The Victorious Opposition

Thank you for the nod. I’m not terribly pleased by some of the shuffles in the Obama budget and I’m damned sure that I won’t like what eventually gets passed any better, but dear gods if we can’t get these idiots to agree that paygo is a good principle then what are we going to do?

Nice rant, too bad what you missed could fill the Grand Canyon.

The “party of NO” happened to have read the fine print in this version of PAYGO, and the bottom line is that this budget gimmick is all smoke and mirrors.

I have to admit, it sure does sound responsible, we should make cuts or raise taxes for any new spending, wow, how fiscal. Too bad the loopholes present make this whole thing pretty meaningless and would not reduce the deficit one dime.

PAYGO exempts all discretionary spending (which comprises 40 percent of the budget). It would exempt the automatic annual growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.PAYGO only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs.  It would exempt the endless stream of emergency “stimulus” bills. And this version has no teeth, when PAYGO is violated, the current legislation would exempt nearly all spending from being cut to offset the new expansions. Any time this congress wants to spend money, on anything, no matter how frivolous, all it has to do is “classify” the bill as discretionary, presto chango, it is now exempt from the PAYGO provisions.

Why do you think guys like John McCain and the other Republicans who have been on record as favoring PAYGO and have fought for an honest version in the past (remember Pelosi’s promise to install PAYGO during the 2006 elections?) are so against this version?

Remember Obama talking about that bi-partisan budget reduction commission during the State of the Union address?

Ha, talk about funny. Gee, the congress can’t do it’s job effectively so now we are going to make up some powerless commission to tell them what to do. If they don’t know how to do their jobs, why are they there? Sure, the president would like some cover when this phoney baloney commission comes to the conclusion that taxes have to be raised, so he can say ,“See, this bi partisan commission says we have to raise taxes”, how about this suggestion…............spend less, there, no commission was needed for that advice. And this particular commission, as it is being proposed, will be essentially impotent anyway. There is no provision that the congress has to give its recommendations an up or down vote (or listen at all), there is no call for transparency, no public hearings on the process, and all behind closed doors, and if the current congress does decide to give them any legitimacy it will be after the November elections (lame duck congress) further kicking the can down the road.

PAYGO worked great during the Clinton years (A GOP congress that ran on a balanced budget pledge that actually cut spending such as on defense from 5% to 3% of GDP, coupled with unsustainable revenue from the dotcom bubble), these conditions can hardly be replicated now.

I’m surprised that your tirade (not really, just being facetious)neglected to include the Coburn Amendment, an genuine attempt at fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Coburn has a better idea: Cut spending to a level that would allow the government to stay beneath the current debt ceiling for a few more months. President Obama promised in his campaign to eliminate “unnecessary redundancy” in government, so Mr. Coburn is calling for at least $20 billion in spending cuts on programs that are duplicated across federal agencies. That’s about 4% of nondefense discretionary spending, and Mr. Coburn’s amendment identifies at least 640 programs that could be consolidated.

More inaction from the party of NO?

I will agree with one thing in your post, the “perception” is that the GOP is going against their core principles in this no vote on PAYGO. They need to get out front on this, grab Obama’s sleeve and show the country those aces he has stashed there.

Oh, and I can’t believe I forgot this gem:

I’ve said repeatedly that “party of no” is doing nothing but enabling Obama’s spending spree

That is just priceless. The party with zero power (can’t even filibuster because they don’t have the votes)somehow has a gun to Obama’s head and is “enabling” him in his socialist big government agenda. Now I have heard it all

Why do you think guys like John McCain and the other Republicans who have been on record as favoring PAYGO and have fought for an honest version in the past (remember Pelosi’s promise to install PAYGO during the 2006 elections?) are so against this version?

Because it is politically better to oppose Obama than to attempt to do anything about it? Where was their paygo amendment?

I’m surprised that your tirade (not really, just being facetious)neglected to include the Coburn Amendment, an genuine attempt at fiscal responsibility.

