Apparently, their initial budget proposal to cut the deficit got "details"... http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/...2009&base_name=gop_budget_cuts_mostly_fantasy AFTER CRITICIZING OBAMA BUDGET CUTS AS TOO SMALL, GOP CUTS ARE MOSTLY IMAGINARY. Today, the House Republicans sent a letter [PDF] to the president outlining a proposal to save some $375 billion over the next five years from the federal budget. Sounds pretty good, right? Except, predictably enough, $375 billion isn't even close to what would be saved. Looking at the details of the Republican proposal reveals that it only saves about $5 billion a year -- less than a third of what Obama's savings proposal would cut. The administration recently proposed $17 billion in budget cuts [PDF] this year as a down payment on deficit reduction, leading folks in the media and on the Right to criticize the plan for not going far enough to tackle the trillion dollar deficit, which would be larger on average without Obama's policies. At the time, Eric Cantor, the Republican House Whip and the real mover behind a lot of the GOP's congressional strategy, told the president in a somewhat tense meeting that his side would be offering their own ideas on budget savings. Republican Leader John Boehner told reporters that "over the next couple of weeks you’ll have a chance to see what real budget cuts look like.” What do they look like? Well, they look ridiculous! The AP explains what's going on pretty well (and CNN is doing it wrong) but here's a more detailed breakdown of how you get from the Republican claim of $375 billion over five years to the real world number of $23 billion over five years (just $5 billion more than the White House proposal would save in one year). * We'll worry about the specifics later. The GOP proposes capping discretionary spending on a variety of domestic priorities, from veterans to education and roads, which is certainly one way to stop spending, even if it's a foolish one. But the GOP doesn't even bother to specify what programs would get cut. So a "real budget cut" apparently means promising to spend less in the future and not saying how you would do it. The last time the GOP proposed this kind of fuzzy thinking, they were ridiculed by reporters. This proposal is not going to get anywhere in congress, so subtract $317 billion from the GOP number. * What, you're already doing that? The Republicans are promising to use repaid TARP funding for deficit reduction. It's a good idea -- so good, in fact, that it's already worked into the budget. TARP repayments are already set to go back into the Treasury and aren't earmarked for any other purpose. Subtract $45 billion from the GOP number. That leaves us with the $23 billion over five years number, which comes from cutting spending on things like the "Safe Routes to School" program and consolidating other programs. Some of those ideas may even be good, and I hope the administration uses them. But it's completely nuts for Republicans to attack Obama's deficit reduction efforts -- which specifically highlighted exactly how funding would get cut -- and then put forward their own voodoo economics reductions that depend on a future congress agreeing to restrain spending. Sure, that'll happen. When the president announced his cuts, the Washington Post referred to them as "modest trims." I wonder what they'll call the GOP's plan? This isn't the first time the GOP has had trouble with budgets -- there was the aforementioned "alternate budget" whose release was bungled not once but twice (the second bite at the apple occurred on April Fool's Day) and of course the famously fake CBO report about the stimulus legislation. Three strikes and you're out, guys.
The problem is that anybody with the brainpower and integrity to lead effectively is also smart enough to not want the job.
I completely disagree with this. You can game this out at both large and small scales. I know many good people who did not want to become a supervisor and deal with budget and personnel issues and all the crap that comes with it... but they did it because they didn't want the power-hungry egotistical ass down the hall to get the job. Or, they did it because they really felt they could make a difference. I see both dynamics at play in national politics. Unfortunately, there are many jerks who get to those positions to fortify there jerkitude, but there are also many who are there for the right reasons. Whether they can maintain that in the political environment is always an interesting study, but really, your statement is a bit shocking as it is way too cynical for what I think of as your persona. Think about it... you're saying Reagan was either dumb or lacked integrity? Hmmmm. OK, well, maybe you are right there.
By the way, here's more GOP brainpower on display... I give you Representative Todd Akin discussing global warming... pay particular attention to the appeal to authority at the end... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ObP1K-7nwv4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ObP1K-7nwv4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
We are decades removed from politicians that actually cared about what is best for the country. In today's world, the only thing that matters is continually getting re-elected and perpetuating power. The main difference I can tell between the Dems and the Reps is the rhetoric that they believe will secure their re-election. Sorry if it seems cynical and jaded, but with how Washington has operated over the last 30 years...cynical and jaded may be synonymous with accurate.
You are no more cynical than I am, but you make the mistake of (rhetorically) deifying leaders of decades past. This is a common mistake. Time removes a lot of flaws.
You can argue GOP vs. Dem all day long, that's what they want you to do. Meanwhile, both parties are spending us into oblivion. There is no reason, on God's green earth, the government should be spending the kind of money it is is spending on the things it is spending it on and is still not able to get results. Example: Education, people attack our educational system all day long and ask for more funding, it's not just funding, it's the fact that we as voters elect idiots to run these things. It's people in the Senate who didn't see any of the housing crisis coming and don't take any fault for it, it's the evil CEOs fault (and some of those are to blame), but seriously, man up, take some responsibility. I'm not trying to be political, it's called commen sense here. There are hundreds of people in Washington called our "elected representatives" who are absolute failures, and while some of you like to argue GOP vs. Dem, these people run amuck and do whatever the hell they want with our money. That's what we need to wake up to.
I'm not sure this is entirely the case. I think both Obama and George H.W. Bush had enough of both. That doesn't mean they won't make mistakes or bad decisions, but I think they both have plenty of smarts and integrity.
I simply disagree. I think that, if the opportunity presented itself, both H.W. Bush and Obama would turn their back on their principles in the name of political expediency and enough dollars flowing into their respective re-election campaigns.
