Notes from Howard's Sabbatical from Working. The name comes from a 1998 lunch conversation. Someone asked if everything man knew was on the web. I answered "no" and off the top of my head said "Fidel Castro's favorite color". About every 6-12 months I've searched for this. It doesn't show up in the first 50 Google results (this blog is finally first for that search), AskJeeves says it's: red.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Jon Stewart on Jim Bunning
Yup, Jon Stewart did do a fun segment on Jim Bunning blocking the 30 day extension of unemployment benefits.
I love the Daily Show, but what Jon and every other media outlet fail to point out is that Bunning wasn't opposed to the extension in itself. He was opposed to passing the extension WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. He proposed an amendment to pay for this with the funds from the stimulus bill.
But everyone shot him down. Stating that this is hypocracy due to the fact that the GOP also spent us into oblivion during the Bush years.
I'm with Bunning on this one. I don't care what the GOP did in the past (personally I hate, HATE the GOP almost as much as the Dems) this is the right thing to do NOW. EVERYONE agrees that we need to cut the deficit, but when something like this pops up, no one gives it a second thought. And why the media portrays it as such is beyond me. Look at this story from CNN (which seems rather fair from my experience):
There is nothing except the viewpoints of those who disagree and get nothing more from Bunning to explain himself and then do nothing but exaggerate the negative consequences of his objection.
Why don't they paint it as everyone else objecting to passing the bill because they refuse to pay for it now?
Yes, I agree Stewart didn't mention Bunning's reasons and most of the media didn't either.
I mentioned them yesterday. "As best as I can find, he wants the $10 billion bill paid for and not just add another $10 billion to the deficit. And given that the Senate just passed PAYGO rules, that makes some sense to me."
But the CNN article you cite does mention his reasons. As near as I can tell Bunning hasn't further explained his reasons to anyone. And his comments about missing a basketball game are pretty uncaring.
I think Stewart also did a good job of skewering Dems for being so inept at resolving this in time and going home.
Choosing to balance the budget, or worse yet make a political point, on the backs of unemployed people is simply a cruel and heartless act at this time.
This is not a question of budget economics, but rather of simple human decency towards our fellow citizens, many of whom are struggling to find work in the worst labor market in 70 years.
TT
and by the way, NOT EVERYONE agrees now is the time to cut the deficit.
I hear you Howard. What I meant about the article is not that they didn't cite his reasons (which are pretty simple and straight forward. There is not much you can write about it), but that the rest of the article was nothing but sob stories from those who disagree. There was no grilling of the opposition (yeah I called the Dems the opposition) on why they won't pay for it now.
TT If this is only a human decency issue, then why does Bunning get skewered for supporting the extension? He does support the extension. He just wants this paid for now, which is clearly possible since we have the money set aside for this precise purpose.
This is not a heartless move. As I said, you could fire all of these accusations back at the rest of the Senate and ask them why they won't allow him to amend this bill for a swift passage. How could THEY be so cruel?!?!
But that is my complaint about CNN's story. There is no questioning them about this. Well they may not have anymore to report, but they just sit there and make the other senators look like heroes because they "stand up for the poor."
And I think you meant, "...not everyone agrees NOW is the time to cut the deficit." That is true, but as I said, the money has already been set aside. It just seems like everyone but Bunning wants EVEN MORE money allocated to be spent and they expected it would be easy to do so since they can get it passed under the guise of a bill to help the downtrodden and look like a bunch of heroes so they can get reelected.
Look at it this way: It is like giving your son 5 bucks for food that they will buy from their friend who needs the money for food. But instead, they just put it aside for a toy that will make them popular with all the kids at school.
Then they come right back to you and ask for $5 of food money and your daughter says, "Don't give him that. He already has the money!"
Then your wife says, "Daughter! How can you be so heartless?! His friend needs the money or he will starve!"
The daughter replies, "Well then why doesn't he spend the money that dad already gave him?"
My thought is, "Why are people sweeping the daughter's reply under the rug?"
And especially since (as Howard cited) this comes right after the PAYGO rules were ratified.
