For GOP only

[NorthSideSox72]

Why is it different based on who the initial payee is? When it comes down to it, its businesses paying the costs initially, through an unfunded mandate, and in the other case, taxpayers are paying for it, which is usually the same people in the long run.

Pay-Go means you need to fund everything you pass, so that you don't incur debt. Minimum wage law does not incur debt for the government. It doesn't incur debt directly whatsoever - though it does have a financial impact on some businesses.

 

In any case, that was a minor part of the point I was making. I agree that every law's impact on the finances of taxpaying individuals or businesses should be looked at in determining whether or not its a positive outcome overall. To me, considering the wage hasn't gone up in a decade and at 40 hr a week is well below the poverty line, I am convinced that a significant boost along with a permanent COLA has more positive impact than negative.

[southsider2k5]

Pay-Go means you need to fund everything you pass, so that you don't incur debt. Minimum wage law does not incur debt for the government. It doesn't incur debt directly whatsoever - though it does have a financial impact on some businesses.

 

In any case, that was a minor part of the point I was making. I agree that every law's impact on the finances of taxpaying individuals or businesses should be looked at in determining whether or not its a positive outcome overall. To me, considering the wage hasn't gone up in a decade and at 40 hr a week is well below the poverty line, I am convinced that a significant boost along with a permanent COLA has more positive impact than negative.

 

Lower earning, through higher wages, means less paid in taxes, which means less revenue for the government. It does cause debt.

[NorthSideSox72]

Lower earning, through higher wages, means less paid in taxes, which means less revenue for the government. It does cause debt.

Higher wages does not mean less paid in taxes. In fact, if in theory the higher minimum wage results in fewer people at higher wages (assuming an approximately static overall payroll), taxes would either remain constant or possibly go up as family units push past certain rate thresholds.

[southsider2k5]

I'd like to welcome somemore members to the "surge" flip-flops club.

 

Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress

By Charles Hurt

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

January 31, 2007

 

 

For many in the Senate, they were for a surge of troops in Iraq before they were against it.

 

"We don't have enough troops in Iraq," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005.

 

In 2004, he told NBC's Tim Russert some things he believes "very deeply."

 

"Number one, we cannot fail," Mr. Kerry said. "I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do."

 

He no longer believes that now. He is among at least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq but now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that. Many Republicans who voted for the war now plan to support a no-confidence resolution, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in the past had warned that the war would be a long, tough slog and that Americans should "speak with one voice."

 

The Senate will begin debating that resolution -- or variations on it -- this week, perhaps as early as today.

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."

 

In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

 

"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.

 

By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.

 

"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters.

 

As late as last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was still open to the idea of a surge

"If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."

 

After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.

 

"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition."

 

Democrats say that the time for a surge has long passed and now that the war has become so bloody and so unpopular, it's time to pull the plug.

 

"The bottom line is that you cannot unscramble an omelet," House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, California Democrat, said yesterday.

 

"The serial mistakes of the administration, with which we are all familiar -- inadequate number of troops, dismissing the Iraqi military, failure to crack down during the early looting -- are all issues that we cannot unwind with history," said Mr. Lantos, who visited Iraq over the weekend. "Things that should have been done 3? years ago cannot now be done and expect positive results."

 

Finding examples of such evolution among Republicans isn't as easy, mainly because Republicans in Congress have been so uncritical of the administration for its handling of the war.

 

One stark exception is Mr. Hagel, who is considering a run for the presidency and has been one of the harshest critics of the war and the Bush administration's handling of it.

 

"There is no strategy," he said last week. "This is a pingpong game with American lives."

 

But he hasn't always opposed the war. He voted for it.

 

"There are no easy answers in Iraq," Mr. Hagel said on Oct. 9, 2002, before voting to authorize the war. "The decision to commit our troops to war is the most difficult decision members of Congress make. Each course of action we consider in Iraq leads us into imperfect, dangerous and unknown situations. But we cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The president cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The risks of inaction are too high. We are elected to solve problems, not just debate them. The time has come to chart a new course in Iraq and in the Middle East."

 

A veteran of the Vietnam War, he also warned his colleagues that an Iraq war would be a long, tough slog.

