Archive for the ‘Congressional Republicans’ Category

Maddow Breaks Down Conspiracy Theory at Heart of Fast & Furious

Sunday, June 24th, 2012


On Wednesday, Rachel Maddow provided a decoder ring for regular people to understand “What Your Uncle Who Watches Fox News All Day Is All Worked Up About.” As always, take the assertions with a grain of salt, but this is a great insight into the different worlds that consumers of Fox News and conservative talk radio inhabit than the rest of the country.

My Republican cousin-in-law was going on this week about how the Fast and Furious investigation was going to spell doom for the Obama Administration, but given that most Americans probably have no idea who Eric Holder or Darrell Issa are, it seems unlikely that the spectacle of the entire House of Representatives holding a vote on whether to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress over a scandal that they’ve never heard of during a time when unemployment is above 8% is going to provoke anything but eye-rolls across the country.

Once again, the Republicans overreach.

Ed’s on Fire

Sunday, November 6th, 2011

Ed Schultz is all fired up.

I love this stat:

49% of Florida voters believe that Congressional Republicans are sabotaging the economy in order to make Obama look bad. This number includes 25% of Republicans.

Friday night’s clip on the jobs report was pretty good as well.

The GOP’s Politics of Extortion

Monday, August 15th, 2011

One of the things that I thought of in the midst of all the debt ceiling BS was: what of the shoe was on the other foot?

In other words, what if Democrats held the Full Faith and Credit of the United States hostage in order to pass an unpopular bill against the will of the people? Remember, the Democrats were elected to 3/5 of the seats in both houses of the legislature and controlled the Presidency in 2008. But when they tried to enact their agenda on health care, it was “tyranny” and Republicans couldn’t wait to go to their local park carrying Obama-with-a-Hitler-moustache signs.

Now, the Republicans control 1/3 of the three institutions that make laws in the United States and they are holding the US economy hostage to force the Senate and President to bend to their will? A rough Democratic equivalent would have been if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats didn’t take the Senate in 2006, but refused to raise the debt ceiling until the Republican Senate and President capitulated and passed a national health care law.

We know what would happen in that case: Republicans would have been screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so.

As Steve Benen points out, the Republicans have made “extortion politics” the new norm in Washington. They only control one branch of the legislature, but they have managed to force enactment of policies that they couldn’t get passed through legitimate political processes. They have manage to keep not only repeal of Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy off the table but alltax increases off the table, and they have kept the Consumer Financial Regulation Agency effectively neutered, even though none of these positions are popular with the American people. Benen’s take is worth extended quotation:

I think this is arguably one of the more important realizations to take away from the current political landscape. Republicans aren’t just radicalized, aren’t just pursuing an extreme agenda, and aren’t just allergic to compromise. The congressional GOP is also changing the very nature of governing in ways with no modern precedent.

Welcome to the normalization of extortion politics….

The traditional American model would tell Republicans to win an election. If that doesn’t work, Republicans should work with rivals to pass legislation that moves them closer to their goal. In 2011, the GOP has decided these old-school norms are of no value. Why bother with them when Republicans can force through policy changes by way of a series of hostage strategies? Why should the legislative branch use its powers through legislative action when extortion is more effective?

It’s offensive when it comes to nominees like CFPB nominee Richard Cordray, but using the full faith and credit of the United States to force through desired policy changes takes this dynamic to a very different level. And since it’s working, this will be repeated and establishes a new precedent.

Awesome.

Remind me again why these guys are the patriotic ones?

The Tea Party Downgrade

Sunday, August 14th, 2011

In a recent flurry of e-mails with my conservative uncle, we have been arguing about who is responsible for the S&P downgrade of US debt. While it should be obvious to everyone but the Fox News addled that Congressional Republicans are responsible, the back and forth with my uncle has convinced me that this apparently needs some more explanation.