Anonymous says, "The problem is his past" (Thanks for the link)
But as I said in my first post, "I don't care what the GOP did in the past." This includes Bunning. And I'm not from KY. To me, he is a faceless character that is doing the right thing RIGHT NOW and people criticize him for it.
Don't shoot the messenger, so to speak.
So why is his past the problem when he is standing up for something that makes sense?
It might mean something to me come re-election time (if he was running again, or if I was in KY) but when people sit there and say he is heartless? Come on! Those are the real political shots.
Hell, according to that link you sent, it looks like he created a bunch of jobs with his spending. So I wouldn't call him heartless. ;-)
The issue with his past is that it's showing that his concern for the deficit is new which makes people wonder if it's his true motivation or it's something else. Apparently he's not happy about not getting support to run a difficult re-election campaign so perhaps he's making the Republicans look obstructionist on purpose, that would be bad if it were true. But then he has a long history of not getting along with others in his party so who knows.
Apparently there is a $100 billion bill coming up to deal with this in a more permanent manner. PayGo doesn't apply to these 30-day emergency bills. And while he can use his objection to block unanimous consent, usually you mention it beforehand so that its not brought up on the floor at the last minute so that both sides can deal with the issue. While his bill or amendment was shot down last week, he apparently did this in the most obstructionist way possible. That might be political helpful to his cause, but in this case it was also economically harmful to lots of people across the country, not only his constituents.
So the plan was always to address the problem permanently with a $100 billion bill that was payed for. The $10 billion continuation goes to increase the debt a tiny fraction also according to the rules. We went though this hiccup that affected lots of people because a Senator got in a hissy fit.
No, I do get what you guys are saying but what I'm saying is this dog and pony show is rediculous because the thing COULD be "paid for". No one asks why everyone doesn't give into Bunning? We just hear the other side of the story. I mean come on! I haven't read everything about this but I haven't seen that yet. I really have checked out on this story because either way you look at it, it makes you sick at what is going on in gov't. I just check back to see what you guys think.
My points are as follows, let me know if you disagree: 1. The CNN article was severely biased because they only reported on why he blocked the extension, but didn't report on why the rest of the senate would not allow for the expenditure to be paid with the stimulus (as Bunning suggested). T/F?
(My theory as to why they wouldn't conceed is because it is easy to get money allocated for people that will lose their jobs, but it is difficult to get more money for the stimulus. And these senators want to bring as much money into their states as possible so they look good. But the question wasn't asked.)
2. If a person's child is kidnapped, do you let the kidnapper go just because you don't like the parent? Just because we don't care for Bunning, does it mean that we should disagree with everything he says, even if it is bad for the rest of the country? If he does something good, should we blindly protest it? Is wrong actually wrong? Or does it just depend on which party you are aligned with? T/F?
(This is why I love the tea party (the leaderless one. Not the one the GOP is trying to form). My fellow citizens and I can voice our opinion about the issue of taxation without also supporting (pro-life, anti-gay, etc.) agendas if I choose to.)
3. How would you vote in this situation? Here are the givens (this is reflective of the Bunning story, but is really a hypothetical): a. We have money set aside to pay for an extension on benefits. b. There is a bill written up to extend the benefits but no one wants to use the money set aside, so they are asking for more. c. You are the judge, jury and executioner.
What do you do?
I'm saying that I would take the money set aside and use it on the proposed extension. Done! No one loses their benefits!
And as a bonus, I can sleep at night because I didn't contribute to the deficit.
What would you do in this situation?
Now having said all this, I acknowledge that Bunning could be a dottering old fool, and given what I know about him he sounds just as dirty as his peers. But I want to know about the ISSUE (CNN I'm looking at you...), not the man. Like I said, don't shoot the messenger.
I agree the $10 billion could have been paid for. I also don't know all the details of the Senate rules. E.g., it wouldn't surprise me if paying for it via transitioning money from one account to another requires more time/debate and it would take an extra few weeks (I seem to remember hearing such a thing when this story broke). I'm sure a new tax for this $10 billion would take much longer :) I assume that's why the $100 billion bill was going to take longer and why it couldn't just be moved up when Bunning objected.
