A bipartisan forum to address the federal deficit problem in Denver Friday was supposed to be headlined by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall. But the pair was stuck Washington while Congress tried to avert a looming government shutdown over federal spending.
...
Former Colorado U.S. Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and current co-chair of the President Obama's bi-partisan deficit commission Alan "Snoopy Poop" Simpson, R-Wyo., then led a panel intertwined with local CEO's, military veterans and small business owners to discuss the nation's fiscal condition.
Sen. Hart said there are certain key areas of focus when it comes to the federal deficit: social security, Medicare, Medicad and the military.
"Those are the key components," said Hart "You have to deal with each of those things."
One would hope Gary Hart is smarter than to believe the misplaced conventional wisdom that SS contributes in any way to our current fiscal problems. Those who spout it want to kill the program, but it doesn't affect the deficit and there are many sources that say so:
So, now that House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan has unveiled his steaming tightly coiled pile of a budget the argument in the media is starting. It is to be strongly hoped that the Traditional Media outlets will look at the facts of this budget.
You know the little problems like the draconian cuts are not going to actual deficit reduction because they are being used to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Just to raise your blood pressure a little this morning, let me give you and example. Under this budget a single person making $75,000 a year (a nice chunk of change) would pay the same tax rates as people who make multiple millions a year.
Another issue that has to be brought up again and again is that this budget would gut the newly minted financial regulations, would gut the EPA, would gut the Social Security Administration (setting up the argument that it is poorly run and needs to be ended all together) as well as ending Medicare and Medicaid as we know them within ten years.
As if all that shite were not enough, there is the fact that like all of the proposals that Rep. Ryan puts forward, the numbers don't work. He assumes that if we pass his budget in 4 years, just 48 months, the unemployment rate will fall to 4%.
I'd love that to happen, but I have this mental defect, I can't get behind something that has no basis in reality, or as in this case is actually counter factual. Over the last two years the only thing that has kept the economy afloat was major federal spending. Business is sitting on 1.4 trillion in cash and has shown no sign of wanting to use it to stimulate demand. Rep. Ryan wants to slash hundreds of billions from the budget every year for the next decade. Is there really anyone out there who thinks that the resultant loss of jobs is going to improve the growth rate or the unemployment numbers?
If there was anything to this, then we would have had the boom that Rep. Ryan and the Heritage Foundation both predicted from the original Bush tax cuts. Instead of job growth we lost 600,000 private sector jobs in that time period. I think we have been "trickled down" upon enough to show that it is insane and does not work.
There is one piece of the Republican push that I do agree with; there is no plan from the Democrats, yet. For all its flaws (and lets face it they are legion) the Republicans have put forward an ideological marker for budgets. Everyone can see they want to slash government at the expense of the young, the poor and the elderly. I think it is more than a little bit of political suicide, but this is what you get when the inmates run the asylum as has happened with the modern Republican Party.
It seems like a never ending story. We're on the brink of a government shut down, due to the complete and utter intransigence of the Republicans (you can't call it anything else when the Dems have caved and caved again and there is still no deal) to take anything but the completely arbitrary 61 billion in cuts and the riders that would defund EPA's control of greenhouse gasses (which Congress refused to make legislation on) and Heads Start and Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting (both NPR and PBS).
They insist, loudly and contrary to the facts, that this will improve our economy by reducing the deficit. When confronted with the fact that it this budget would cost between 200,000 and 1 million jobs, this year, Speaker Boehner (Spray Tan, OH) said "So be it".
Before this fight is even done the Republicans, in the form of Rep. Paul Ryan, are introducing their budget resolution. It would cut4 trillion ($4,000,000,000,000,000)in federal spending over the next 10 years.
Take a minute to think about that. We are talking about draconian cuts to programs that really help the middle class at an annualized rate of 100 billion this year (that is what the 61 billion the Republicans want to cut would be over a full year), and this guy wants to cut 400 billion a year in spending over the next 10 years.
Of course, this is the same Rep. Ryan who last year proposed a deficit reduction plan that was spread over 50 years and at the end of that time would not have balanced the budget. It is hard to understand how anyone can take someone like this seriously. I guess it comes down to the fact that he is the highest ranking Republican in budget matters so when he speaks, even if it is gibberish, it is news.