An amendment that they couldn’t get all of their own votes for, and still got some of the Democrats. See, when Democrats don’t vote for spending cuts, that’s to be expected - it’s not even remotely surprising, because that’s what Democrats do.

When Republicans vote against something like “paygo”, it’s a complete abdication of their core tenets of fiscal responsibility. So it’s noteworthy.

Ha, talk about funny. Gee, the congress can’t do it’s job effectively so now we are going to make up some powerless commission to tell them what to do. If they don’t know how to do their jobs, why are they there?

Umm, the Republicans asked for this commission (along with a few Democrats, including one of my Senators, which surprised me). And then when their proposal came up for a vote, they voted against their own proposal. So Obama is going to create the commission, by executive order, which will make it completely powerless (and hence pointless, as I said). They asked for it. They asked for Obama’s support. And then, in a display of party unity, they voted against the bill with their names on it as sponsors.

That is just priceless. The party with zero power (can’t even filibuster because they don’t have the votes)somehow has a gun to Obama’s head and is “enabling” him in his socialist big government agenda. Now I have heard it all

I’ve been saying this for a year now. Reflexively voting “no”, rather than actively working with the Blue Dogs, is the practical and moral equivalent of a “yes” vote. They are voting to let the Democrats have their own way, to the detriment of all of us. It’s a brilliant political move, and demonstrates that they are more interested in being political hacks than in doing anything actually useful.

The Republican sponsors of the commission bill voting against their own bill proves this point quite clearly. They had a bi-partisan consensus, bi-partisan sponsorship, even had Republicans reaching out to Obama for his support (which he gave). And then the “party of no” ideology carried the day.

Pathetic.

Why should we believe that this party has any intention on following through on their “Roadmap for America’s Future”? Are they going to actively work on it and try to drive a consensus on it with the Blue Dogs? Or are they going to wave it around going “see, we have ideas!”, while reflexively voting “no” on everything that comes down the pike, including their own plan? This is going the same place as the National Council for a New America, if the GOP leadership has anything to say about it (i.e. nowhere).

Bottom line, rich - your argument boils down to “well, if we can’t have it exactly our way, we’ll have it no way”. Which is occasionally appropriate, but when used reflexively to oppose anything and everything, including things you sponsor and things that are aligned with your theoretical core principles, is weak-assed nonsense. Especially when the “no” vote has all the practical effect of a whiny two-year-old squawling around on the kitchen floor screaming at the top of his lungs - it makes great theater, but at the end of the day, accomplishes nothing whatsoever other than annoying the people who control the situation.

So, they should have passed it just for “show” even though they knew that this particular version was full of loopholes that could actually make it easier to bypass any hint of spending control. Just so they can prove to you that they are doing something even though that thing may be worse just because the name of this was PAYGO and well, just due to the name the Republicans should pass it, consequences be damned.

I thought we didn’t want politics just for show. I thought that was “bad.”

Yawn.

No, they should have passed it because by not passing it they got nothing, attached to a bill that was going to pass anyhow. I’ve read the amendment. Yes, it isn’t comprehensive, but that doesn’t mean it’s nothing, and it doesn’t mean that supposedly-fiscal-conservative politicians should be voting against it, just because it isn’t their version.

Good politics, bad policy.

And they absolutely, utterly should not have voted against the commission bill that they co-sponsored, that they campaigned to have Obama support. If they didn’t believe in it, why did they sponsor it, advocate for it?

Bad politics AND bad policy.

Oh, I see, you think the GOP should cream their jeans every time Obama even hints at some fiscal sanity, even though it has been proven to you over and over that these are all faints. That joke of a spending freeze, a paper tiger deficit commission, a phony PAYGO that would do nothing that addresses the real problems of spending, all these things and you tell us ,“Well, he is at least trying, but all you GOPers are making him spend more”. He makes a big production of tearing up his credit card so he can claim the moniker of deficit hawk, all the while keeping his other 6 credit cards tucked safely away, and you fall for it.

