Tag Archives: Congress

Fiscal Cliff Negotiations – Why Obama and Boehner Won’t Agree Anytime Soon – Maybe Not At All

ABOUT that Fiscal Cliff — The Daily Beast has summed up nicely the chances of a deal:

“There is a growing sense among Republican policy wonks and senior lobbyists that the chances of getting any kind of meaningful deal on the deficit between now and the end of the year are drifting toward zero.” Daily Beast, Dec 4th.

Speaker Boehner held a press conference on Friday, December 7th, to discuss where negotiations are currently going, which you can watch below.

The real takeaway from this press conference is not that negotiations are going badly — although that is what the video portrays — but that there is little that can be put on the table to actually negotiate with.

At this point, Speaker Boehner is facing a challenge within the GOP to oust him for even talking seriously about some of the ideas on the table. Earlier this week he received a letter signed by more than 100 conservative activists that threatened to work against him and any other GOP member that supported any attempt to raise taxes and/or to curb tax deductions and such. Boehner is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

American Majority Action (AMA) launched a #FireBoehner campaign, and numerous other conservative and Tea Party groups have joined the effort to toss Boehner as House Speaker. For that to work requires that just 16 members of the Republican Party drop support for Boehner in January which will take away enough votes to prevent his return as the House Speaker, opening the way for a new Speaker.

So as you watch the press conference video above, please ignore Speaker Boehner blasting the president. The two of them could probably reach a deal quickly if left to work things out together. Boehner is just echoing talking points at this point as he tries to work out some deal acceptable to his own party.

There is also criticism that Obama is not responding seriously to Boehner’s proposals. This is undoubtedly true but also just rhetoric. There is no GOP plan with specifics or any plan that can get enough GOP votes to pass even if we were to adopt the Boehner’s GOP plan ‘as is’. So reality is that President Obama is really left to negotiate with himself because any deal made at the moment is not a viable deal at all.

Things don’t get negotiated from the center. If I were Obama, I would ignore any ‘plan’ that didn’t have specifics and a guarantee of X votes to go with that plan. Speaker Boehner really needs to negotiate the Fiscal Cliff within his own party before he can expect the president to make a deal that the GOP won’t honor.

Speaker Boehner is an honorable man. Life must seem crazy for him at the moment. I wish him well and hope that he can strike a deal which really does cut national expenses and find ways to pay for whatever else remains as obligated debt. The Constitution gives that challenge to the Congress not to the president — so before we make any progress it is the Congress that has to come to terms first, and Republicans pretty much own the House which is where it all starts.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fiscal Cliff Alert Status for 2012.12.05: Condition Red

When it comes to the Fiscal Cliff, we all have much to lose.

The CBO projects that going over the cliff means that the economy takes a nosedive during 2Q 2013 and unemployment will easily break 9% by early 3Q 2013.

Should we go down the Fiscal Cliff path then 2013 will be a year of random misery as different parts of the economy adjust to magical movement of money, or lack thereof, in the marketplace. Ours is a marketplace addicted to subsidized money on both the left and the right, whether it be cheap credit cards, zero percent loans to large banks, defense spending or social spending, grants, shared underwriting of public programs or tax credits and deductibles for private investments.

Neither side is close to blinking. Neither side is close to have a ‘deal’ that their own party can support.

Negotiation on avoiding the Fiscal Cliff will go all the way to the 11th hour … and perhaps no deal will come about. More probable than just being possible at the moment.

President Obama has a strong hand for shooting down many aspects of what the GOP wants, although the GOP does not have any actual plan that is supported both within the House and the Senate as of yet. So criticism that Obama has rejected the GOP plan are largely empty words — there is no GOP plan that the GOP itself has endorsed that can provide a guaranteed 51%+ supportive vote in either the House or in the Senate.

And yet President Obama’s challenge is that he needs a deal that the GOP House will approve, and so far there is no real Democratic plan on the table that can provide a guaranteed 51%+ supportive vote in either the House or in the Senate.

The only two people that have a written plan are Simpson-and-Bowles … and neither the Dems nor the Reps are embracing it.