On your points.
1. I'll give you that the CNN story was biased but not severely biased. I did see many more that were much worse and didn't even give Bunnings reasons. They did report that Bunning lost the vote in committee and that the fact that matters. Again, I suspect the reason is it involves detailed Senate rules and reporters are too lazy to dive into them. I could be wrong and I do wish they covered what you're saying (as years of blog posts show, I'm not a big fan of the state of journalism). My first guess wouldn't be yours but rather it's harder to move money once it's been allocated to a task.
2. You ask a lot of questions so I"m not sure which to give T/F on. :) I agree that Bunnings past only matters in understanding his motivations. If he's right on the issue so be it. But in the absence of all the details, the past can help you discern what's relevant. If you lose your job because someone now cares about the deficit after 20 years of voting to increase it dramatically, do you care that he now changed his mind? And again, it's not clear that worrying about the deficit is the right thing to do in a recesssion, many noted economists are saying fix the economy first and then worry about the deficit. The problem is that during the good times, the GOP wasn't paying down the deficit, they were making it much worse.
3. Yes, in those simple terms I'd do that to. But I'll grant you that it's a hypothetical and I'm not sure how much it reflects this situation.
So here's one for you. The economy improves and we're seeing growth. Unemployment is at 3%. Things are pretty good. Through some miracle there are tax surpluses in the federal government. Do you use them to pay down the $12+ trillion debt or do you say it's the people's money and demand tax cuts?
The reason you don't "give in" to Bunning is because he is an unprincipled man, who kidnapped this particular legislation for god-knows-what-reason, but it clearly wasn't due to concern about uncontrolled spending by the Federal government.
You see, the funny thing is, just about one month ago, on Jan 28, 2010, Jim Bunning voted against the "Pay As You Go" legislation. This is is a bill that would require the federal government to pay for future spending increases (i.e., future increase are to be "deficit neutral"). He has also been a Senator since 2000, as the national debt ballooned from 5 trillion to 11 trillion dollars. I don't recall him making any "principled stands" on the debt/deficit during that time.
So Bunning votes against the "Pay-as-you-Go" bill requiring future federal spending be paid for, but yet decides, one month later, to hold up 10 billion dollars of unemployment, Cobra, and construction funding because now he is suddenly a super deficit hawk. In fairness to ol' Jim he was just holding the party line.
So please allow me to separate Bunning "the man", from Bunning "the issue" - as you suggest.
As far as Bunning "the man" is concerned, clearly he wasn't taking a principled stand on debt/deficit reduction; that ship sailed without him onboard since 2000, and most recently in January during the PayGo vote. Hypocrit is too polite a term for him, and misanthrope is too clinical. Perhaps miscreant is best.
Regarding Bunning "the issue", sure debt/deficit reduction is a fine idea. Clearly, unlimited increases in the national debt is not a tenable fiscal plan, even for our esteemed Congress.
If one wants to take a principled stand on the need to reduce the national debt, fine. However, there are lots of better ways (both morally and fiscally) to do it than on the backs of the unemployed.
I sincerely hope that no one who reads this blog ever needs to experience the delight of collecting unemployment insurance or the rapture of watching the calendar tick by as your COBRA benefits are about to expire.
I can tell you from personal experience, it ain't fun.
"I agree the $10 billion could have been paid for..."
Good point. I don't want to go off on a tangent here so I'll spare you, but if this was the case, why does everyone report on Reid saying, "Where was my friend from Kentucky when we had two wars that were unpaid for during the Bush administration?" Why don't we hear Reid saying, "Senator Bunning... you know very well that it is too late for that. It will take weeks to get your proposal arranged ." Or anything of the like. Instead it is just Senators posing for CNN and making Bunning out to be the bad guy (which I conceed, he very well may be).
"I'll give you that the CNN story was biased..." I'll take it!