Where was their paygo amendment?

Their amendment is simple, quit jerking the American public around and stop spending money you don’t have.

When Republicans vote against something like “paygo”, it’s a complete abdication of their core tenets of fiscal responsibility. So it’s noteworthy.

Hardly, since this version is nothing but a gimmick.

Umm, the Republicans asked for this commission

The congressional version of this commission was authored by Kent Conrad (D) and it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to spread the inevitable backlash coming from a veritable frat house style spending binge. In his first year, we got a $447 billion omnibus spending bill, a $787 billion stimulus bill, $3 billion for cash for clunkers, $75 billion in mortgage assistance, $34 billion for children’s health care (Schip),a $30 billion auto bailout package. Sure, it was a great party but someone has to pay for it (or take the fall for it), so now the GOP gets squeezed to become tax collectors for the dems, sorry, bad deal for them. A bi partisan commission to raise taxes is not in their best interest or conducive to their core tenets of fiscal governance.

The Coburn Deficit Amendment was a legitimate way to genuinely reduce government waste and redundancy, essentially eliminating the costs of multiple agencies doing the same thing and the same dems that voted for the debt commission (projecting the mere appearance of wanting to cut expenses) voted against the Coburn amendment (something that would actually do the job).

Bottom line, rich - your argument boils down to “well, if we can’t have it exactly our way, we’ll have it no way”

Let them put forth a legitimate attempt to reign in spending and we shall see. Phony baloney PAYGO, anemic and impotent spending freezes, share the blame debt commissions that have zero power to change anything, all these things may sway your head, but they lack substance and standing. Gimmicks will not solve the problems we have. Real leadership is needed here, and refusing to be bent over does not make you the party of no, regardless of your protestations.

In my opinion, the Dems claiming that not voting for PAYGO is very similar to Palin talking about death panels. Both were oversimplifications of a complex problem. Both were used to grab headlines.’

In one case you called it bad politics, in the other case, it was ok to do something “just for show.”

This bill would have acomplished nothing other than making the dems look like they actually care about spending. So, since it is called “PAYGO” the republicans should vote for it, even though it actually weakens the need to justify spending.

Do you practice yoga? Cause you are stretching things pretty far here. The dems do not care about spending. This is for show which is BAD POLITICS FROM THEM. The republicans actually stood up for something on principal, but since it sounded conservative, well, it is they who are being deceitful and playing bad politics????

Seriously? Yawn again.

you think the GOP should cream their jeans every time Obama even hints at some fiscal sanity

No, I don’t. I believe the GOP should stop saying “no” to their own proposals. It’s not that hard to figure out.

The congressional version of this commission was authored by Kent Conrad (D) and it was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to spread the inevitable backlash coming from a veritable frat house style spending binge.

Well, a bill has only one sponsor and has many co-sponsors. Did ]this bill have a whole host of Republican co-sponsors? Yes, it did. Did this bill have Republicans speaking in favor of it, including asking the President to support it? Yes, it did. Did the Republicans who sponsored it, spoke in favor of it, and asked the President to support them then vote against it? Why yes, they did.

In one case you called it bad politics, in the other case, it was ok to do something “just for show.”

You’re kidding, right? The GOP did vote against PAYGO, unanimously. And the entire “death panel” thing was complete, utter hogwash. Apples and oranges.

This is for show which is BAD POLITICS FROM THEM.

No, it’s not bad politics for them. It’s very, very good politics for Blue Dogs who are hoping to be reelected. But, as always, rather than work with these fiscally-conservative Democrats (even if they are only so to get reelected), the Republicans will sacrifice their fiscal-conservative credentials for the purpose of remaining the “party of no”.

The republicans actually stood up for something on principal, but since it sounded conservative, well, it is they who are being deceitful and playing bad politics????