Today’s Risk Level of going over the edge: Condition Red

Leave a Comment

Filed under Deficit Spending, Economics, National Debt

Congress and Political Parties – They all vote in lockstep. Right?

Congress is an immoveable force where the majority of members vote as solid blocs. Fact or Fiction?

>> Check out the difference between Democrats in the House between the two Congresses.

All votes are averages across X number of congressional bills

==============
111th Congress
==============

>> House sample size: 1654 Bills
>> Senate sample size: 688 Bills

% = the number of times that House/Senate members voted as a majority for a bill.

Dems / House: 81% of bills / majority of the party members voted ‘yes’
Reps / House: 65.7% of bills / voted as ‘yes’ bloc

Dems / Senate: 63.5% of bills / majority of the party members voted ‘yes’
Reps / Senate: 57.3% of bills / voted as ‘yes’ bloc

==============
112th Congress
==============

>> House sample size: 1549 Bills
>> Senate sample size: 433 Bills

Dems / House: 52.7% of bills / majority of the party members voted ‘yes’
Reps / House: 56.6% of bills / voted as ‘yes’ bloc

Dems / Senate: 67.9% of bills / majority of the party members voted ‘yes’
Reps / Senate: 60.5% of bills / voted as ‘yes’ bloc

Source: Washington Post Congressional Votes Database, http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Democratic Party, Republican Party

Rand Paul – Giving up your rights when you support the Patriot Act

You may not like all of his positions, but Rand Paul does a great job of outlining why the Patriot Act is unAmerican and unhealthy for our republic.

The Patriot Act sounds good as long as it is ‘our guys’ looking for the ‘bad guys’, unless ‘our guys’ are out and the other guys are in.

When there is no accountability then there will be abuse. 9/11 happened because it happened. Terrorists found a weak spot and struck. There is no reason that we should give up indefinitely our rights.

Rand Paul: If you are not going to protect the entire Bill of Rights then you aren’t going to have any of it.

To protect my own rights I need to protect your rights, and you need to protect mine — even when we don’t like each other.

>> “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.” … Not. UnAmerican. Period. I am not guilty until proven innocent. Neither are you.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Independents Gaining Momentum As More Americans Reject Party Politics

By Bill Golden
Bill4DogCatcher.com and JeffersonConservative.com

My prediction is that there will be 5-6 independent senators in the U.S. Congress by 2014, many or most will be former Republicans.

These are the Republicans that are generally conservative in nature but centrist in their ability to work with others on that great playground that we call American politics — where rules are usually for the other guy.

Independents will have major impact in 2012 based on their ability to provide critical votes; there should be at least 3 if not 4 independent senators within Congress.

Those parties that do not move to the middle will find their efforts defeated within these critical few votes.

Outside of the senate, independents are picking up some momentum across the country. Recent successful ballot initiatives like California’s no political party primary referendum will help speed up the success of independents and independent-minded members of political parties as voters will no longer have to pick the lesser of two evils (on most days).

======

From this morning’s USAToday:

“Independents gain favor in governors’ races”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-07-05-independents_N.htm

Excerpted:

There are more signs of centrists stirring as national politics remain sharply polarized, a factor some candidates cite for leaving or being pushed from their old allegiances. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who became an independent candidate for the Senate when the GOP seemed certain to nominate Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio, now leads the three-way field. In California last month, voters approved a constitutional amendment to make primaries open and non-partisan, a measure intended to boost moderate contenders.

“One of the things we’re seeing this year is a voter revolt against the extremes in both parties and a desire to find candidates who can be elected from the middle and who can govern from the middle,” says Eliot Cutler, a former Carter administration official who is running as an independent for governor of Maine.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Civil Society, Elections, Independents

An open letter to conservatives by AmericanDad, aka Russell King

Bill4DogCatcher sez: The original version of this letter can be found here. While I may not agree with everything, the points made in this letter are largely and overwhelmingly valid criticism of the state of American conservatism in 2010.


Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You’ve lost me and you’ve lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I’d like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You’re going to have to come up with a platform that isn’t built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party — the GOP — and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it’s tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples — by no means an exhaustive list — of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you’re going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you’ll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can’t flip out — and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that’s centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can’t vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it’s done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) — 114 of you (at last count) did just that — and it’s even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can’t fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can’t call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they “unlawful enemy combatants” or are they “prisoners of war” at Gitmo? You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can’t refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn’t meet with you.

You can’t rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can’t rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can’t be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can’t enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can’t flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.

You can’t complain that the president hasn’t closed Gitmo yet when you’ve campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can’t flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn’t even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed leaders of countries that are not on “kissing terms” with the US.

You can’t complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt — the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can’t attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn’t issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can’t throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when — in fact — only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can’t condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attempted terror attack on his.

You can’t mount a boycott against singers who say they’re ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he’s ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can’t cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it’s too short.

You can’t support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can’t demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.

You can’t praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it “treasonous” under a Dem president.

You can’t propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can’t be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can’t damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you’ve paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can’t condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president’s party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can’t be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can’t vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of ‘open debate’.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it’s 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you’re taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution. This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God’s stand, too.

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can’t send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

You can’t criticize Dems for not doing something you didn’t do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

You can’t decry “name calling” when you’ve been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

You can’t spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare

You can’t praise the Congressional Budget Office when it’s analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it’s unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don’t.

You can’t vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don’t. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

You can’t call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

You can’t spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.

You can’t condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.

You can’t demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don’t.

You can’t whine that it’s unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party’s former leader admits you’ve been doing it for decades.

You can’t portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

You can’t complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you’ve routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain — threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented — and admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can’t question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn’t object when your own Republican president appointed them.

You can’t preach and try to legislate “Family Values” when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer’s wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife’s mother;

Hyperbole

You really need to disassociate with those among you who:

History

If you’re going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they’re NOT synonymous!)

You can’t cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you’ve decided you don’t like his ideas.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word “terrorism” or say we’re at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

If you’re going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.

You can’t just pretend historical events didn’t happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn’t make it better.)

You can’t say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from “socialist utopia”; health care reform is not “reparations”; nor does health care reform create “death panels”.

Hatred

You have to condemn those among you who:

Oh, and I’m not alone: One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we’ll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.

(Anticipating your initial response: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

Written by Russell King

2 Comments

Filed under Family Values, Lies and Tall Tales, Political Correctness, Political Violence, Republican Party

Could 2010 be the year of the black Republican?

THE GRIO – Could 2010 be the year of the black Republican?

By Javier David, thegrio.com

It is a truism that the relationship between African-Americans and the modern-day Republican Party has been marked by hostility and contentiousness. This reality is often difficult to reconcile with the GOP’s historical opposition to slavery and the Democrats’ often whitewashed track record on race relations. Despite an impressive roster of prominent African-American Republicans, blacks and Republicans sometimes seem as compatible as oil and water.

But nearly two years removed from the election of President Barack Obama, a subtle but remarkable political revolution has been set in motion. A cadre of black political candidates is angling to assume its place in Washington – as registered Republicans. With some convincing, they may yet help re-orient the historically troubled dynamic between black voters and the Republican Party.

In fact, no fewer than 20 minority candidates have declared their intention to run for Congress in 2010, a surprising number given that many are running in urban areas with sizeable black populations. Many have benefited from the GOP’s renewed emphasis to gain traction with minority voters, a priority voiced by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele – the first African-American to hold that position.

And the candidates certainly have their work cut out for them. Not only do black voters voter near-monolithically Democratic, but blacks who self-identify as Republicans or conservatives often come in for what author Shelby Steele once termed “a stunning amount of animus, demonization…and flat-out, undifferentiated contempt” from within the rest of the community. And in the past, black Republicans have won in conservative-leaning (and in most cases, predominantly white) suburbs, thus eluding the skeptical undercurrent that often confronts black GOP candidates from urban voters.