 

"This is just the beginning," he said. "The risks should not be understated, miscast or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts."

 

And Mr. Hagel warned them against sowing seeds of division with hot rhetoric.

 

"America -- including the Congress -- and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," he said. "Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions."

 

 

Mr. Hagel co-authored the resolution with Mr. Biden rebuking Mr. Bush and his "escalation" plan.

 

Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, also has drafted with others a nonbinding resolution that condemns the plan but, he said, does so more gently.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd like to welcome somemore members to the "surge" flip-flops club.

There are indeed quite a few pathetic flips in there. But I fail to see how Hagel flip-flopped. He said then, and says now, that he was OK with the war, just not the way it was handled. I'd say he has been remarkably consistent, in fact.

[Texsox]

I believe was are treading on dangerous ground here when as a general rule, making a new decision with new information, is considered a bad thing. Not specific to anyone person and any specific situation, why is standing behind a bad decision a good thing and willing to admit you made a mistake and changing your position a bad thing?

[YASNY]

I believe was are treading on dangerous ground here when as a general rule, making a new decision with new information, is considered a bad thing. Not specific to anyone person and any specific situation, why is standing behind a bad decision a good thing and willing to admit you made a mistake and changing your position a bad thing?

 

I think the problem is more along the lines of the complaints about GWB not sending enough troops to 'get the job done' and then as soon as he proposes a surge, at that very moment it becomes a bad idea.

[Damen]

I think the problem is more along the lines of the complaints about GWB not sending enough troops to 'get the job done' and then as soon as he proposes a surge, at that very moment it becomes a bad idea.

 

If the surge that he proposed doesn't meet the criteria you had previously outlined for what would be needed to make such an effort worthwhile, then opposing that does not mean you changed stances.

 

Virtually everyone that I've seen accused of "flip-flopping" on this had an argument vastly more detailed than "more troops." If you only look at one sentence where they say they could be in favor of more troops, then you wouldn't know that, and they'd appear hypocritical.

[mr_genius]

I think the problem is more along the lines of the complaints about GWB not sending enough troops to 'get the job done' and then as soon as he proposes a surge, at that very moment it becomes a bad idea.

 

haha, that is pretty much how it happened too.

[Texsox]

I think the problem is more along the lines of the complaints about GWB not sending enough troops to 'get the job done' and then as soon as he proposes a surge, at that very moment it becomes a bad idea.

 

Check my bolded text. It seems, no matter what the reason, changing your mind is now a mistake in American politics. That is dangerous.

[kapkomet]

Check my bolded text. It seems, no matter what the reason, changing your mind is now a mistake in American politics. That is dangerous.

That's not the issue and you know it.

[mr_genius]

Any of you guys see the new Federal Budget?

 

any other "old school" conservatives pissed about how out of control this is?

[NorthSideSox72]

Any of you guys see the new Federal Budget?

 

any other "old school" conservatives pissed about how out of control this is?

I'm curious. What's the damage? I haven't seen any of those fun articles yet with the pile of idiotic spending items.

[mr_genius]

I'm curious. What's the damage? I haven't seen any of those fun articles yet with the pile of idiotic spending items.

it's around $2,770,000,000,000

 

here is a link

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...7/agencies.html

Edited February 6, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

from what i can tell it's around $3,700,000,000,000

Here is an easy, quick way to dump some of that...

 

Find the 5 agencies of the federal government who are the least efficient (you can use percentage of funds to target or services directed to target, for example). Disband them. Take a three year surge of their annual budget, and either write checks to the target audience and say goodbye, or start completely over with a slimmer budget and some reasonable business setup.

 

Example: the B.I.A. In their case, of their budget, something less than 10% of the money actually translates to cash or services that make it to the target audience (American Indians). Just write a 3-year friggin' check to each tribe or individual, divide the reservation property up equitably among tribal people, and welcome them with open arms into society. That would be a heck of a lot better for them than what they have now, not to mention save the government some money.

 

It makes me ill how bloated and self-serving the federal government has become.

[kapkomet]

Entitlements are just bulls***, pure and simple. It's TOTALLY out of control.

[EvilMonkey]

Any of you guys see the new Federal Budget?

 

any other "old school" conservatives pissed about how out of control this is?

