Wednesday, December 11, 2013

As the GOP Appears Willing To Cinch Defeat From the Jaws Of Potential Victory...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Principle is important. Vigorously pursuing the goal of achieving fiscal sanity again in America a noble and necessary endeavor. Finding the right mix that both allows government to function and at the same time control the natural human urges for excess is a challenge to say the least. A challenge our leadership in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate have, in my never humble opinion, failed at miserably.

Now, when two congressional leaders from heretofore inept opposing sides have managed to piece together a deal that while far from perfect is a step in the right direction certain "principled" republicans seem only too willing to play the role of obstructionist yet again.

Reasonable people, who use reason as they think through what all this means will at the end of the day question the sanity of the party apparently bent on proving a point point that sold well and worked well a an era long since past.

Perhaps when those who taut fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint actually start practicing what they preach people will once again listen.


POLITICO - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will oppose the bipartisan budget proposal that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) released last night.

“Sen. Paul will oppose the reported cap busting deal,” Doug Stafford, Paul’s senior adviser, told POLITICO on Wednesday. “He opposes increasing spending and undoing the minimal sequester cuts in current law, which weren’t even close to enough to begin with.”

The potential 2016 presidential contender’s opposition could signal trouble that Ryan and Murray will have convincing members of the right to get on board with the two-year budget agreement that cuts deficits by $23 billion. Some conservatives say Ryan gave up too much ground.

“I cannot support a budget that raises taxes and never balances, nor can I support a deal that does nothing to reduce our nation’s $17.3 trillion debt,” Paul said in a statement released later Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said earlier Tuesday he will “likely” oppose the deal, too.

“It doesn’t appear to be something I will likely support,” Crapo said. “It’s pretty light on entitlement reform and the entitlement reform that’s done is not structural. It doesn’t do anything to actually change or fix that. We’re looking now to see if it can pass the Congress.”

Skip

Paul and Crapo join an increasing number of GOPers who are opposing the bill. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he also opposes it.

Conservative groups are also opposing the plan. The powerful Club for Growth PAC President Chris Chocola said in a statement that they are opposing the plan and would include it on their annual Congressional scorecard.

“Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors,” Chocola said in a statement.

Time to consider DOD budget cuts and ending taxpayer subsidized corporate welfare for starters GOP. When that happens many real fiscal conservatives and libertarians who now view the GOP as a laughing stock just might come home to the party.

Mot going to hold my breath.

Via: Memeorandum

20 comments:

  1. The MIC is too entrenched now to undo. And while it's easy to go after the poor, it's hard to politically enunciate the need to cut the military. Ironically, the same party who claim to "support the troops" are also going after the poor, and service people are for the most part pretty poor, and so it's really just another social welfare state as well.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. jmj, sounding like the defeatist stuck in the box the political masters have created. Unwilling to accept the idea that things can change and therefore too timid to try. Ironic indeed.

    Perhaps your right. Sad, if it is so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I don't know about "defeatist." It's more just observing reality. For instance, we're just wrapping up two wars that just 40 years ago would have left 10's of thousands of dead. Now we have ten's of thousands of people who will be disabled for life. We have to take care of those people. Then there's all the financing we did to pay for the wars, instead of raising taxes or getting money from our allies. So, even if we suddenly decided we didn't need this continuing ridiculous WWII war machine anymore, we'd still be paying for it for a long, long time.

    Aside from the bills we have to pay regardless of what we do in the future, there is the welfare state aspect of the MIC, and not just for the corporations. Millions of Americans count on the military as a step stone out of poverty. If that went away, where would they turn? We'd see a massive increase in state dependency or worse. For instance, the fertility rate among service members is higher than for the general public. Even if that flattened out, there would still be a huge number children born to these folks who would have nowhere in the economy to turn to take care of those them.

    It just goes on an on, and that's not even passing a glance at the political impediments, like jingoism and fear fervor, let alone a huge dependent corporate MIC.

    It's a big problem, and we just don't have a big political movement to match.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1) Reduce the DOD budget by 3% (in real actual dollars not reduce projected dollars) annually for a period of 15 years.

    2) Reduce military foreign aid 8% annually (again in real dollars not projected) for a period of 5 years

    3) Reduce the size size of the standing army by 10% and close non essential military bases
    worldwide.

    4) End the practice of corporate lobbying and the corporate welfare we all pay for.

    5) Raise taxes to Clinton era levels

    Now jmj please explain this comtradiction in your comment(s)

    a) "... the same party who claim to "support the troops" are also going after the poor, and service people are for the most part pretty poor,..."

    b) "... Millions of Americans count on the military as a step stone out of poverty. I..."

    Okay jmj being the fiscal conservative I am and believe cuts are neccessary regardless of anything else I put a few modest cuts out there. I'd be willing to say we ought to raise taxes modestly as well.