The problem is that the principle they stood up for is “vote against anything and everything the Democrats propose, even if it something we consider a core principle, because it isn’t our version”. The Republicans are quite principled that way. Which is the point of “party of no” and this post.

Seriously? Yawn again.

Indeed. The “party of no” toddler temper-tantrums are getting quite old and boring.

Did this bill have loopholes? Would the dems exploit them? Would this bill make it easier to actually bypass having to have valid reasons for the spending?

If the answer to any of those is yes, then voting no is the proper response…unless you would rather they play politics and do it for “show.”

If the answer to any of those is yes, then voting no is the proper response…unless you would rather they play politics and do it for “show.”

Bullshit. Every bill has loopholes; we see it over and over. Both parties exploit them. It’s perhaps the one true bipartisan principle (along with “everyone’s earmark is pork - except mine”).

If you believe that somehow sitting back and waiting for the perfect bill to come along is the right answer, you’re even nuttier than I thought - “perfection or nothing” is more inane than “our way or nothing”.

Voting against paygo, even imperfect paygo, demonstrates quite clearly that partisan politics is more important than fiscal conservative principle.

And I notice you keep skipping blithely past the whole commission thing, which is even more damning for the GOP than the “paygo” party-line politics.

Every bill has loopholes

That’s correct, and each bill must be measured in its totality, warts and all, this bill is all warts. As you well know (or should) there is a whole host of reasons why someone can be enamored of a bill initially, then once it gets run through the sausage machine it comes out looking nothing like what you thought it was suppose to look like, and you decide ,“no thanks”.

And no, it has nothing to do with being “the perfect bill”, if in your mind the bill furthers your agenda and does more good than harm, then it is easy to support it.

Voting against paygo, even imperfect paygo, demonstrates quite clearly that partisan politics is more important than fiscal conservative principle.

Not even close. There was a byline in the WSJ this morning ,“Budget projects rising debt despite cuts in spending: ‘think bigger’ says GOP”. Some people find it hard to stomach what Obama is peddling, a multi trillion dollar budget with a 9 trillion dollar debt projection this decade. Some (like you) thinks these little mis directions like his 3 year freeze are really super duper and the GOP should fall right in line behind it, but as they say ,“Think bigger”. If PAYGO is viewed (whether you agree with the analysis or not) as providing Obama with a bad aid when a scalpel is needed, then why on earth would they support it? If, as I explained in my first response, that this really does nothing for fiscal restraint and can be manipulated at will, why give it legitimacy with your assent?

I will admit that the GOP needs to explain themselves here (not to you, they are already tagged as do nothing obstructionists who could never have an honest reason for doing something that puzzles you)but to negate the other side any ammo regarding hypocrisy.

The prevailing wisdom among the GOP power brokers might be that of Napoleon ,“Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake”, and to take this concept further, never provide cover while he is making a mistake. If the Mass. election was any indication, the people are fed up with nuclear spending and will punish those that continue it. It is crystal clear why the GOP wants nothing to do with this bogus deficit commission and they should explain why PAYGO is impotent, ineffective,and illusory.

What a crock.  If this passed, the Dems could claim a political victory and the mantle of fiscal responsibility when, as richtaylor and blameme rightly point out, it’s a farce.  Because the Congress could claim they “did something” about paygo, it would go on the backburner and no real reform would actually take place.

I fully support a “party of no” if “no” is the right policy to take.

this bill is all warts.

No, it’s not. Well, the bill pretty much is, but the paygo amendment to it, which the “fiscally conservative” GOP unanimously opposed, while warty, is still useful. And so opposing it, as pure partisan hackery, is stupid.

Not even close.

Exactly correct. This bill had nothing to do with the 2011 budget proposal, which wasn’t released until this week. It had to do with 2010.

Yes, people are quite unhappy with continued deficit spending. But the opposition party, in particular it’s leadership, has nothing whatsoever to say but “no”.

The prevailing wisdom among the GOP power brokers might be that of Napoleon, “Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake”, and to take this concept further, never provide cover while he is making a mistake.