"as years of blog posts show, I'm not a big fan of the state of journalism." Amen, this is why I am so thankful for the Net. It is a hell hole of a wasteland for the incompetent, but a virtual paradise for those who can discern truth from garbage. Before we just had "the news" and local anecdotal evidence. But now everyone is clamoring for ratings and skewing the publics tolerance for bad reporting. They don't try to get questions answered as much and instead parrot public opinion because people like to hear what they agree with. If the networks don't do this, they lose viewers... I'm tired of this.
"I agree that Bunnings past only matters in understanding his motivations." I contend that his motivation is irrelevant. Let's assume that I am gay [and I'm not (not that there is anything wrong with it)] and I want the law of the land to allow gays the same rights as heteros. Let's also assume that Bunning has been a thorn in the sides of gays across the nation, campaigning with Pat Robertson at his side. Now there is a vote to amend the Constitution to define marraige as a union between a man and a non-transgender woman (ala Dubya) and everyone on the Seante floor is voting in favor of the amendment. Bunning stands up and goes Jimmy Stewart on everyone, and blocks the amendment! Should I be opposed to what he is doing based on his past?
"If he's right on the issue so be it." Again, I'll take it!
"Yes, in those simple terms I'd do that to. But I'll grant you that it's a hypothetical and I'm not sure how much it reflects this situation." That is true, but that is the reason I boiled it down. Read the comments or blogs of those who disagree with Bunning's decision to filly. It is a bunch of, "How can he do this when people are suffering?!!!" type of stating the obvious kind of comments. Yes, There are pople dying in Africa of starvation/disease too. Where do we stand on that one? Why aren't we crying about that? Oh, that's right, because then we wouldn't be able to afford to pay for those benefits extensions.
It's this mentality that allows the Dems to buy votes, and now that the Reps are doing the same, it has left a lot of people dissatisfied with Washington.
"So here's one for you... Why can't we do both? Cut both taxes and spending and use the winnings to pay down the debt. It may sound crazy/impossible/harsh, but it is the only realistic way. We all just woke up to the fact that the Clinton/Dubya surpluses were at least partially a lie. What would you do? We can't blow rainbows up the *** of the working class forever. But we will continue to vote for whoever does.
But a politician would be commiting political suicide if they didn't just spend the 'surplus' on their special interest groups (unions, corporations, etc.) because everyone thinks it is a pipedream to pay China in full.
""So here's one for you... Why can't we do both? Cut both taxes and spending and use the winnings to pay down the debt"
Well I'm not sure how cutting taxes helps pay down the debt. "We all just woke up to the fact that the Clinton/Dubya surpluses were at least partially a lie." Well, I'd call them Clinton surpluses :) and they were real but they happened because the economy was growing faster than the budget expected.
When you look at the whole budget the largest components are interest on the debt, military, social security and medicare/aid. The rest, discretionary spending is only about 1/6 of the budget, which is why the freeze on that is so unhelpful.
It's hard to reduce the debt payments without, actually paying them. I'd love to see a big decrease in military spending (just compare use to the rest of the world on that). Social security is relatively solvent and given it's structure it's hard to change though it's probably best to raise the age when benefits kick in.
Medicare/aid costs are going up because medical costs are going up. The healthcare debate should be about lowering the costs (though I do think everyone should be covered). E.g., the reduction in Medicare Advantage is purely that, why do we need to subsidize private insurance by 15% when public insurance is doing it cheaper. But no the GOP says Obama is cutting Medicare by $500 billion to scare people. Also I'd like to see the Farm Bill changed so we produce food that doesn't make us sick.
These are all things that would make a big difference. Bunning's $10 billion won't.
Thanks Howard. But, I don't want to get into anything other than this media issue here because I don't see it as worth my time to talk one on one with someone on the internet about politics. No offense, but I just don't have the time. If there is a forum better suited for these discussions, let me know. I like how you can discuss something with a level head. If you ever need a libertarian's point of view just let me know.
The only thing that I have to say about your comment on Bunning is that I didn't say that 10B wouldn't pale in comparison to everything else. But it is death by a thousand papercuts (and this is a big one, regardless of how many times we are hearing the word 'trillion' thrown around) and when people say that his blocking any of this irresponsible money grubbing is a bad thing, it drives me crazy.