Bondeism started as a way for me to highlight the nitwittery of the Republicans in the 111th Congress. They say and do really gob smacking things and I post about comparing them to that gormless but loveable hillbilly Jethro Bodine. But I have to wonder if I have actually, through some unintended and accidental sorcery called this disease into reality (I'm probably taking too much on myself with that, still)?
It is one thing to misinterpret the Constitution, it is open for interpretation and people can be honestly wrong, but it is quit another for a Member of Congress in a leadership position to propose action that is completely outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Which is exactly what Eric Cantor is doing.
He is proposing and will force the House to bring to a vote a measure he is calling the "Government Shutdown Prevention Act". What this Act will say is that if the Senate does not pass a budget measure by April 6th, then HR 1, the Republicans draconian and job slaughtering bill (which, by the way the Senate has already voted down) will become the law of the land.
I hear you all going "But, but, but... Doesn't the Senate have to pass a bill and the President sign it for it to be law?" Why, yes, yes it does. It seems that the raven haired, square jawed Virginia Republican who is the House Majority Leader does not understand how the body he has been part of for a decade now works.
If there were an "All Time Jethro Bodineism Award" it is certain that Rep. Cantor would be earning himself a place in the nominees. It is easy to dismiss this as insane and a stunt, but I see a bigger picture emerging among Republicans nation wide.
The lawless behavior of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin has shown that he and his Republicans have a shocking disregard for the laws of their state. They have broken and bent the rules to pass their union busting bill and have even defied a court order in the implementation of the law.
From 1978 to 1999, federal, state, and local governments in the US spent:
$932 billion on highways
$195 billion on aviation
$18 billion on rail
Amount that RTD had to cut from its budget this year: $18 million
Amount that the State of Colorado and Jefferson and Broomfield Counties have spent on the Jefferson Parkway without even producing an EIS, let alone built any road: $17 million
There's a lot of ways to be petty and cheap and stupid, and a lot of ways to stick it to a program you don't like, and by extension, the clients of that program...and this week the House Republicans have embarked on an effort to combine the two into one petty, cheap, and stupid way to stick it to the clients of Social Security and the workers who administer the program.
They're going to sell it to you, if they can, as a way to "lower the deficit", or words similar...but what this is really about is making the actual Social Security program work less well-because, after all, if a program is popular today, the best way to make it less so is to apply a bit of "treat 'em like their cars were impounded" to every interaction customers have with the system.
And what better way to make sure that happens...then to aggressively demoralize everyone who works down at the ol' Social Security office?
Botton line: he took to the insider DC game like a duck to water and was lucky enough to run against a schizophrenic Republican Tea Party to actually win a full-term as one of our state's most prominent civil servants.
The new Congress has now been at work for two months, and that distressing dynamic is now in play in Washington (do we reallllllly deserve what we vote for?), which leads me to this question:
ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper hosts a very special roundtable discussion with exclusive appearances by Governor Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., Gov. Deval Patrick, D-Mass., Gov. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., and Gov. Nikki Haley, R-SC, to discuss the federal and state budget crises and constituent responses to the shortages.
Bless his soul, Deval Patrick is a true Democrat. But I'm guessing Hick will be hard to distinguish between the Tea Party/Republican governors in the discussion:
I'm sure he won't talk TABOR, it's destructive legacy and how even an economic boom won't be able to fix the damage it has done to our state budget or the fact that businesses keep pushing for more tax breaks.
Those things are obvious. What I am afraid of is Hick will be another in a long line of Colorado Democratic Leaders (I almost put "Democrat" cuz I'm so tired of their wimpiness) that would be ashamed to run as Republicans yet can't find the principle to stand up for truly democratic - and Democratic! values - even as those who live and represent those values knock on the door and stare them in the face.
So the latest talking point about Governor Hickenlooper's horrible budget proposal is that "he got the conversation going" and "even he knows TABOR is bad". Almost every other caller to Mario's show on the subject contains those points, yet none of those callers have picked up on the obvious point that Mario keeps making: the Governor has shown no leadership on the issue, is doing no heavy lifting and has done few of the things he could unilaterally do to help the situation.