For my 2000 post, I would like to say that yes, I am pissed at this budget. There is so much waste and mismanagement in this government that it makes my conservative hairs stand on end! I like Northside's ideas, however it can and should be extended to more agencies. I wish they would quit thinking of ways to spend my money and just let me keep more of it. I have defended Georgie and other repubs from what i often consider to be partisian attacks, but when so-called conservatives spend money faster than my brother-in-law, that is just sad.

[southsider2k5]

The old saying is about running government like a business, but we have really yet to see that in reality. Why doesn't the government actually offer incentives to people to cut waste, and actually rein in budgets instead of making sure they spend every dime, to make sure that their budgets don't get cut. This is my whole pet peeve about government being the answer to everything, and those who think government spending is better than private sector spending... Waste. The government wastes sooooo much money because there is no incentive to stay slim, that any gains there are from directed spending, are lost by the sheer ineffeciencies of the government. Then when I see people like John Edwards talking about raising taxes, to pay for more wasteful goverment programs, I cringe.

[Cknolls]

2006: Republicans control Congress. Call for a cloture vote in Senate. Dems deny cloture vote. Repubs are accused of limiting debate.

 

 

2007: Dems control Congress. Call for a vote for cloture. Repubs deny vote. Repubs are accused of stiffling debate.

 

 

Defenders of MSM bias have at it.

[NorthSideSox72]

2006: Republicans control Congress. Call for a cloture vote in Senate. Dems deny cloture vote. Repubs are accused of limiting debate.

2007: Dems control Congress. Call for a vote for cloture. Repubs deny vote. Repubs are accused of stiffling debate.

Defenders of MSM bias have at it.

Seems to me you just proved the LACK of media bias. Same tactic, same exposure, same result.

[southsider2k5]

Goldman Sachs predicts a 3 percentage point recession if the tax cuts are allowed to expire, absent movements by the fed. Factoring in a 250 bps move by the fed to revive the economy, they still would figure a small recession or stagnation.

 

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020607C

 

How predictable. The fiscal 2008 budget that President Bush put forward yesterday gets slammed for being unrealistic - if not downright mendacious. If the $2.9 trillion proposal actually got enacted as written - doubtful given that Bush is dealing with a Democratic-controlled Congress -- the plan would theoretically balance the budget by 2012. As Team Bush crunches the numbers, the U.S. government would run a $61 billion surplus in 2012 year after running tiny deficits in 2010 ($94.4 billion, or 0.6 percent of GDP) and 2011 ($53.8 billion, or 0.3 percent of GDP). All that while permanently extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts due to expire in 2010.

 

 

Of course, journalists and think-tank analysts had barely scanned the budget when critics started pointing out its supposed flaws. Among them: the budget assumes more upbeat economic conditions -- and thus more tax revenue -- than does the forecast from the Congressional Budget Office. (In 2011 and 2012, the White House forecasts 3.0 percent and 2.9 percent GDP growth vs. 2.7 percent for each of those years by the CBO.) As the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts it, "The budget employs rosy revenue assumptions; it assumes at least $150 billion more in revenue than CBO does for the same policies."

 

 

Indeed, the CBO - viewed by the inside-the-Beltway crowd as the impartial umpire of all budget disputes -- also predicts a balanced budget by 2012. The catch is that it assumes the Bush tax cuts are repealed leading to a surge of revenue in 2011 and 2012. It forecasts that the budget deficit would drop from $137 billion in 2010 to just $12 billion in 2011. And in 2012, the budget would move into the black with a $170 billion surplus. Yet if the Bush tax cuts are extended, CBO predicts total deficits of $407 billion in 2011 and 2012 and then continuing thereafter.

 

 

No wonder Democratic presidential candidates are finding it so easy to pledge or strongly hint that if they are sitting in the White House in 2010, they will veto any effort to extend the tax cuts. One can easily envision President Hillary Rodham Clinton harking back to her husband Bill's 1993 tax hikes and economic success as historical justification for a repeat performance. Deficits are often used as reason for higher taxes, such as in 1993 and 1982. But to believe in higher taxes as sound economic policy in coming years, you also have to believe in the CBO's cheery forecast that hundreds of billion of dollars in new taxes will have little or no effect on economic growth.

