Cathy McMorris, as part of her leadership role as House Republican Caucus Vice Chair, responds to Obama's stimulus-based outreach:
The emphasis on Republican desire to work with Obama - even if they disagree with legislation in current form - as well as a clear expression of what they hope to accomplish, rather than what they oppose, is excellent.
Dave Reichert weighs in with a similar theme:
This is a time for smart, accountable, and targeted investments to get our economy back on track, not more of the same shotgun spending that mortgages our children's futures.[snip]
To stimulate the economy and preserve, promote, and create jobs, we must enact proven measures like broad-based tax relief for families and small businesses, opening new markets to trade, and investing wisely in infrastructure. Those are the things that will get our economy moving and create jobs for people in our nation.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure so that we can work together with President Obama, who has reached out to the Republican side and has encouraged us to provide our input, our ideas and our thoughts, to craft effective legislation that gets our economy back on track.
Again, even though opposition to gross, ineffective spending is noted, the emphasis is on a forward-looking agenda.
That's the right way to communicate, given that some media coverage will inevitably look like this heartache: GOP-Obama love affair fizzles...or be even much less flattering. You know, "Ignorant Republicans oppose Messiah's hope-n-change for economic salvation," etc., etc...which is only a slightly edited version of a future New York Times headline.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 27, 2009 08:14 PM | Email Thissadly, in complete concurrence on all fronts...love my country, but i feel that same fear on the approach & assisting of a drowning person---intend help, but know he can grab my head & take us both down...that "car over the cliff & we're in the back seat" feeling;
i can do MY part fiscally, but the gov-mint waters rush over us too fast;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 27, 2009 09:01 PMand still billions of foreign aid to countries who hate us...wormwood for the teat, I say...cut all & let countries help themselves for a change...bootstraps...don't training wheels come off of bikes?
it's on both sides--YOU are foolish enough to play into their D & R game--divide & conquer, not look at ALL the elected with a close objective glass...like our Founding Fathers would have...
Now the Dems have to make cuts, or raise taxes to keep us from going over the cliff, and it is time for the GOP crybabies to scream bloody murder.
Shame on them. The Republicns had total control of all 3 branches, and then went ahead and doubled our national debt, and we have nothing to show for it but piles of debt for our kids.
Jack Abramoff's buddies are living large though...
Posted by: Action Jackson on January 27, 2009 09:31 PMYou're simply more proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder. And that is the more forgiving scenario for someone like you, with the alternative explanation something far more sinister. No point challenging the assertions that you're making, as every charge you make is riddled with lies and distortions of history and reality. Only people equally ignorant and suffering from BDS don't see through your lies. And only other trolls would buy it here.
Posted by: Reality on January 27, 2009 09:52 PMWhen you hear Republicans gushing about working with Obama you know they're about to cave.
What the Republicans should be pushing is massive tax cuts, something like 50%, in personal and corporate income taxes before we slip into Depression #2.
An excellent article by Thomas Sowell in IBD makes the case for tax cuts over New Deal type programs:
"If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.
If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.
None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.
No matter how many times President Obama tells us that these "extraordinary times" call for "swift action," the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.
If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?
One important clue may be a recent statement by the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin.
Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.
That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly.
What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending?
They are buying what politicians are most interested in power.
In the name of protecting the taxpayers' investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=317863164568905&type=right
Posted by: Bill K. on January 27, 2009 10:48 PM
He thinks that it is his business to tell people who they can and who they cannot listen too.
He is issuing Executive Orders more like the Edicts of a King, rather than providing true leadership.
"I WON" says a lot about his attitude and view that he has while looking down his nose.
And now there is some kind of gag order so that those who oppose him will not criticize him, when did the democrat brats ever extend any cease fire on their criticism of President Bush? NEVER, in fact I remember hearing Hillary screaming out something like "How dare you tell me that I can not criticize my governmment and Bush".
What really needs to stop is the double standards. There is no way that this would be happening if we had a black Republican voted into office.