The biggest problem in this is that Hick won't even address the virulence of TABOR, when "everyone" knows it's a problem. Well, everyone knows this but the Governor.
But guess what? Even Colorado businesses, whom Hick is trying to tepidly placate, know it's a problem:
Colorado Business and Community Leaders View TABOR as Deeply Flawed
A wide range of Coloradans -- business leaders, higher education officials, children's advocates, legislators of both parties, and Former Governor Bill Owens (R), among others -- recognize that TABOR has limited the state's ability to fund critical services:
"Coloradans were told in 1992 . . . that [TABOR] guaranteed them a right to vote on any and all tax increases. . . . What the public didn't realize was that it would contain the strictest tax and spending limitation of any state in the country, and long-term would hobble us economically." -- Tom Clark, Executive Vice President, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation
I can't find the link now, but Colorado businesses went so far as to write a letter in opposition to TABOR to a state that was considering its passage. (I think it was Maine.)
So: Everyone "knows" TABOR is bad. Everyone says Hickenlooper "knows" this. And everyone "knows" Hickenlooper just wanted to start a budget conversation by dumping on Colorado's schools and students.
So how come Hick doesn't know what business knows in Colorado: that we need to eliminate TABOR and start fairly* taxing the rich to put our entire house, not just business, in order for the next generation of Coloradans.
Across our Nation, parents and educators are fighting against top down plans implemented by Sec. of Education Arne Duncan such as 'Race to the Top' and sudden school closings and teacher lay offs.
Now, a line in the sand is being drawn on this issue in Denver, Colorado as a recall effort has been mounted against School Board Member Nate Easley - specifically over his conflict of interest in employment and neglecting to listen and meet with concerned parents of Northeast Denver.
This recall will pit grassroots organizers against the 'reforms' that close schools from this administration and its Sec. of Education, Arne Duncan and will be the example to other boards who want to stop these reforms.
But this recall does not just threaten one Denver Public School Board member, but goes much higher up - even the President has been brought in for political cover in the State of the Union. (No one from the school he mentions was in the audience for the SOTU - every other honoree was in attendance, almost like a last minute addition )
There are many points of view on the new trends in so-called 'School Reform' efforts happening all around the country.
The epicenter of this issue is being decided currently in Denver Colorado, as a recall effort has been mounted against School Board Member Nate Easley over proposed reforms that are closing schools.
This effort has attracted national attention as a test of whether traditionally Democratic institutions like the Teachers' Union will send a message that voting against the Teachers will cost politicians their office and position.
But this story does not just end with one Denver Public School Board member's recall. This issue goes back several years and involves a DPS budget scandal that involves former Superintendent Michael Bennet and Current Superintendent Tom Boasberg and is a commentary on the top down way in which Arne Duncan is radically changing our education system.
Republicans have a real problem. Well, they have a lot of them but we are not talking about moral, genetic or hygienic problems, we're talking about a political problem. They pulled a fast one with their double round of tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. At the time we were told (against all evidence, and common sense) that if we cut the tax rate for the ultra-wealthy, if we allowed them to pass on their enormous wealth to their heirs without taxing it that there would be a robust economy, that millions and millions of jobs would be created. It was the old trickle down economy idea, dressed up for the big time.
The thing was even their own numbers showed that any positive effect would be wiped out in 10 years and then it would become a major problem in terms of budgets. So rather than face the music and the voters with this news, the Republicans put a sunset provision in the bill. It would only last 10 years, then revert to the same level of tax that the Clinton economic expansion had. This all looked pretty sweet to Republicans. They would be able to move the burden of paying for government to from wealth to work, and would have a whole decade to get these cuts made permanent.
It's high time that I give my own explanation of the recent financial forensics that my Board minority colleagues (Kaplan and Jimenez) and I have recently been working on.
Let me say that we don't believe that there was anything nefarious going on, and we actually support the original intent of having gotten involved with these financial transactions. However, we've gotten into a pattern in which we're not being clear about the amount of money we may be losing that is supposed to be going into the classroom.
I've always believed that the first step to fixing a problem is to admit that you have one in the first place.