First of all, let’s stipulate that the idea of a debt ceiling doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Congress and the President are responsible for appropriating money and (much to the chagrin of the Tea Baggers) borrowing money is a part of running a government. A separate debate and vote on whether the government can borrow money to spend funds that have already been approved is superfluous. Not to mention the fact that the most reactionary budget that has come out of the House of Representatives in recent memory, the Ryan Plan, assumes a deficit for this year (and indeed a deficit for over ten years). Furthermore (although the Tea Party Constitutional fetishists have been adept at ignoring it) the Constitution is pretty clear on this. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment reads:

the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for service in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned.

In my opinion, Obama took this Constitutional arrow out of his quiver too soon. While it would set a bad precedent to just ignore a practice that has been in place for decades, he should have reserved his ability to invoke this power in the time of a crisis.

The debt ceiling has been raised 106 times since 1940 and the historical precedent is that the “out party” (who doesn’t control the presidency) votes against it as soon as they know that there are enough votes to pass it. Again, Republicans are shocked (shocked, I say!) that there might be politics in Washington DC and point to the fact that Obama and Biden both voted against it during the Bush Administration. In return, Democrats saw their Barack Obama and raised them a Ronald Reagan, who raised the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years and in 1987, in a speech that could have been given by Barack Obama, publicly called on the Democratic Congress to stop acting irresponsibly and raise the debt ceiling. 

But this time was different. It was different because the 2010 elections brought to power a bunch of Tea Party Congresmen who cared more about their extreme policy prescriptions than they did about the fragile economic recovery of the United States. The US Government’s much vaunted “checks and balances” are basically a way to insure compromise in lawmaking. But the opposite is true as well: checks and balances also provide an easy way for one faction to grind the system to a halt by refusing to compromise. And this is exactly what the Tea Party has been intent on doing.

Just as they forced a crisis when the Bush Tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, and then again earlier this year when the remaining money from last year was to be appropriated, the Tea Party was set on using the Full Faith and Credit of the United States as a political weapon. The initial Republican plan was to tie the US Government in knots over the debt ceiling to force spending cuts, while only extending the debt ceiling for another 6 months, thereby creating another opportunity to tie the government in knots 6 months later. This is from the same people who talk about the “uncertainty” caused by Democrat’s attempts to regulate the economy or raise enough money to finance the meager social programs we have in this country. What could lead to more uncertainty than questioning whether the largest economy in the world would pay the debts it had run up?

As if that wasn’t enough, the Republicans added the demand that not only did the deficit have to be cut, it had to be cut without raising taxes at a time where taxes are lower than they have been in 60 years.

Faced with this extraordinary economic extortion, Obama called the Republicans’ bluff. He unilaterally put the two most popular social programs in the country on the table and began to push for a deal that would cut the deficit $3-4 trillion over the next 10 years. The catch was that the Republicans would have to agree to tax increases in order to get these cuts. To be sure, this was political gamesmanship too, but it was about time. Obama has been pummeled by Republican political gamesmanship for the past 3 years, and in this case, the right political position also happened to be the right position for the country (not to mention supported by over 2/3 of the American people).

Republicans counter that Obama wasn’t serious about deficit reduction since he never submitted a detailed proposal, but (for better or worse) that’s the same thing he did during the Health Care debate and no one can question his commitment to that policy after witnessing his determination to push it through. Ultimately, Obama was expecting the usual rules to apply here: The Republican House comes out with something reactionary, the Senate moderates it, cooler heads prevail and the President signs the compromise. That is how the system is supposed to work.

But the Tea Partiers aren’t interested in how the system works. They insisted on getting 95% of what they wanted and were ready to risk the position of United States as the economic leader in the world to get that 95%. Ultimately, the deal that was struck produced a lower deficit reduction than S&P said would be necessary to avoid a downgrade and put in place an unwieldy process where a super committee is charged with finding the savings. If they don’t materialize, automatic cuts in domestic and military spending will be enacted.