13 comments:
I love the Daily Show, but what Jon and every other media outlet fail to point out is that Bunning wasn't opposed to the extension in itself. He was opposed to passing the extension WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. He proposed an amendment to pay for this with the funds from the stimulus bill.
But everyone shot him down. Stating that this is hypocracy due to the fact that the GOP also spent us into oblivion during the Bush years.
I'm with Bunning on this one. I don't care what the GOP did in the past (personally I hate, HATE the GOP almost as much as the Dems) this is the right thing to do NOW.
EVERYONE agrees that we need to cut the deficit, but when something like this pops up, no one gives it a second thought. And why the media portrays it as such is beyond me. Look at this story from CNN (which seems rather fair from my experience):
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/01/jobless.benefits.bill/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
There is nothing except the viewpoints of those who disagree and get nothing more from Bunning to explain himself and then do nothing but exaggerate the negative consequences of his objection.
Why don't they paint it as everyone else objecting to passing the bill because they refuse to pay for it now?
Yes, I agree Stewart didn't mention Bunning's reasons and most of the media didn't either.
I mentioned them yesterday. "As best as I can find, he wants the $10 billion bill paid for and not just add another $10 billion to the deficit. And given that the Senate just passed PAYGO rules, that makes some sense to me."
But the CNN article you cite does mention his reasons. As near as I can tell Bunning hasn't further explained his reasons to anyone. And his comments about missing a basketball game are pretty uncaring.
I think Stewart also did a good job of skewering Dems for being so inept at resolving this in time and going home.
Yes, balancing the budget is a fine goal.
Choosing to balance the budget, or worse yet make a political point, on the backs of unemployed people is simply a cruel and heartless act at this time.
This is not a question of budget economics, but rather of simple human decency towards our fellow citizens, many of whom are struggling to find work in the worst labor market in 70 years.
TT
and by the way, NOT EVERYONE agrees now is the time to cut the deficit.
(FYI I'm the one who posted the first comment.)
I hear you Howard. What I meant about the article is not that they didn't cite his reasons (which are pretty simple and straight forward. There is not much you can write about it), but that the rest of the article was nothing but sob stories from those who disagree. There was no grilling of the opposition (yeah I called the Dems the opposition) on why they won't pay for it now.
TT
If this is only a human decency issue, then why does Bunning get skewered for supporting the extension? He does support the extension. He just wants this paid for now, which is clearly possible since we have the money set aside for this precise purpose.
This is not a heartless move. As I said, you could fire all of these accusations back at the rest of the Senate and ask them why they won't allow him to amend this bill for a swift passage. How could THEY be so cruel?!?!
But that is my complaint about CNN's story. There is no questioning them about this. Well they may not have anymore to report, but they just sit there and make the other senators look like heroes because they "stand up for the poor."
And I think you meant, "...not everyone agrees NOW is the time to cut the deficit."
That is true, but as I said, the money has already been set aside. It just seems like everyone but Bunning wants EVEN MORE money allocated to be spent and they expected it would be easy to do so since they can get it passed under the guise of a bill to help the downtrodden and look like a bunch of heroes so they can get reelected.
Look at it this way:
It is like giving your son 5 bucks for food that they will buy from their friend who needs the money for food. But instead, they just put it aside for a toy that will make them popular with all the kids at school.
Then they come right back to you and ask for $5 of food money and your daughter says, "Don't give him that. He already has the money!"
Then your wife says, "Daughter! How can you be so heartless?! His friend needs the money or he will starve!"
The daughter replies, "Well then why doesn't he spend the money that dad already gave him?"
My thought is, "Why are people sweeping the daughter's reply under the rug?"
And especially since (as Howard cited) this comes right after the PAYGO rules were ratified.
MV
The problem is his past
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/02/cnn-fact-check-is-sen-bunnings-stand-against-unemployment-extensions-in-line-with-his-past-votes/?fbid=LvwXlCqtvwx#more-92718
Anonymous says, "The problem is his past" (Thanks for the link)
But as I said in my first post, "I don't care what the GOP did in the past." This includes Bunning. And I'm not from KY. To me, he is a faceless character that is doing the right thing RIGHT NOW and people criticize him for it.