 

 

Now you don't have to be an acolyte of supply-side guru Arthur Laffer to find that sort of "static analysis" a little weird. Most Americans probably would. So, apparently, did the economic team at Goldman Sachs, the old employer of Robert Rubin, President Bill Clinton's second treasury secretary. Thus the firm's econ wonks decided to try and simulate the real-world effect of letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. Using the respected Washington University Macro Model, Goldman reset the tax code to its pre-Bush status, assumed all tax cuts expired, and watched how the economy reacted as 2011 began. What did the firm see? Well, in the first quarter of 2011 the economy dropped 3 percentage points below what it would have been otherwise. "Absent a tailwind to growth from some other source," the analysis concludes, "this would almost surely mark the onset of a recession."

 

 

So actually it's CBO's economic forecast, not Bush's, that is overly optimistic about future economic growth. But wouldn't the Federal Reserve jump in and cut interest rates, offsetting the fiscal drag of the tax hikes with easy monetary policy? The Goldman Sachs experiment assumes it would, but WUMM still shows the economy sinking:

 

 

"In an effort to resuscitate demand, the Fed immediately cuts the federal funds rate, bringing it 250 basis points below the status quo level over the next year and one-half ... Despite this, output growth remains well below trend over that period, putting downward pressure on inflation as slack in the economy increases."

 

 

And guess what? A recession would throw CBO's carefully calculated tax revenue assumptions out the window. Indeed, the CBO admits that recessions in 1981, 1990 and 2001, "resulted in significantly different budgetary outcomes than CBO had projected a few months before the downturns started."

 

 

Of course, it's been the history of tax increases that they tend not to bring in as much revenue as originally predicted. President Rodham Clinton or President Obama or President Edwards would likely find the same budgetary disappointment -- and then have to explain to an angry American public during the 2012 election season why their president decided to plunge the economy into a recession.

[southsider2k5]

This is a great series from Slate, exploring if Barack Obama is indeed the Messiah or not...

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2158578/?nav/navoa/

 

The Obama Messiah Watch

Introducing a periodic feature considering evidence that Obama is the son of God.

By Timothy Noah

 

Posted Monday, Jan. 29, 2007, at 6:23 PM ET

 

Is Barack Obama—junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men's Vogue cover model, and "exploratory" presidential candidate—the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can't dismiss this possibility out of hand. I therefore inaugurate the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst.

 

Today's item, from a Los Angeles Times profile by Larry Gordon about Obama's two years at Occidental College (before he transferred to Columbia):

 

In [political science professor Roger] Boesche's European politics class, [classmate Ken] Sulzer said he was impressed at how few notes [italics mine] Obama took. "Where I had five pages, Barry had probably a paragraph of the pithiest, tightest prose you'd ever see. … It was very short, very sweet. Obviously somebody almost Clintonesque in being able to sum a whole lot of concepts and place them into a succinct written style."

 

Readers are invited to submit similar details—Obama walking on water, Obama sating the hunger of 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes—from other Obama profiles. And also, of course, to repent, just in case the hour approacheth nigh.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2159132/?nav=navoa

 

Obama Messiah Watch, Part 2

A Harvard Law wunderkind masters laws that govern the universe.

 

By Timothy Noah

 

Posted Monday, Feb. 5, 2007, at 5:48 PM ET

Last week, Slate inaugurated the Obama Messiah Watch, a periodic inquiry into whether Barack Obama is the son of God. The Obama Messiah Watch will spotlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of the junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men's Vogue cover model, Grammy winner, and "exploratory" presidential candidate. The objective is not to insult Obama, but rather to restore a little rationality to the coverage of his potential candidacy. Indeed, those most awestruck by Obama invite suspicion that they're expressing the same condescension voiced last week by presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and President Bush when they praised Obama as "articulate." (The noninsulting term is eloquent.) Or they may just be gaga. Or—we can't rule this out—perhaps Obama really is the Word made flesh.

 

Today's entry is from a Jan. 27 Associated Press feature by Glen Johnson:

 

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a [Harvard] Law Review article that [Prof. Laurence] Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

 

By this measure, thousands of reasonably bright high-school students across the United States are destined to become president. (AP's Johnson gets extra credit for redundancy: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity includes the concept of curved space.)