Ryan Frazier, a Republican Congressional candidate from Aurora, Colorado whose national profile has been on the rise, is all too familiar with those sentiments. In a reply to an e-mailed question from theGrio, Frazier described one of his toughest challenges with urban voters as “trying to explain how many conservative principles are more beneficial than big government policies. I like to say that as a country we want to give people a hand up, not a handout.”

Like other black GOP candidates for office, Frazier emphasizes common-sense solutions to intractable problems like the jobs, education and health care reform, all chief concerns of blacks and other voters of color. Widespread dissatisfaction with Washington and the stagnant job market – which has hit black communities hard – may be enough to convince some black voters to reappraise their relationship with the GOP and view black Republican candidates with new seriousness.

And a few of the GOP’s African-American vanguard are taking aim at some fairly powerful targets. Michel Frazier is challenging embattled Democrat Charles Rangel in Harlem; Isaac Hayes, (alas, not a reincarnation of the fallen soul icon but a young Chicago-area minister) is taking on Jesse Jackson Jr in Illinois’ 2nd District; Princella Smith, a former aide to Newt Gingrich, is launching a bid against Marion Barry in Arkansas’ historically Democratic 1st Congressional District; and Robert Broadus is running in Maryland’s 4th Congressional District – one that contains the largest black middle class in the U.S. and is currently represented by Democrat Donna Edwards.

READ MORE HERE – http://www.thegrio.com/opinion/could-2010-be-the-year-of-the-black-republican.php

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arkansas, Election 2010, Illinois, Maryland, Republican Party

CBO Sez: “Interest payments on the debt are poised to skyrocket” to $723 billion per year

You can read the complete CBO analysis online.

Bill4DogCatcher.com sez: some folks dismiss future debt as something that we can deal with when we get there. This mentality has a very agnostic fanbase. It doesn’t matter whether the we-can-pay-it-later brush of hand comes from the left or right, or even if the dismisser is supposedly fiscally conservative; example:  Vice President Cheney once brushed off the topic with “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”. I love Reagan but Reagan started the immense national debt snowball that has engulfed us today.

Deficits do matter. When just the annual interest payment on that debt hits $723B per year … ouch. President Obama signed an increase in our national debt by $1.9 trillion on February 12th and then signed the 2010 Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) Act the next day. We cannot keep giving lip service to PAYGO. Congress passed PAYGO in 2007 as a guideline, not as as Act, and then promptly forgot about it — never once meeting PAYGO standards.

Accumulating deficits are pushing federal debt to significantly higher levels. CBO projects that total debt will reach $8.8 trillion by the end of 2010. At 60 percent of GDP, that would be the highest level since 1952. Under current laws and policies, CBO’s projections show that level climbing to 67 percent by 2020. As a result, interest payments on the debt are poised to skyrocket; the government’s spending on net interest will triple between 2010 and 2020, increasing from $207 billion to $723 billion.

US Budget Outlook - CBO estimate through 2020

US Budget Outlook - CBO estimate through 2020

The Congressional Budget Office projects that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. That amount would be slightly smaller than the 2009 deficit but, as a share of the economy as a whole (measured by gross domestic product, or GDP), it would still be the second largest since World War II. The budget picture remains daunting beyond this year, with deficits averaging about $600 billion annually from 2011 through 2020.

Those estimates are not intended to be a prediction of actual budget outcomes; rather, they indicate what CBO estimates would occur if current laws and policies remained in place. Toward that end, CBO’s projections presume no changes in current tax laws or spending programs. Any new legislation that reduced revenues (such as indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation) or boosted spending (such as providing supplemental funding for military operations in Afghanistan) would increase projected deficits. For example, if all tax provisions that are scheduled to expire in the coming decade were extended and the AMT were indexed for inflation, deficits over the 2011–2020 period would be more than $7 trillion higher. (See the above chart for details on the budgetary impact of some alternative policy actions and see the sidebar for more information on CBO’s baseline.)


This post by Bill Golden, aka Bill4DogCatcher.com, an independent observer of American political life, economics, and workforce issues.

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, National Debt