Indeed. However, the better analogy is that the GOP is fiddling while Rome burns; perhaps we should call them the “party of Nero” rather than “party of no”.

It is crystal clear why the GOP wants nothing to do with this bogus deficit commission

You mean, that commission that the GOP co-sponsored? The one that they politic’d for? The one that they asked Obama to back for them? The one that they cravenly then voted against in a display of pure partisan hackishness? Yeah. It is crystal clear why they did that, which was the point of this post.

they should explain why PAYGO is impotent, ineffective,and illusory.

Yeah, they should absolutely attempt to explain this. And fail.

If this passed

It did pass, no thanks to the “fiscally conservative” GOP.

the Dems could claim a political victory

Which the GOP has just handed them, yet again.

it’s a farce

No, it’s not. It doesn’t go as far as some of you might like, but it’s no more a farce than the PAYGO law passed a decade ago and routinely ignored for a decade of GOP-controlled Congresses.

if “no” is the right policy to take.

Which would be fine, except that “no” is not the right policy to take when you’re voting against your own initiatives and your supposedly core principles.

You mean, that commission that the GOP co-sponsored? The one that they politic’d for? The one that they asked Obama to back for them? The one that they cravenly then voted against in a display of pure partisan hackishness? Yeah. It is crystal clear why they did that, which was the point of this post.

You are confused (not the first time) This bill is still in committee, nobody has voted on it as yet so your “partisan hackishness” comment is not only weak, it is baseless. I was only giving my opinion on why I would not vote for it once it comes up for a vote. And as it has been explained to you before but still fail to grasp, asking for a seat at the table, then finding your dish next to the dog’s bowl can be sobering. Whether and GOP types co sponsored the bill is meaningless, situations and circumstances change, and people can change their mind.

Yeah, they should absolutely attempt to explain this. And fail.

Nope, this would be an easy sell, just show the folks all the trap doors involved and nobody with any common sense would want anything to do with it.

You are confused (not the first time) This bill is still in committee, nobody has voted on it as yet so your “partisan hackishness” comment is not only weak, it is baseless.

No, I am not at all confused. Read the first part of my post again. This commission had a floor vote last week and said GOP sponsors voted against it.

Whether and GOP types co sponsored the bill is meaningless, situations and circumstances change, and people can change their mind.

Whether or not they co-sponsored it is absolutely meaningful.

Things can and do change, and that’s exactly what I was pointing out - their partisan hackery in changing their minds over this thing. It’s not like there were only a couple of GOP sponsors. There were a whole bunch (along with a bunch of Democrats).

But partisan politics won out in the end.

So, if a bill changes drastically you should still vote for it? Seriously? This bill WATERS DOWN the need to state reasons for spending. C’mon dwex…you are shouting wolf here.

Yes they sponsered it. It changed to be a watered down version. So they voted against it instead of trying to “look good” and they stood on principle.I truly, truly do not understand how you let one side water this down and then blame the other side for voting against it once it changed.

You’re mixing up the two votes, I believe. Or if not, I have not idea what you’re talking about.

The Senate “paygo” amendment is watered down from an ideal version of paygo - but it was added to something that had no paygo requirements at all. A “watered down” version of “paygo” was is better than no paygo requirements at all. This is definitely a case of something is better than nothing.

The commission was introduced by Senators Conrad and Gregg as another amendment to the debt-ceiling bill; the text appears to be identical to the commission bill itself, so is not “watered down”. This is one of those stupid stick-unrelated-stuff-in-another-bill things that I’ve railed against (like sticking the “hate crimes bill” in the defense appropriation). Although you could argue that the commission is at least tangentially related to the debt-ceiling bill. They voted against the un-watered-down commission that they had co-sponsored in numbers.

Made even more hackish because they knew the debt-ceiling bill was going to pass.

So yeah, I’m still sticking to “partisan hackish nonsense”.