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2159260/fr/rss/

 

The Obama Messiah Watch, part 3.

 

By Timothy Noah

Posted Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007, at 5:32 PM ET

Barack Obama

Is Barack Obama the Light of the World? To answer this question, Slate has been gathering gratuitously adoring biographical details from newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of the U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men's Vogue cover model, Grammy winner, sot-weed addict, and "exploratory" presidential candidate. Today's entry is a Feb. 5 Associated Press story by Karin Stanton on Obama's genealogy. Although Stanton was unable to locate the Lord in Obama's family tree, she did find the father of our country:

 

Bruce Harrison, founder of the Waikoloa[, Hawaii]-based Family Forest Project, says he found links between the Democratic senator from Illinois and Presidents George Washington, James Madison, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter.

 

Apparently the common ancestor is one Lawrence Washington, an English wool merchant born circa 1500. Lawrence is Obama's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather on his mother's side. Lawrence was George Washington's great-great-great-great-great grandfather on his father's side. In addition to four presidents, Stanton reports, Lawrence Washington's descendants include Gen. George S. Patton, Adlai Stevenson, and Quincy Jones.

 

Stanton neglects to tell readers that this Obama ancestor built the Washington family estate in Oxfordshire, Sulgrave Manor, on land that King Henry VIII confiscated from the Catholic Church. She also neglects to point out that, according to the same genealogical database, George Washington is President George W. Bush's 11th cousin eight times removed, and that Dubya may be "at least a 79th great-grandson of the famous King Solomon of the Bible, whose name is synonymous with great wisdom." Talk about regression to the mean!

[southsider2k5]

I'll file this under... I'm listening...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_...the2008_trail_5

 

Romney appeals to fiscal conservatives By JEFF KAROUB, Associated Press writer

Wed Feb 7, 6:46 PM ET

 

 

 

DETROIT - Presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday made a direct appeal to Republican fiscal conservatives, arguing that the president should veto any spending bill that exceeds its targets.

 

Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club, the former Massachusetts governor addressed an issue that has riled the GOP base, who contend that the party's loss of power last November was based, in part, on excessive spending.

 

"When our party has been in charge, we didn't distinguish ourselves on spending restraint," Romney said. "That's got to change — and it would in my administration."

 

The one-term governor suggested giving Congress a spending target and insisting that it is met. "If Congress does not meet the spending targets, then its appropriations bills should be vetoed. I regularly exercised my veto power while governor," he said.

 

Romney served one term as governor. He also suggested that Congress give the president the power of the line-item veto, an oft-repeated proposal that is has little chance in Congress.

 

The Republican also called for making President Bush's tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, permanent. He said individuals should be able to save $5,000 a year without paying taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains.

 

Romney returns to Michigan on Tuesday to announce that he will formally seek the presidency.

 

His father, George, served as governor of the state in the 1960s, but other relatives haven't had much elective success in Michigan.

 

Mitt Romney's brother, Scott, didn't get the GOP nomination to run for Michigan attorney general in 1998, despite the backing of then-Gov. John Engler.

 

Ronna Romney, Scott's former wife, sought the GOP U.S. Senate nomination in 1994 but was defeated by Spencer Abraham. Romney, a former radio talk show host, won the GOP U.S. Senate nomination in 1996 but lost to Democratic incumbent Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record).

[Chisoxfn]

My ears are starting to perk up to Romney. I like what he's been saying.

[NorthSideSox72]

My ears are starting to perk up to Romney. I like what he's been saying.

Even though he was for abortion before he was against it?

 

I'm going to find it amusing to see people who say flip-flopping was OK for Kerry or Romney but not OK for the other. And I'm not picking either side here - just saying the reaction SHOULD be the same, but won't be.

 

I'm all for a fiscal conservative, but the more I read about Romney, the more I see a man whose views on specific issues blow back and forth with the political wind.

 

And before you say anything, Tex, I am all for someone re-evaluating and taking new approaches when something isn't working. This is not the case here, or with Kerry's war views. In both cases, its someone changing their views to get elected.