Posted by: SeattleSon on January 28, 2009 12:19 AMBoth parties seem to be focused on doing bad things like spend as fast as we can or meaningless things like cutting taxes (if cut taxes, then it just means more inflation which has the same affect on people).
Posted by: lysander on January 28, 2009 04:48 AMalso sat in on many an exec strategic meeting discussing moving someones's op's to Singapore & Ireland who had 10% or low tax rates back then; sure, labor was a factor, but the crushing taxes were a prime player, albeit not the only one.
nope--not convinced this New Deal fandango sure-to-fail spending will work; look at history; didn't back then; political parties aside; pol's are not businesspeople; their real-life grasp of the big econ picture and all ripple effects is--at best--poor & at worst, wreckless.
It's not the party--it's the actual voting records on issues that drives me. Screw the party loyalty thing. Look for the so-called public servants that further YOUR cause, yet do the best overall for America. The twain do not often meet.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 28, 2009 06:14 AM
First, the 9/11 recession was small potatoes compared to this one - so your analogy is completely off. Try thinking about bank collapses in the great depression and unemployment skyrocketing. Not to mention the fact that Bush ignored his own regulators.
The GOP supported the huge bank bailout - but won't support jobs for working people? You guys have a death wish and you will be losing popularity for a generation:
The numbers already show what people think:
Support for Obamas stimulus package 77%
Support for obstructionist republicans:
Boehner 20%
McConell 24%
Yup - you guys are down to the 20% true believers. Eveyone else has seen what a mess Bush has left our country in.
Republicans think reality begins and ends on their front door. Speaking of "reality" - what an idiot! You republicans were the same people bleating during the campaign about how the economy was sound. How wrong you were then and how wrong you are now.
And playing the blame game can backfire. You revisionists may be trying to blame the democrats for what Phil Gramm did (he wrote the damn bills that allowed the credit shuffle for banks - along with his buddies, the banking lobbyists).
I have already documented this numerous times. He was for deregulation of the banks. I didn't notice an any democrats yammering on about how great deregulation was. Typical republican atittude, fail to take responsibility for your mistakes and try to blame the other guy.
That is exactly why you guys have been rejected.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 28, 2009 07:08 AMPlease explain your rationale, in your thoughts. Just because Ron Paul stated it, doesn't make it a good idea. Come on. Step up to the plate and defend why this idea has merit. What would it accomplish?
Posted by: tc on January 28, 2009 07:19 AMFirst, the 9/11 recession was small potatoes compared to this one - so your analogy is completely off. Try thinking about bank collapses in the great depression and unemployment skyrocketing.
Republicans think reality begins and ends on their front door. Speaking of "reality" - what an idiot! You republicans were the same people bleating during the campaign about how the economy was sound. How wrong you were then and how wrong you are now.
And playing the blame game can backfire. You revisionists may be trying to balme the democrats for what Phi Gramm did (he wrote the damn bills that allowed the credit shuffle for banks - along with his buddies, the banking lobbyists).
I have already documented this numerous times.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 28, 2009 07:24 AMTo balance the budget immediately would mean: (1) do nothing in regards to any sort of stimulus package, (2) Pull all our troops back home, since we do not have the money to conduct the wars, and (3) drastic cuts in military overall, since due to set obligations elsewhere, the defense budget is the only area of size to make up the difference. On the last point, you could cut all non-defense and non entitlements spending to zero and only come close to what you propose. To balance the budget, like you state the biggee's (e.g., entitlements and defense) have to be looked at.
Of course, this also means the economy is left to its own devices. In fact, we are all left out on our own. No money to fix crumbling roads. No money to prosecute or imprison criminals. Forget about pursuing those who cheat on their taxes, there wouldn't be money for tax enforcement. The list can go on. Many do not realize all that the government does do for us quietly behind the scenes.
Tell me Rick, where exactly do you propose to cut, if you were king for a day, to actually balance the current deficit. Would you touch defense? How would you actually touch entitlements? Would you continue to spend the billions per day to conduct wars oversee?