Don't shoot the messenger, so to speak.
So why is his past the problem when he is standing up for something that makes sense?
It might mean something to me come re-election time (if he was running again, or if I was in KY) but when people sit there and say he is heartless? Come on! Those are the real political shots.
Hell, according to that link you sent, it looks like he created a bunch of jobs with his spending. So I wouldn't call him heartless. ;-)
MV
The issue with his past is that it's showing that his concern for the deficit is new which makes people wonder if it's his true motivation or it's something else. Apparently he's not happy about not getting support to run a difficult re-election campaign so perhaps he's making the Republicans look obstructionist on purpose, that would be bad if it were true. But then he has a long history of not getting along with others in his party so who knows.
Apparently there is a $100 billion bill coming up to deal with this in a more permanent manner. PayGo doesn't apply to these 30-day emergency bills. And while he can use his objection to block unanimous consent, usually you mention it beforehand so that its not brought up on the floor at the last minute so that both sides can deal with the issue. While his bill or amendment was shot down last week, he apparently did this in the most obstructionist way possible. That might be political helpful to his cause, but in this case it was also economically harmful to lots of people across the country, not only his constituents.
So the plan was always to address the problem permanently with a $100 billion bill that was payed for. The $10 billion continuation goes to increase the debt a tiny fraction also according to the rules.
We went though this hiccup that affected lots of people because a Senator got in a hissy fit.
No, I do get what you guys are saying but what I'm saying is this dog and pony show is rediculous because the thing COULD be "paid for". No one asks why everyone doesn't give into Bunning?
We just hear the other side of the story. I mean come on! I haven't read everything about this but I haven't seen that yet. I really have checked out on this story
because either way you look at it, it makes you sick at what is going on in gov't. I just check back to see what you guys think.
My points are as follows, let me know if you disagree:
1. The CNN article was severely biased because they only reported on why he blocked the extension, but didn't report on why the rest of the senate would not allow for the expenditure to be paid with the stimulus (as Bunning suggested). T/F?
(My theory as to why they wouldn't conceed is because it is easy to get money allocated for people that will lose their jobs, but it is difficult to get more money for the stimulus. And these senators want to bring as much money into their states as possible so they look good. But the question wasn't asked.)
2. If a person's child is kidnapped, do you let the kidnapper go just because you don't like the parent? Just because we don't care for Bunning, does it mean that we should disagree with everything he says, even if it is bad for the rest of the country? If he does something good, should we blindly protest it? Is wrong actually wrong? Or does it just depend on which party you are aligned with? T/F?
(This is why I love the tea party (the leaderless one. Not the one the GOP is trying to form). My fellow citizens and I can voice our opinion about the issue of taxation without also supporting (pro-life, anti-gay, etc.) agendas if I choose to.)
3. How would you vote in this situation?
Here are the givens (this is reflective of the Bunning story, but is really a hypothetical):
a. We have money set aside to pay for an extension on benefits.
b. There is a bill written up to extend the benefits but no one wants to use the money set aside, so they are asking for more.
c. You are the judge, jury and executioner.
What do you do?
I'm saying that I would take the money set aside and use it on the proposed extension. Done! No one loses their benefits!
And as a bonus, I can sleep at night because I didn't contribute to the deficit.
What would you do in this situation?
Now having said all this, I acknowledge that Bunning could be a dottering old fool, and given what I know about him he sounds just as dirty as his peers. But I want to know about the ISSUE (CNN I'm looking at you...), not the man. Like I said, don't shoot the messenger.
MV
I agree the $10 billion could have been paid for. I also don't know all the details of the Senate rules. E.g., it wouldn't surprise me if paying for it via transitioning money from one account to another requires more time/debate and it would take an extra few weeks (I seem to remember hearing such a thing when this story broke). I'm sure a new tax for this $10 billion would take much longer :) I assume that's why the $100 billion bill was going to take longer and why it couldn't just be moved up when Bunning objected.
On your points.