While this deal took the immediate threat of a default off the table, it provided less debt reduction than S&P had said it would take as a meaningful down-payment on the debt and provided yet another choke point for the Republicans to hold the country hostage to their extreme demands.

My conservative uncle makes the argument that the downgrade was caused by President Obama’s lack of seriousness when it came to tackling the debt, but that ignores the fact that the debt is a long term problem and that the only thing that made the debt problem a “debt crisis”  was the threat of the Republicans not to raise the debt ceiling and their insistence that any deficit reduction not include any additional “revenues,” no matter how small and insignificant they were.

But don’t take my word for it. Read S&P’s statement that accompanied the downgrade (italics added):

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policy making becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

In other words, if debt ceiling and threat of default weren’t used as “political bargaining chips” or if  the “Grand Bargain” of $3-4 trillion in debt reduction from spending cuts and new revenues that Obama was pushing for  was agreed to, the downgrade wouldn’t have happened.

In the aftermath of the downgrade, many attacked the S&P, noting that they and other ratings agencies that graded risky derivatives as AAA were in large part responsible for the economic crash that we are currently in. While this is clearly true, Reuters financial blogger Felix Salmon points out that, in this case, S&P was really just doing it’s job:

Any student of sovereign default knows that it is born of precisely the kind of failures of governance that we saw during the debt-ceiling debate. That is why the US cannot hold a triple-A rating from S&P: the chance of having a dysfunctional Congress in future is 100%, and a dysfunctional Congress, armed with a statutory debt ceiling, is an extremely dangerous thing, and very far from risk-free…We saw the values of Congress during the debt-ceiling debate, including various members of the House who said with genuine sincerity that they’d actually welcome a default. In that context, S&P’s judgment is hard to fault.

Indeed.

A Pox on Both Your Houses

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

There will be a bunch of upcoming punditry in the media about which party got the better deal and which political party benefits more from the shameful Republican debt ceiling episode, but one thing’s for sure: the loser was the American people’s faith in the political system to solve the problems of this country.

A movement that represents a reactionary minority of Americans has effectively taken over the Republican party and used a technicality that a majority of Americans have never heard of in order to create a crisis that tied up the government for months with a ridiculous debate about whether the United States should decline to pay the bills that were run up by presidents of both parties over decades.

Mewanwhile, back in the real world, unemployment is at 9.2% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but measures of “real” unemployment (including people who stopped looking and the underemployed) are closer to 16%.  A majority of Americans want to balance the budget, but this is a long term issue, not a short term issue, and you would be hard pressed to find many economists who would tell you that cutting government funding (AKA jobs) in a recession is a way to spur economic growth.

Remember when the Democrats took over in 2008 and spent a year arguing about health care when the country was in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression? Well, this is like that, but even worse. The Democrats failing at that time was ignoring the public’s desire for a strong focus on jobs. Not only have the Republicans not done one single thing to foster job creation in the United States since they were elected, they have actually done the opposite by threatening to set off a world economic crisis in order to get their way. 

My sense is that the whole “let’s hold the world economic system hostage to our narrow ideological agenda strategy” hurts the Republicans more than it hurts the President, but this should be little consolation for Obama, who’s approval rating dropped to a new low of 40 percent in this weekend’s Gallup Poll.

Dissecting Krauthammer on the Debt Ceiling

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

So my conservative uncle really likes this Charles Krauthammer article. He likes it so much that he e-mailed it twice. Of course, his version came from the paranoid neo-con Jewishworldreview.com website. Which is weird, because he’s Italian, but I digress…

Regarding Krauthammer, I hate to break it to him, but he and the other Fox News talking heads are the only people who care about what was in Obama’s original budget that never stood a chance to be enacted; or about how many times Obama said debt in his State of the Union speech. (How often did Bush say debt? How did that work out?)

It’s like Krauthammer lived in Washington all his life and never heard of politics. Obama let the Republicans go first on the debt because they spent the last two years complaining incessantly about it, and because they ran their whole campaign on cutting the deficit as if they just awoke from a 8 year winter slumber just in time for President Obama’s inauguration.