    Now, what social programs would you and your progressive allies be willing to cut to help stabilize our fiscal ship that EVERYONE with a 1/2 of a brain knows is listing badly. 1, 2, 3... GO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: I am in favor of all of this.. Especially #4... which has gotten so much worse under Obama... the corrupt fascist-tinged practice of crony capitalism.

      I have major misgivings about #5, as tax revenues are at near record levels, and I believe Washington can solve these problems with wise spending of its vast unparalleled resources without shaking us down for more. But I WILL accept this as a compromise, in the hopes that this will shut up those that want the people further impoverished by 70% tax rates.

      There, done. Was that so hard?

      Delete
  5. If Ryan and McMurry can agree on anything, it must be pretty good. If Rand Paul dislikes it, it must
    be very good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would also add that if Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz oppose it, ditto.

      Delete
    2. Will: Bernie Sanders is on a different level of extreme entirely. From giving his as his party designation a political movement which at its most basic definition demands government ownership/control of all business... to his voting AGAINST properly identifying Iranian terrorists as terrorists... to his infamous vote to let the nation that launched 9/11 get away with it with no consequences.

      Delete
  6. Les... you can be sure there will be no lasting, or real cuts to defense... part of this deal was to restore $$$ to defense. Military planners have done a good job of making sure that military hardware has parts coming from congressional districts all over the country, making downsizing darn near politically impossible, even when the generals recommend it.

    We can hope, but the minute someone proposes real cuts to defense, they are tarred as namby pamby wimps...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as it pains me to acknowledge the reality you speak to it is as you say.

      People who think outside the box and refuse to be corraled by the 70 plus year paradigms need to continue to speak out... loudly.

      Bullies will always attack people with different views as mamby pamby. To which we need to say, BRING IT ON.

      Delete
    2. Dave said: "Military planners have done a good job of making sure that military hardware has parts coming from congressional districts all over the country, making downsizing darn near politically impossible, even when the generals recommend it."

      As I pointed out a while back to Jersey, it is this sort of pork-barrel corrupt situation that makes those on the Left just as strong supporters of the MIC and wasteful defense spending as those on the right. I discussed this specifically on the issue of military base closings, which is similar to what you mention.

      Delete
  7. The military cuts you mention would be a drop in the bucket. Medicare and Social Security, the other two big-ticket items, are, unlike the military estate, necessary. Making them more efficient is all well and fine, and just like the military estate, the first priority shouldn't be "how much does it cost?" This is a matter of serious priorities the American people are not politically mature enough to face.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure you answered, certainly your specifics if you want to call them that are pretty squishy.

      Who decides the American people are not mature enough to face realities and prioritize? You and the progressive movement?

      Delete
    2. Throughout our history, all the great positive achievements of "the people," us all, respectively, have been progressive. All of it.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Medicare and Medicaid are the 2 major drivers of all future debt BY A MILE and if they are not significantly reformed and quickly WE WILL GO BROKE. I mean, just take a look at the stats over the past 40 years and the projection 10 years onward. According to the CBO, Medicare, Medicaid, and SS represented only 4% of total GDP in 1970 and by 2020 that is projected to grow to 11%. That is totally unsustainable and Pelosi's plan for Medicare being "Medicare" is quite possibly the most moronic statement ever uttered by an American politician this side of GWB.

      Delete
    4. Jason Fichtner of Mercatus with the unpleasant messaging - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSp-grHU3Kc&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLA6A5D9E793C3B46F Please, don't shoot him.

      Delete
    5. Will said: "Medicare and Medicaid are the 2 major drivers of all future debt BY A MILE and if they are not significantly reformed and quickly WE WILL GO BROKE"

      I agree. These should be means tested. As they are now, they give a massive amount of welfare to the rich. Ending welfare to the rich and people of means is the type of austerity I strongly support.

      "and Pelosi's plan for Medicare being "Medicare" is quite possibly"

      That is exactly the kind of small "c" conservative thinking... reactionary, against change and reform, that ruins the nation.

      Delete
    6. dmarks, I do like the compromise that Ron Wyden and Paul Ryan ultimately came up with for Medicare in 2012 (Wyden for political reasons - the Presidential election - eventually had to back off of it). It was a form of premium support similar to the one that Alice Rivlin and John Breaux came up with in their proposals and, while it certainly isn't perfect, it's definitely a step in the right direction.......And I obviously agree with you on the means-testing thing (as does former President Carter).

      Delete
    7. Here's another frightening stat. In 1970, discretionary spending was 62% of the budget and mandatory spending (not including interest on the debt) was 31% of the budget. By 2010, those numbers had basically flipped to 38% and 57%, respectively. Yeah, I would say that we definitely have a problem here and it's going to get worse when a) the baby boomers start to retire and b) interest rates go up.

      Delete
  8. ".And I obviously agree with you on the means-testing thing (as does former President Carter)."

    It warms my heart to be in the company of two great Americans on this :)

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.