Like I started out with, I don't disagree with you on a long term proposal. I just don't see how it gets us out of the current mess we are in, let alone turns the economy around.
Posted by: tc on January 28, 2009 07:31 AMIf you want a pork barrel, New Deal or earmarks, then package it as that and not as a stimulus. Republicans, Eric, have to stand up to Obama and criticize the package Pelosi has put forth. But, also, like you said, Rs have to come forth with their own stimulus.
Ideas I have heard include temorary suspension of the payroll taxes to stimulate business and put more money into the employees pocket.
I have also heard of the idea of giving a 10-25k tax credit on the purchase of a new house. And really, wasn't it the burst of the housing bubble the end result of what we are facing today. True, too many houses were being built to sustain long term, but today there are none being built. A stimulus could bring it to manageable levels.
These two are knock 'em dead (i.e. they will immediately work) stimuli.
Posted by: swatter on January 28, 2009 07:39 AMWSJ conclusion from this piece:
''This bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group.''
Deja vu all over again.
For the full story see:
40-Year (D) Wish List
"2) Pull all our troops back home, since we do not have the money to conduct the wars"
There would be provisions for wartime and emergency expenditures, like say recessions (as there were in several forms of the bill proposed in 1982).
"3) drastic cuts in military overall, since due to set obligations elsewhere, the defense budget is the only area of size to make up the difference."
Not true. Health and Human services is the largest (and growing exponentially) area of Government spending.
"Tell me Rick, where exactly do you propose to cut, if you were king for a day, to actually balance the current deficit. Would you touch defense?"
Yes, and I would touch HHS just as much if not more.
"How would you actually touch entitlements?"
For one, I wouldn't do what Obama is doing by exporting abortion
(uh, err "family planning"- See eugenics) through executive order my second full day in office subsidized by U.S. Taxpayer'$ money.
Nice to see he has his priorities for this Nation in order, right tc?
In Operation Iraqi Freedom there are 4,212 US dead and 30,934 wounded in action. There are a minimum of 90,000 Iraqi civilian deaths related to the action. After nearly 6 years of activity there is not a functional stable regional government in place.
In Operation Enduring Freedom there are 638 US dead and 2,679 wounded in action. There are a minimum of 9,200 Afghani civilian deaths related to the action. After more than 7 years of activity there is a shell of a functional regional government that will likely cease to exist soon after coalition forces leave.
Yet, the Republicans still allow their leadership to lead news conferences with objections to the dispensing of condoms and digital television converters as primary deal breakers in drafting and signing legislation to move forward.
In the face of a complete failure of public policy and a backward looking ideology, the emphasis has got to be on a forward-looking agenda. The past and the present only illustrate what does not work.
Posted by: Acid Brain on January 28, 2009 11:17 AMand please don't point me to Ron Paul...I know him...I like him...his ideas are inspiring...though he's not much of a leader.
Posted by: Tracy on January 28, 2009 11:52 AMNow explain to us how a fiat currency is good for us.
Posted by: Lysander on January 28, 2009 12:34 PMdo you run a business? what kind? how long? success? do you consult w/ real small businesses EVERY DAY? how long? have you worked in the big boy finance industry of multinationals too? how long?
look--disagree on topics & leave it there like gentlemen/gentlewomen; hurling spitballs tells me you are a victim & like it & I will be taxed more for supporting a legion of gov-victims and not the REAL entrenpreneurs I love; what say you?
ps--if i'm wrong and have a "little limited view," look at CA--a Petri dish of all that's wrong with things; generous disability & workers comp bene's; over-regulation; high taxes; bi-lingual crap; eco-rules out of control or reasonable balance; spending on excessively-generous social bene's; no immigration enforcement; all there as a test sample for a bigger example, the U.S.; so--take a prototype like CA and extrapolate to the U.S.
your turn? look at your own checkbook--did you take on more personal debt to spend more and "stimulate" your own economy? i bet you don't...
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 28, 2009 06:22 PM