1. I'll give you that the CNN story was biased but not severely biased. I did see many more that were much worse and didn't even give Bunnings reasons. They did report that Bunning lost the vote in committee and that the fact that matters. Again, I suspect the reason is it involves detailed Senate rules and reporters are too lazy to dive into them. I could be wrong and I do wish they covered what you're saying (as years of blog posts show, I'm not a big fan of the state of journalism). My first guess wouldn't be yours but rather it's harder to move money once it's been allocated to a task.
2. You ask a lot of questions so I"m not sure which to give T/F on. :) I agree that Bunnings past only matters in understanding his motivations. If he's right on the issue so be it. But in the absence of all the details, the past can help you discern what's relevant. If you lose your job because someone now cares about the deficit after 20 years of voting to increase it dramatically, do you care that he now changed his mind? And again, it's not clear that worrying about the deficit is the right thing to do in a recesssion, many noted economists are saying fix the economy first and then worry about the deficit. The problem is that during the good times, the GOP wasn't paying down the deficit, they were making it much worse.
3. Yes, in those simple terms I'd do that to. But I'll grant you that it's a hypothetical and I'm not sure how much it reflects this situation.
So here's one for you. The economy improves and we're seeing growth. Unemployment is at 3%. Things are pretty good. Through some miracle there are tax surpluses in the federal government. Do you use them to pay down the $12+ trillion debt or do you say it's the people's money and demand tax cuts?
The reason you don't "give in" to Bunning is because he is an unprincipled man, who kidnapped this particular legislation for god-knows-what-reason, but it clearly wasn't due to concern about uncontrolled spending by the Federal government.
You see, the funny thing is, just about one month ago, on Jan 28, 2010, Jim Bunning voted against the "Pay As You Go" legislation. This is is a bill that would require the federal government to pay for future spending increases (i.e., future increase are to be "deficit neutral"). He has also been a Senator since 2000, as the national debt ballooned from 5 trillion to 11 trillion dollars. I don't recall him making any "principled stands" on the debt/deficit during that time.
So Bunning votes against the "Pay-as-you-Go" bill requiring future federal spending be paid for, but yet decides, one month later, to hold up 10 billion dollars of unemployment, Cobra, and construction funding because now he is suddenly a super deficit hawk. In fairness to ol' Jim he was just holding the party line.
So please allow me to separate Bunning "the man", from Bunning "the issue" - as you suggest.
As far as Bunning "the man" is concerned, clearly he wasn't taking a principled stand on debt/deficit reduction; that ship sailed without him onboard since 2000, and most recently in January during the PayGo vote. Hypocrit is too polite a term for him, and misanthrope is too clinical. Perhaps miscreant is best.
Regarding Bunning "the issue", sure debt/deficit reduction is a fine idea. Clearly, unlimited increases in the national debt is not a tenable fiscal plan, even for our esteemed Congress.
If one wants to take a principled stand on the need to reduce the national debt, fine. However, there are lots of better ways (both morally and fiscally) to do it than on the backs of the unemployed.
I sincerely hope that no one who reads this blog ever needs to experience the delight of collecting unemployment insurance or the rapture of watching the calendar tick by as your COBRA benefits are about to expire.
I can tell you from personal experience, it ain't fun.
TT
Howard:
"I agree the $10 billion could have been paid for..."
Good point. I don't want to go off on a tangent here so I'll spare you, but if this was the case, why does everyone report on Reid saying, "Where was my friend from Kentucky when we had two wars that were unpaid for during the Bush administration?" Why don't we hear Reid saying, "Senator Bunning... you know very well that it is too late for that. It will take weeks to get your proposal arranged
." Or anything of the like. Instead it is just Senators posing for CNN and making Bunning out to be the bad guy (which I conceed, he very well may be).
"I'll give you that the CNN story was biased..."
I'll take it!
"as years of blog posts show, I'm not a big fan of the state of journalism." Amen, this is why I am so thankful for the Net. It is a hell hole of a wasteland for the incompetent, but a virtual paradise for those who can discern truth from garbage. Before we just had "the news" and local anecdotal evidence. But now everyone is clamoring for ratings and skewing the publics tolerance for bad reporting. They don't try to get questions answered as much and instead parrot public opinion because people like to hear what they agree with. If the networks don't do this, they lose viewers... I'm tired of this.
