“A Model Of Deception”: For House Republicans, A Game Of Debt Charades
Lawmakers went home for the holidays and got an earful from constituents about their juvenile behavior in Washington.
So, in their first major act of 2012, House Republicans picked up exactly where they left off: They staged a duplicitous debate in which they pretended that they were going to deny President Obama permission to increase the government’s borrowing limit.
The pretense had been clear since last summer, when 174 House Republicans voted for a budget deal that guaranteed that the debt limit would continue to increase this year unless two-thirds of the House and Senate voted otherwise — a practical impossibility.
But that didn’t stop many of those same 174 Republicans from marching to the floor Wednesday afternoon to vote for a resolution “disapproving” of the very same debt-limit increase they had already blessed. It was a model of deception: claiming to oppose something they had guaranteed would take effect.
“My resolution that is before this chamber will send a message that the constant borrowing from our children, our grandchildren, must come to an end,” declared Rep. Tom Reed (N.Y.), one of the 174 Republicans who voted to allow the borrowing last summer.
“During my time in Congress, I voted nine times against raising the debt limit because it was not tied to spending controls. This is another time to say no,” argued Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), who said yes last year to the increase he voted against on Wednesday.
“If we do nothing, American prosperity will drown in debt,” said Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (Pa.), another of the 174 Republicans who had authorized the drowning.
“The culture of Washington must be reformed from the ground up,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) thundered in opposition to the debt-limit increase to which he consented last summer. “The future of our nation depends on it.”
Actually, if the culture of Washington is to be reformed, a good place to start would be for Kinzinger and his colleagues to be more honest about their shenanigans.
The role of calling out Republicans for their two-faced behavior fell on Wednesday to one of their own, conservative Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), who, unlike most of his colleagues, was perfectly consistent: He opposed increasing the limit last year, and he continued to oppose it on Wednesday.
“This vote has been called a charade,” Flake said on the floor. “That is true. It is. Let’s face it.”
Flake, one of the few grownups in the chamber, was not done with his fellow Republicans. “I think we have to admit that even if the Senate had passed the House-passed budget, the so-called Ryan budget, we would still have to raise the debt ceiling,” he reminded them. “I don’t think anybody really disputes that. We are going to have to raise the debt ceiling again and again.”
Then Flake did something truly heretical: He reminded Republicans that “we were headed toward this cliff long before the president took control of the wheel.”
What Flake said was demonstrably true: Both parties created the debt mess, and to fix the problem both would have to be honest. Instead of being honest, however, House Republicans were staging a show so that they could tell voters they opposed the very debt limit hike they had authorized.
Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) accused the Republicans of donning “flip-flops.”
“I do prefer Crocs, if anybody cares,” Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) retorted.
Apparently, most of the 174 Republicans who blessed the debt-limit increase last year were embarrassed about going to the floor to argue against it, because most of those who spoke were from that GOP minority who voted against the debt-limit increase last year, too.
“We should never have passed that Budget Control Act the way we did,” said Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who voted no last summer. As a result, he said, Obama is “raising the debt ceiling without us being able to do a thing about it. We made a big mistake.”
Maybe they made a big mistake. Or maybe they did the right thing last year in reaching an agreement that kept the federal government from defaulting.
Reed, the floor leader for Republicans on Wednesday, wanted to have it both ways. “It’s so important, in my opinion, for the future of this nation, the future of the world,” he pleaded, with an urgency that he apparently lacked last summer. “The national debt is a serious threat to our very existence as an American nation.”
Reed and 232 fellow Republicans then voted to “disapprove” of the debt-limit increase — well short of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto. The House’s first legislative act of 2012 had been utterly pointless — which was just the point.
By: Dana Milbank, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, January 18, 2012
Mitt Romney’s Miserly Concern For The Poor
“I’m concerned about the poor in this country,” Mitt Romney said the other day. “We have to make sure the safety net is strong and able to help those who can’t help themselves.”
I perked up at those words, because they were something of a departure from his usual stump speech and because they happened to come on a day when I had written about the dire implications of Romney’s proposals for the social safety net.
I don’t question his sincerity. The problem: This fine sentiment doesn’t square with his actual policies.
Consider Romney’s support for the budget plan crafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and passed by the Republican House. It would cut Medicaid spending by $700 billion over 10 years, reduce food stamps by $127 billion and cut in half the funding of Pell Grants for low-income college students.
As Fox News’s Chris Wallace usefully pointed out in an interview with Romney last month, “You would cut all of these programs, Governor, that people depend on, and a lot more than that.”
Romney, in response, focused on his proposal for Medicaid. He would turn the program over to the states and allow funding to grow at inflation plus 1 percentage point — significantly less than the historical growth of health-care costs.
“By doing that, you save an enormous amount of money,” Romney said. “I happen to believe that states can do a better job caring for their own poor, rooting out the fraud and waste and abuse that exists within those programs.”
Wallace: “But you don’t think, if you cut $700 billion in aid to the states, that some people are going to get hurt?”
Romney: “By cutting welfare spending dramatically, I don’t think we hurt the poor. In the same way, I think cutting Medicaid spending by having it go to the states, run more efficiently with less fraud, I don’t think will hurt the people that depend on that program for their health care.”
Really? Reforming welfare to encourage work was a good idea, but for those who need temporary help, benefits are increasingly inadequate. Adjusting for inflation, benefits are now below the 1996 level in all but two states. And turning the program into a block grant has meant that states, reeling from the impact of the recession, have been unable to respond adequately to increased needs.
That history is hardly reassuring about Romney’s plan to cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid. But the welfare analogy isn’t the only cause for concern. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), analyzing the Ryan cuts, found that states “would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.”
So much for Romney’s mythical world in which huge cuts can be accomplished with zero harm to the poor and disabled.
Instead, according to the CBO, states would face a menu of unappetizing choices. If they did not want to raise taxes or reduce other spending, they would have to choose among cutting already low provider payments; reducing the benefits that the program covers; or throwing people now eligible for help off the program.
The impact of Romney’s approach on the safety net would go far beyond Medicaid. The brutal arithmetic of his stated plan to cap spending at 20 percent of gross domestic product — while, unlike Ryan, increasing defense funding — is that safety-net programs would have to be chopped significantly beyond where even Ryan would take them.
Romney’s tax plan would exacerbate the unfairness. He would continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and provide extra breaks that would primarily help the rich. According to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, taxpayers with incomes of $1 million or more would see an average tax cut of $287,000 compared to letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
At the same time, Romney would do away with recent increases in the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit — provisions that help low-income families. As a consequence, between 16 and 20 percent of those with incomes of $50,000 or less would actually see their taxes rise under a President Romney.
In other words, Romney would spend hundreds of billions for a tax cut whose benefits flow overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans, even as he would cut even more from programs that help the most vulnerable.
Those skewed priorities are hard to square with Romney’s stated concern, however heartfelt, for the poor. The man from Bain Capital needs to take another look at his figures.
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 