restrain their ability to spend other people's money as soon as they raise the revenue, which is what they've been doing. Those are good restraints in toto.
I'm not sure if a grand compromise like what Bruce Bartlett favors--paying for a welfare state, but doing so with a flat, conservative consumption tax (like the VAT)--is more likely to happen with or without a more divided government.