Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Party Of 'No' Earns It's Name

by Da King on February 23, 2010

in economics,federal spending,GOP,jobs,Uncategorized

For most of the last year, I thought the Republican party should have been the party of 'no.' Resisting Obama's health care takeover, the stimulus boondoggle, and cap-and-trade….those were definitely times for the GOP to say 'NO'.

But lately, the GOP has been saying 'NO' to things they should be saying 'YES' to, such as the jobs bill and the Congressional deficit reduction committee.

The cornerstone of the $15 billion jobs bill is to give employers tax credits for hiring new workers. How can the GOP be against that, other than to resist the Democrats ? For the last year, Republicans have been rightly calling the stimulus package a failure because of it's enormous cost and because it didn't do enough to help the private sector, but then when the jobs bill comes up to help private sector businesses, including small businesses, the GOP votes against it. The GOPers will say 'we voted against the jobs bill because it's money we don't have, and it will add to the deficit.' That may be true as a standalone policy, but….the GOP voted against the deficit reduction committee !…which could have reduced government spending and voila!, more than offset the cost of the jobs bill. In addition, creating jobs will reduce the deficit by increasing government revenue, which has fallen due to rising unemployment. By voting against both policies, which have traditionally been policies Republicans would embrace, Republicans have in effect voted against their own stated beliefs in tax cuts and deficit reduction.

New Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and four other Republicans broke ranks with the party to help pass the jobs bill. Good for them. As a result of the GOP helping to shoot down the deficit reduction committee, President Obama is forming his own deficit reduction committee, which is a much weaker substitute for a Congressional deficit reduction committee. Congress is where the legislative authority to make budget cuts resides. The President's committee has no such power. It is more of a cosmetic exercise, and the GOP is partly to blame for that.

The GOPers are saying the deficit reduction committee is just a front for the Democrats to justify tax increases, but GOP involvement could have helped insure that it wasn't. If the Dems had only proposed big tax increases and little in the way of spending cuts (as they probably would have), then the GOP could have rightly highlighted that and pointed out that the Democrats were not serious about reducing government spending. Instead, the party of 'no' missed the boat altogether, and the country missed a chance to reduce the deficit, which is our number one long-term problem.

Thanks for nothing, GOP. After a year of complaining about the lack of bipartisanship, you missed two golden opportunities to engage in it. You just became what you've been complaining about.

In fairness to the GOP, it wasn't only Republicans who voted against the Congressional deficit reduction committee. 23 Republicans voted against it, but 23 Democrats also voted against it. The final vote was 53-46, seven votes shy of adopting the committee. There was a lack of seriousness and bipartisanship from both sides of the aisle, and our deficit problem remains unaddressed. Shame, shame. This is why Americans are dissatisfied with both parties, and the political games they play.

  • Andrea
  • averagejoe5

    King I agree with you. The Reps seem to just want to vote no on everything np matter what. I haven't listened to Rush or Beck or Hannity for months so I don't know what they are saying. I know I listened to the intro to Hannities show about a month ago and shut it off because the line he began with was something like "working to shut down Obama Reid and Pelosi". HTF do the Reps plan on getting sh*t done if this is going to be their attitude. Then we have that ass fron C-PAC shouting against the gays. That was BS and an embarrassment. Why did he just make a bunch of Scarlet letter A's and hand them out to the adulters also while he was gay bashing. WTF. (There probably would n't be enough material. Which is worse in Gods eyes? Gayness or Adultery. Both are equal probably. Let's see God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or God told me to have sex with my neighbors wife while mine was at home taking care of the kids. I'd bet that God would be pretty pissed at both of those situations. Hypocrits…..

    I think the republicans are losing their minds…

  • The Reverend

    I had to double check the web address to make sure I was at King's site.

    On the deficit commission…..it's the cowardly way to go. Congress has the responsibility to do their job, and be held accountable for it. By delegating absolute power to a "commission", politicians think they can blame the members of that commission for any painful measures. Cowardly politicos would divert any criticism by saying that they had no choice, they had to accept the commission's reommendations. So, I'm not for the commission idea, at all.

    However, you are right that Obama's commission will basically be a waste of time. Congress writes the legislation……and as you pointed out in your post…..it doesn't look like the GOP is too willing to allow Democrats any perceived "victories."

    While I'm for the jobs bill……the paltry $15 billion will barely make a difference…..and that's why 5 GOP'ers voted for it. We need a drastic cut in defense spending, and in turn, we need to spend a bunch of that savings on a power jolt to employment. But, nothing like that is going to happen…..and unemployment will stay at around 8-10% for 4-6 years.

    Oh, yeah,….and the stimulus money actually helped quite a bit. Even the furthest right wingers are having their pictures taken in front of the projects the stimulus provided. You may not like the borrowing…..but that doesn't mean that the stimulus didn't help in many ways.

  • walter

    joe sez……."Then we have that ass fron C-PAC shouting against the gays"

    what, you don't think he's entitled to his opinions, faith and beliefs?

  • averagejoe5

    Did I say that Walt? Did I say ……."Then we have that ass fron C-PAC shouting against the gays" and he isn't allowed to have his opinion about gays? No Walt I didn't. It was my opinion that the way he delivered his message he was an embarrassment and he looked like an ass.

  • Tbomb

    Well said, king.