But you gotta give credit to these guys. They sure have (as Michele Bachmann would say), a lot of “chutspa.” They ran their last campaign on how unconscionable it was for Obama to make some small cuts in Medicare to fund health care and then, as soon as they get elected, every single one of them voted not only to cut Medicare, but to completely abolish it and replace it with a system that centers around coupons.

…and the poor Republicans had their plan demagogued by mean old President Obama. Not like the Republican’s have ever demagogued anything before (death panels anyone?).

Regarding the corporate jet and oil company tax breaks, I’ve heard this argument before from Republican pundits, but it seems like a counterintuitive point to make if you’re arguing for the Republican side. If the tax increases generate so little revenue (and presumably don’t impact very many people), then shouldn’t the Republicans jump at a deal where they only have to cut loopholes that benefit a few in order to balance the budget that they supposedly care about so much?

In retrospect, it’s clear what people like Krauthammer have their panties in a bunch about. They thought that Obama was such a pushover that they could force him to make massive cuts by threatening the economic security of the United States. But in a brilliant political move, Obama called the Republicans bluff by offering significant cuts in government spending with the caveat that Republicans would have to support popular tax increases that only benefit a select few (who also happen to be the Republican base). The House Republican’s response was typical: they walked out of the negotiations rather than discuss tax increases, proving once again that (although they might care about deficits a little bit), they clearly care about keeping and extending tax cuts even more.

I understand that all the Republicans made pledges to Grover Norquist not to raise taxes, but that’s not my problem, and it shouldn’t have to be the country’s problem either. The Republicans didn’t take over the government last year. They took over 1/3 of the 3 institutions that are involved in passing laws. Once they elect a Republican president, keep control of the House, and have over 60 solid votes in the Senate, they can get everything they want and balance the budget on the backs of (future) seniors and poor people. Until then, they are going to have to compromise.

My unsolicited advice to Republicans: quit acting like crybabies. Only children are naive enough to think they will get everything they want, especially in this system. Get over yourselves and do your job.

Finally: Obama Comes Out Swinging

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

I have to admit that the president’s performance during the budget negotiations was disheartening. It’s not so much that I care if $38 billion is cut from the very small pie of non-defense discretionary spending, but that Obama and Senate negotiators gave so much away in the face of Republican threats to shut down the government.  The negotiations made me question what would be left of the social safety net that so many American generations fought for after the president finished compromising. 

The speech he made yesterday could be a turning point. It was a strong statement that he realizes how important this moment in our history is and is ready to fight for the principles that liberals have fought for and the programs that are under attack from the Radical Republicans. Not only was it a shrewd statement politically, it was probably the most specific and eloquent defense of liberalism that I’ve heard in some time. 

If you missed it, I highly recommend watching or reading it but here are my highlights:

Obama gave a nod to the idea of an America of “rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.” But also spoke of “another thread running throughout our history”:

A belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefited from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

Without naming the Ryan Plan specifically, he savaged it.

He savaged it in soaring rhetoric when he explained how much we could accomplish if we invested in our country:

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

Then he savaged it with specifics:

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

He drew attention to the fact that the Ryan budget proposes to dismantle the health care systems for the poor, the disabled and the elderly and plows that savings into even more tax cuts for the wealthy. Along the way, he pointed to the rising inequality that accompanied the tax cutting spree of the Bush years:

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes?

They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs?

That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

When I watched the section above, I had to rewind the Tivo once or twice to understand the math he was explaining: giving one person a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut and financing it by asking thirty three old people to pay six thousand dollars more in health care costs. This is the Republican’s plan for the future.

Just as he did in his Libya speech, Obama consistently drew on the ideals of American Exceptionalism that Republicans have unfairly knocked him for not honoring:

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Finally the fight is joined. For years, the Republicans have engaged in a “Starve the Beast” strategy which consistently cut taxes and then blamed the shortfalls that ensued on runnaway social spending.

