March 17, 2004
GOP-Going for Broke
Under Democrats, Congress had a ‘pay as you go’ rule for spending by the federal government. They were called “Tax and Spend Democrats” because if they elected to pass a program needing money from the budget, they would raise taxes or decrease other spending to pay for it. The Republican’s Grand Old Party (GOP) now have control of Congress and they long ago dismissed the pay as you go rule in exchange for a Spend and Bankrupt policy. That action has resulted in the record half trillion dollar budget for 2005 without any attempt by the President or Republican House of Representatives to raise taxes or cut other spending in order to pay for this record deficit. And only an estimated 6% of the budget deficit is due to the lackluster economy. This contradicts the President’s and Republican spokesperson’s rebuttal that the deficits are resulting from the 2001 recession and the 9/11 attacks.
The Senate just passed a rule to reinstate the 'pay as you go rule' by 51 to 48. However, the Washington Post reports:
But no sooner had the Senate voted than at least some of the lawmakers whose support was critical were waffling on whether they would insist that the rule be kept. With the administration and the Republican leadership dead set against a real "pay as you go" rule -- one that applies to tax cuts as well as spending increases -- the provision is at risk of being killed in conference.
The Republicans are 'Going For Broke' in their attempt to keep power by bankrupting the nation and middle income tax payers with their program of 'spend now to get votes and stick it to the tax-payers later' after our President is out of office in 4 more years. It does appear voters of the major parties have a choice in November: The Tax and Spend Democrats, The Spend and Bankrupt Republicans, or the Green Party which proposes to take a wholistic approach which balances today's needs with tomorrow's.
Posted by David R. Remer at March 17, 2004 12:42 PMI just want to point out that many of the principled republicans in Congress have been outspoken against this administrations irresponsible spending policies and have voted against measures like the irresponsible medicare bill. While the president and many congressmen has lost all sense of principle on this issue, its not fair to say that the entire GOP has.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 17, 2004 01:11 PMdavid, great article as always.
misha…on that note….i’ll stop accusing the entire GOP of being evil incarnate if you can get other Republicans to stop blaming Democrats for everything…
Yes, Democrats traditionally do use taxes more than Republicans do to fund things like education while Republicans fund defense,(and little else)….
No matter what side is in office, I still seem to pay out alot in taxes….at least with a Democrat in office we had money in the bank…..but this whole campaign Bush is on to scare the public “HES GONNA RAISE YOUR TAXES!!!!”…is just silly.
No one wants to raise taxes, but in times where we are so far in debt….and the tax-relief is not spurring the economy quite like they predicted…what choice do you have?
I am a middle income individual…i have my good years and my bad years based on my industry…however, I do make enough to put me in one of the higher tax-brackets. It might sound silly, but I see paying taxes as my civic responsibility….as an American I have to contribute to keep my country running. No one enjoys paying taxes, least of all me, but I see it as what needs to be done.
So when Bush tries to scare me by saying Kerry is gonna raise my taxes, I feel compelled to look at our debt and I don’t think Bush is really going to fix it.
Posted by: rob at March 17, 2004 01:37 PMRob- your attitute is exactly the problem. A large portion of both Republicans and Democrats think the other side is “evil incarnate”, so its easy to believe your own party’s talking points when they say Bush is trying to let all the poor people die to save the corporations or Kerry is going ot give this country of to the terrorists and not defend the homeland. Instead of saying what I should tell all republicans to do, maybe you should show the people on the other side of the ilse some respect for their views and maybe you will get the same respect on your own. At least thats the only hope we have of have a true dialogue about the issues in america. abotu half of teh people in this country vote for republicans (well more than half right now, if you look at the House), so when you call the other side “evil incarnate” you are being as extremely as the Ann Coulters of the right…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 17, 2004 02:29 PMMisha, I grant your point that not ALL Republican Congresspersons are happy about the fiscal mess we are in. But, the majority of them in Congress are as I described, unwilling to act responsibly for the American people regarding the fiscal horror that is being created for my daughter’s generation and beyond.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2004 03:34 PMmisha…
point taken….i can’t promise anything…but i’ll see what i can do…
on the note of percentage tho…FOX news recently quoted that only 30% of the population were Republican, a similar percentage were Democrat, and the LARGE remainder were Independant.
yes you guys are in power in all three branches right now….but i don’t think your numbers are realistic.