"You ask a lot of questions so I"m not sure which to give T/F on. :) "
Touché. And I guess it should've been Y/N :)
"I agree that Bunnings past only matters in understanding his motivations."
I contend that his motivation is irrelevant. Let's assume that I am gay [and I'm not
(not that there is anything wrong with it)] and I want the law of the land to allow gays the same rights as heteros. Let's also assume that Bunning has been a thorn in the sides of gays across the nation, campaigning with Pat Robertson at his side. Now there is a vote to amend the Constitution to define marraige as a union between a man and a non-transgender woman (ala Dubya) and everyone on the Seante floor is voting in favor of the amendment. Bunning stands up and goes Jimmy Stewart on everyone, and blocks the amendment! Should I be opposed to what he is doing based on his past?
"If he's right on the issue so be it." Again, I'll take it!
"Yes, in those simple terms I'd do that to. But I'll grant you that it's a hypothetical and I'm not sure how much it reflects this situation." That is true, but that is the reason I boiled it down. Read the comments or blogs of those who disagree with Bunning's decision to filly. It is a bunch of, "How can he do this when people are suffering?!!!" type of stating the obvious kind of comments. Yes, There are pople dying in Africa of starvation/disease too. Where do we stand on that one? Why aren't we crying about that? Oh, that's right, because then we wouldn't be able
to afford to pay for those benefits extensions.
It's this mentality that allows the Dems to buy votes, and now that the Reps are doing the same, it has left a lot of people dissatisfied with Washington.
"So here's one for you... Why can't we do both? Cut both taxes and spending and use the winnings to pay down the debt. It may sound crazy/impossible/harsh, but it is the only realistic way. We all just woke up to the fact that the Clinton/Dubya surpluses were at least partially a lie. What would you do? We can't blow rainbows up the *** of the working class
forever. But we will continue to vote for whoever does.
But a politician would be commiting political suicide if they didn't just spend the 'surplus' on their special interest groups (unions, corporations, etc.) because everyone thinks it is a pipedream to pay China in full.
MV
""So here's one for you... Why can't we do both? Cut both taxes and spending and use the winnings to pay down the debt"
Well I'm not sure how cutting taxes helps pay down the debt. "We all just woke up to the fact that the Clinton/Dubya surpluses were at least partially a lie." Well, I'd call them Clinton surpluses :) and they were real but they happened because the economy was growing faster than the budget expected.
When you look at the whole budget the largest components are interest on the debt, military, social security and medicare/aid. The rest, discretionary spending is only about 1/6 of the budget, which is why the freeze on that is so unhelpful.
It's hard to reduce the debt payments without, actually paying them. I'd love to see a big decrease in military spending (just compare use to the rest of the world on that). Social security is relatively solvent and given it's structure it's hard to change though it's probably best to raise the age when benefits kick in.
Medicare/aid costs are going up because medical costs are going up. The healthcare debate should be about lowering the costs (though I do think everyone should be covered). E.g., the reduction in Medicare Advantage is purely that, why do we need to subsidize private insurance by 15% when public insurance is doing it cheaper. But no the GOP says Obama is cutting Medicare by $500 billion to scare people. Also I'd like to see the Farm Bill changed so we produce food that doesn't make us sick.
These are all things that would make a big difference. Bunning's $10 billion won't.
Thanks Howard. But, I don't want to get into anything other than this media issue here because I don't see it as worth my time to talk one on one with someone on the internet about politics. No offense, but I just don't have the time. If there is a forum better suited for these discussions, let me know. I like how you can discuss something with a level head. If you ever need a libertarian's point of view just let me know.
The only thing that I have to say about your comment on Bunning is that I didn't say that 10B wouldn't pale in comparison to everything else. But it is death by a thousand papercuts (and this is a big one, regardless of how many times we are hearing the word 'trillion' thrown around) and when people say that his blocking any of this irresponsible money grubbing is a bad thing, it drives me crazy.
MV
Post a Comment