But the Ryan plan is a bridge too far. It shows the real vision that the Republicans have for the country, and the argument that we need to dismantle Medicaid and Medicare and provide even more tax cuts for the rich just isn’t going to fly.

Yesterday, the President provided an alternative to that vision and indicated that he is willing to fight for it. How much he is willing to fight remains to be seen, but I’m feeling better than I did a few days ago.

The Death of Keynesianism?

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

Here’s Peter Beinart’s Post Election piece. Aside from the contentious bit about “American Exceptionalism,” (which is a separate topic worth returning to later),  the larger issue is where the economy has been and where we go from here. Beinart argues that the biggest casualty of this election is not Democrats, but Keynesianism, the economic theory that argues that when the economy is in recession, the government needs to pump money into the system in order to pick up the slack. While Keynesianism holds that the most effective way to do this is through government spending, temporary tax cuts are also considered stimulative. The idea here is that during times of recession, the private sector stops investing so even if the government lowers taxes, the additional income is likely to be saved or used to pay off debts, not invested into the economy.

Ironically, the discrediting of Keynesianism comes at a time when we have just seen its success. As much as the stimulus was maligned by the Republicans, independent experts such as John McCain’s top economic advisor have argued that it was an integral part of the successful government efforts to avert a Great Depression 2.0. Mark Zandy writes in a report earlier this year that without the massive government intervention by the Treasury Department, Congress and the Federal Reserve (AKA–Lower Interest Rates, TARP and the Stimulus–AKA everything the Tea Party was against), GDP in 2010 would have been 11.5% lower, there would have been 8.5 million less jobs and the country would have been experiencing deflation. While much of this change can be attributed to TARP and the Fed’s actions, Zandy estimates that in 2010 GDP is 3.5% higher, unemployment is 1.5% lower and there are 2.7 million more people employed due to the stimulus.

I’m not arguing that the stimulus was perfect, that there wasn’t waste, or that it couldn’t have been more effective if it was designed differently, but I am arguing that it was effective and that the Republican alternative of just tax cuts and monetary policy would have created the same giant deficit, and produced less economic growth, because despite the lowest US tax rates in 50 years, no one was creating jobs or expanding their busineses in 2009 and interest rates were already at close to zero.

Why Obama wasn’t waving this report around on the campaign trail is a mystery to me, but it is difficult to base a campaign on:  ”you think things are bad now, just think of how bad they would have been…” Also, while government intervention did prevent a Great Depression, job creation has stalled this year as private industry (which is actually doing quite well) has been content to sit on large cash reserves instead of hiring new employees or expanding their businesses.

It has become an article of faith among Republicans that Health Care Reform, Financial Reform and the prospect of capping carbon emissions has created a climate of uncertainty that has decreased investment. This argument probably has some merit, but I think it’s overblown. You can complain about a 2000 page Health Care Bill, but health care costs increased over 100% in the last decade. The heath care status quo was inherently uncertain and remains so. Similarly, we could have quibbles over how much regulation of the financial industry is necessary, but again, anyone who watched as Wall Street crashed this economy should have trouble arguing that reforming the banking industry wasn’t needed. In fact, it’s clear that Obama, Geithner and the Banking Committees in Congress engaged in a deliberate strategy of minimizing the impact of financial regulation on the existing system (yet another eggregious example of how much special interest control our government).  

A good case can be made that, while the stimulus and other government intervention succeeded in creating a floor for the economy, the current stall in the recovery highlights the fact that there should have been more incentives for private sector hiring. In retrospect, the stimulus should have included tax cuts that were specifially targeted to job creation, like a payroll tax, instead of the $500-$1000 tax cuts that were given to 98% of Americans. Those tax cuts fulfilled an Obama campaign promise, but probably did little to stimulate the economy.    