Posted by: rob at March 17, 2004 04:31 PMRob, thanks for your kind response. I have one technical comment to make to defend my numbers. I said “about half of the people in this country vote for republicans”- I purposely said VOTE republican, and I got that number from the fact that over half of the people in Congress are republican. I understand that there are some third party candidates that get votes sometimes, but its usually a choice between republicans and democrats in the end. In fact, I am one of those people who often identifies as a third party person (conservative/libertarian), but always votes for republicans due to our two party system.
Wow, reading some of the articles posted in the Third Party and Independents sections it seems to me that the heading should be changed to Non-Democrats and Bush/GOP-Haters. I am still looking for an article that points out any of Kerry/DNC’s weaknesses or blunders.
Combining the stats listed in above messages and the entries in this section, Kerry should have 60% Nader and Others at 10% and Bush at 30% in the polls.
Posted by: Blue at March 17, 2004 05:09 PMMisha -
I beg to differ with you. Just because half the Representatives are Republicans doesn’t mean half the people vote for them. There is a strong likelihood that many of the Republican seats are the result of gerrymandering - e.g., the reapportionment of Texas. With regard to the Senate, the tendency away from “one man, one vote” is exaggerated by the anti-democratic (small “d”) apportionment of Senate seats which makes my vote here in NY worth one hell of lot less than somebody’s vote in WY.
I am sure that there is some site, somewhere on the net, that shows the total vote for the House and Senate. Until you can back your claim up with figures, I’m unlikely to give it much credence.
By the way, have you gone to the House site that lists (in searchable form) the 237 separate times that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice outright lied about Iraq? Did you see Rummy on the air this past weekend when he tried to “fumfuh” (that’s Yiddish) his way out of his use of Imminent Threat?
And maybe then you’ll understand why so many of us who utilize rational thought processes have trouble believing anything that group says.
Posted by: fatbear at March 17, 2004 05:16 PMBlue -
That’s because Bush supporters (for the most part and excepting current company) neither write nor read - they are, after all, the product of Paige’s educational system in Texas and the Terrorists in the NEA.
Posted by: fatbear at March 17, 2004 05:19 PMFor the record, in the 2000 elections, only half of the eligible voters voted. Of that half that voted, 1/3 identified themselves as Republicans, 1/3 as Democrats, and 1/3 as Independents. That means only 1/6 of the eligible voters state they are Republican, 1/6 Democrat, and 1/6 Independent.
Now recent stats show of the Independents, about half vote conservative and half vote liberal, whether those votes are for the Dem. Party or Green Party, Republican or Libertarian Party.
One half of eligible voters are likely to be split about equally into thirds the same as actual voters, but that is a guess at best. No studies I know of seek out affiliation of non-voters.
Misha -
Saved you the trouble - we’re both wrong - latest results I could find, 2000:
Race Dem Rep
White House 50,999 50,456 D+543
Senate (only 34 up) 36,788 36,729 D+59
House 46,599 46,738 R+139
Seems close to 50/50 to me, especially when one considers the number of votes Jeb threw away in FL.
Posted by: fatbear at March 17, 2004 05:48 PMWe got some interseting stuff going on here:
(1) Blue- while I certaintly dont waste my time bashing Kerry, I do spend a lot of time writing columns showing the fallacies in the Democrats’ positions while writing columns for the third-party column here. See my articles on abortion, social security bellow.
(2) fatbear- if you really think Republicans are the only ones gerrymandering and that democrats dont do it just as much, (Comment deleted for Critiquing the Messenger - Watchblog Manager) Policians always use their power to increase their own party’s political strength- this is totally non-party specific. I find it hilarious and disturbing that after we have seen how policians abuse their rights over redistriting, people actually want to give the legislature the power to control elections through campaing finance so-called reform. If you give Congres the power to decide who can spend money against whom, they will use that power just like the use their gerrymandering power. Its amazing how peopel miss these simple things. And as for the Senate, it is one of my goals in life to get that thing reapportioned according to population, in fact, I wrote 1/3 of my thesis on that very topic!