  • angry conserv

    KING,
    I understand your disappointment in the Reps. refusing to agree to the committee. However the panel would have consisted of 6 Dems. 6 Reps and 4 Obama picks. The outcome would not be one that is best for the country but rather a blueprint for an ever bigger more intrusive Fed. government fed by large increases in taxes and fees on the productive people as well as corporations. Sadly I am at the point if takes submitting to the progressives goal of an economy managed by the government and a private sector that is permitted to exist only as a tool for the "good" of the people and it would stop our our slide to third world status and collapse I would support it. But the blueprint would implement more gov. progams that would be over budget and not achieve their goal, a new sustainable green economy which is a pipe dream and a private sector that due to the regulations and tax burdens would not only become more noncompetitive in a global economy but would shed jobs and fall wildly short of the necessary production to spin off the projected tax stream.
    Do I have a soltuion that could work? Nope. As I have stated over and over the American press and people would castrate a politican that attempted to sell us on the necessity for ALL Americans to share in the MAJOR sacrifices necessary to right the Titanic.

  • larry d.

    "No" has been working pretty well for the Repubs this past year. I don't have much confidence that any move this Congress or administration makes will be beneficial, so gridlock looks pretty good.

  • The Irreverend

    Seems to me that with a large majority in the Pelosian House, 60 votes in the Reid Senate, and a Democratic (sic) President, the myth of the Republicans as the "party of no" is simply a scapegoat by the Dems to deflect criticism from the fact that they couldn't agree on anything.

    I'm a little surprised that you support the "Jobs Bill", King. It is more unjustified spending so the politicians can feel better about themselves while they ignore the root problems of the economy.

  • Da King

    joe,
    Hannity, Limbaugh, and many other big name conservatives are condemning Scott Brown for supporting the jobs bill, as if he's some kind of sell-out. I simply don't get it. I thought the GOP was FOR tax cuts for business as a way to create jobs. I know I am. Now, according to the Pay-go rules (which the GOP should also have supported), the jobs bill would have to be paid for. Liberal Democrats are dishonestly trying to get around Pay-go (already), and that should be condemned. It should not be permitted. I think they should use some of the stimulus money to pay for the jobs bill (and then cancel the rest of the stimulus, which is basically a pork extravaganza). That would cut a lot of the deficit right there.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    I don't know how effective a Congressional deficit reduction committee would be, but it's better than nothing, which is what we have now. The Presidential commission is next to nothing, because Congress would still have to approve it.

    The only net effect of the stimulus will be that we are $862 billion further in debt than we would have been otherwise. The "help" is temporary. The debt lasts. A much, much better and cheaper stimulus package could have been designed than Obama's pork-fest, and the benefits have been overstated.

  • Da King

    angryc,
    Yes, the Dems would have been in charge of the deficit reduction committee, and the Dems would have proposed a lot more tax increases than spending cuts. That's just the way Dems think (or, more precisely, the way Dems DON'T think). But any spending cuts are better than no spending cuts, and the GOP members of the committee could have pushed for more cuts. Also, if the Dems raised taxes again and again while not addressing the actual problem with spending, that would have killed them come november and going forward. As a result of GOP opposition, we now have a Presidential commission that consists entirely of Obama appointees. That's worse, and the GOP has lost credibility on reducing the deficit. Really dumb, if you ask me. The GOP just can't oppose EVERYTHING.

    You are probably 100% correct with this statement…" the American press and people would castrate a politican that attempted to sell us on the necessity for ALL Americans to share in the MAJOR sacrifices necessary to right the Titanic."

    But nonetheless, somebody has to step forward with courage and explain why this is necessary to the American people, because it IS necessary. Liberal Democrats are hell-bent on dividing this nation, pitting one faction against the other and breeding resentment. Look at health care. The Dems demonize insurance companies, drug companies, doctors. They spread their cancer. That is the wrong thing to do, but that's how liberal Dems win elections even though the majority of the people disagree with their policies. They feed the public their victimology poison and try to engender an entitlement mentality among the people. I don't know who is on the horizon that can step forward and stop this nonsense, but somebody better do it, and soon, or our Titanic will certainly sink.

  • Da King

    Irrev,
    The jobs bill wouldn't be more unjustified spending if the Dems own Pay-go rules were enforced and other spending was cut to offset it. As I said to joe, they should use some of the stimulus money for the jobs bill. It would be money better spent than on these stimulus pork make-work projects, and we do need to create jobs very badly. Also, job creation reduces the deficit. I think the GOP really stumbled on this and missed a golden opportunity.

  • The Irreverend

    It's obvious that this bill is a drop in the ocean of debt compared to the stimulus boondoggle. I'm for reduced tax cuts for business most of the time, but this isn't going to be enough to encourage me to hire anyone new at this point. For those that do, they get a break on SS contributions till December, but those contributions will still be made to SS from the general fund. In effect, they are subsidizing businesses from tax revenues from other sources (or just increasing debt).

    My only point is that spending needs to be reduced across the board and you need to be committed to that view. Simply being in favor of this bill because you prefer welfare to business instead of welfare to individuals seems hypocritical.

    The fact that this is being proclaimed a "win" for everyone while driving another nail into the debt coffin appears to me to be political showmanship rather than sound policy.

  • Da King

    I am committed to reducing spending across the board, in virtually all federal government departments and agencies. I just think giving a tax credit to business in hopes of producing jobs will produce at least some jobs in this weak economy, and I've heard Republicans make the same point for the last year, until now. That change is what seems hypocritical to me.

    But not to worry, I'm nowhere near to abandoning the fiscal conservative ship. It's the only way out of the mess over the long term.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).