Republicans, for their part, were either incapable of telling the difference between short term stimulus and long term deficit spending, or they did a great job pretending that they couldn’t tell the difference (I honestly am not sure which). For their obstructionism and unwillingness to help rescue the economy in any way, they reaped the rewards in this election. Democrats also played right into their hands, by not making any credible moves to cut the deficit in the long term, and in fact, using Medicare cuts that should have been used to balance the budget, to fund Health Care Reform.

Just to give a sense of the hole we find ourselves in, here is a report on the jobs created in October. This number was a positive surprise, since 150,000 jobs created in the month was higher than expected and it comes on the heels of 4 months of net job loss (due to lost government jobs), but the increase was not enough to move the unemployment rate. The article points out that

even if the economy suddenly expands and starts adding 208,000 jobs a month — as it did in its best year this decade — it would still take 12 years to close the gap between the growing number of American workers and the total available jobs.

So Beinart’s frustration is not misplaced. Despite the money that was spent on the stimulus, our infrastructure is still in major need of upgrade and a targeted effort to invest in American infrastructure could stimulate significant private sector job growth.  As China and India industrialize and reorient their economy for the 21st Century with investments in green technology, our infrastructure is crumbling and our politicians are so immobilized by partisan politics that they can’t agree on a plan to decrease our dependence on foreign energy, despite the fact that everyone knows how important this is for the country. 

Republican control of the 2/5 of the Senate has stopped this kind of investment in America and the midterm election results make them even less likely. We have officially entered an era of retrenchment, where the question is not how should we stimulate the economy, but how should we balance the budget. While the economic pain continues for the country, all options to stimulate the economy (including tax cuts) have effectively been taken off the table. In the coming weeks, Democrats and Republicans will argue about whether to keep the Bush Tax Cuts or let them expire. But even this debate is only about whether to take the foot off the pedal, not a new strategy for how to accelerate.

But don’t worry Republicans. now that your guys are calling shots in Congress, I’m sure that the Democrats will give Boehner and the Republicans as long as they gave Obama to start creating jobs.

How does next week sound?

Holding Middle Class Tax Cuts Hostage?

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

Just think of how much more effective this video would have been if there was an all night Republican filibuster happening on the Senate floor right now…

New Polls Mixed Bag for Democrats

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Two new polls indicate that the narrative of the unavoidable tsunami for Democrats may be exaggerated.

Both the New York Times and Politico have polls released today that show some nuance that isn’t picked up in the “Democrats are doomed” coverage.

In the New York Times poll, 55% of people  say that they think their own Representative should be replaced, an extraordinarily high number since, in most years, people often say that Congress should change, but still want to re-elect their own representatives.  That’s a very ominous number for the Democratic party, which holds a 70 plus majority in the House. Still, in a pattern that is becoming common,  the poll found that voters disapprove of Congressional Republican’s performance (73%) more than Congressional Democrats’ (63%). Their generic ballot shows Republicans with a 2% lead, but a significant number of voters still undecided. 

Meanwhile, Politico’s poll provides a regional take on the races. While they find likely voters evenly split between the parties, they break this split up by region, showing that Democrats hold a 5 point advantage in the Midwest and Northeast, a 20 point advantage in the West, but (most ominously) a 24% disadvantage in the Mountain West, which has been seen as a significant area of future for growth for the party.

Politico also details the enthusiasm gap, with 95% of usual Republican voters saying that the intended to vote as opposed to 87% of usual Democratic voters saying they intend to vote.

That last stat is perhaps the most revealing. Republicans hate the Democrats with a passion and are can’t wait to toss them out. Democrats, meanwhile, don’t like the Republicans, but they’re not thrilled with the Democrats either. In an indication of the difference in profile between Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, Pelosi’s approval disaproval numbers are 31/52. Boehner’s meanwhile are 16/21, with a majority either not knowing who he is or not having an opinion one  way or the other about him.

The bottom line from these two polls? This thing isn’t over yet, but if the Democrats can’t figure out a way to motivate their base, it will be soon.