(3) man, it bugs me to NO END that people continue to bring up Florida as if it was super-evil conspiracy. The democrats worked just as hard to throw out many more absentee ballots from our men and women serving over seas as possible for little techinicalities cause they knew the military votes conservative. Its kind of sad how people bought so much into the political rhetoric of the florida election fight that they cant disengage themselves from the demagoguery that went on in 2000. Lots of votes were thrown out, both from the right and from the left- there was no super-evil conspriacy, time to get over yourselves. Lest you think I do not care about issues of enfranchisement, I am actually working right now to set up a panel along with my liberal friends here at georgetown law about the state of the franchise and the 2004 election. If any of you live in the DC area and want to come to it, let me know- we will be holding it in April.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 17, 2004 07:25 PMMisha, your participation in D.C. enfranchisement is highly commendable. I wish you success and good fortune with the work.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2004 09:12 PMMisha, this is what I see right now.
12 total articles:
5 articles criticizing Bush/GOP.
7 on Neutral Issues/All Candidates.
And I am not solely blaming you, I am blaming the contributors in general.
Posted by: Blue at March 17, 2004 10:05 PMBlue- I just posted an article critizing Kerry’s stand on outscouring for you!!!
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 17, 2004 11:06 PMMisha -
First, congratulations on your thesis - I assume the other 2/3s was about the pinko conspiracy to blame Jeb and his friend Katherine Harris for dis-enfranchising 100,000 people or so - show me the last time the Dems did that, and don’t tell me about pre-Voting Rights Act history.
Well, it’s obvious why you’re a Republican - can’t win an argument on the facts, so let’s get down and dirty and call someone “insane.” (Comment deleted for critiquing the Messenger - WatchBlog Manager) So, there! If you can’t avoid ad hominem attacks in normal discourse, you’ll be a lousy lawyer but a great Republican.
Meanwhile, your knowledge of the facts of gerrymandering is less than impressive. Yes, Democrats have been known to do so, but as your anti-social friends control more states (with average lower population density) than the Dems do, they get the chance to gerrymander it their way in more places.
Oh, btw, could I get a citation on the evil Dems stopping votes from being counted in 2000 - last time I looked, all I could find were articles about Cuban thugs invading a Miami gov’t office and beating up the poll-workers - but I’m sure you know about that, (Comment deleted for flame baiting - Please comply with our intent to keep civil discourse our mainstay at WatchBlog, fatbear. - Thank you- WatchBlog Manager)
Posted by: fatbear at March 18, 2004 12:35 AMMisha -
You are right that all politians leave much to be desired; so, tell me about the last time a Dem admin did something as bad as this one - and don’t tell me about Bill and the blue dress. That may be inappropriate, and lying about anything is real bad, but it isn’t anywhere near what these guys are doing. I think that part of the problem may be that many are only reading about JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Reagan, rather than having lived through the period(s). (Notice that list is non-partisan.) One may be thinking that it all unfolded as it does in black-and-white - it doesn’t.
Nixon did the same thing in the 1972 primaries that Bush did in 2000 - it sort of runs with that “I’m the King” personality. And, as for corruption of the grand old style, the Bush family has been on the receiving end of zillions of $ from our dear friends the Saudis, and that’s over 2 generations, perhaps 3. Show me the last time that happened with a Dem on such a grand scale? And, no, Joe Kennedy making a fortune as a rum-runner doesn’t count - Prohibition was repealed long before JFK was in politics.
What bothers me about those who dismiss the current quaqmire and want to extend this disaster for 4 more years is that there doesn’t seem to be an appreciation for how deep the damage will go. Do you want the colleges to close down for lack of students, as they can’t afford the tuition because there aren’t any more loan programs, just so 2% of the population can avoid it’s reasonable share of our commonweal cost? (And I’m in that 2%.) Do you want to see people lying in the streets because the hospitals refuse to treat them for lack of Medicare funds, just so Greenspan can live his Randian fantasies? Do you want to die from a pulmonary disease, just so Bush and Cheney can keep their polluting buddies happy? Do you want every other country in the world (not only the Muslims) to be attacking us because we act with the same grace as the Huns? Paul O’Neill may be a loose cannon, but no one has refuted his story, most certainly not Christie Whitman (who is in so much of it).
George Bush doesn’t want to know about solutions to problems (even Nixon wanted that). All he wants is absolute power, and acts like he’s had it for 3 years. And we all know Lord Acton was right: the resulting absolute corruption is destroying what it took over 200 years to build.
Posted by: fatbear at March 18, 2004 01:59 AM
