Republicans have been looking to the administration to shrink the size of government, reduce the deficit by cutting services and encourage hiring by cutting taxes. Soon, the president will release the budget, and we are expected to see scalpel-like precision in how he will cut spending by reducing redundancies and waste. For the president, who is desperately trying to move right of center, and the Republicans who are looking to starve the government into submission, nothing is sacred (except maybe Medicare, Social Security and Defense).
The contentious relationship that both parties had leading up the Midterm elections created a lot of DOA Bills (my characterization) that would face a united Republican opposition on the floor of the Senate. The Senate was where Bills would go to die. While the lame-duck session showed that pre-election stubbornness may lead to cooperation, the new Congress has not shown signs of improving. Party line votes continue in the house, where the Republicans have symbolically voted to repeal Obamacare. Senate majority leader Reid has already ensured that the bill will not be introduced to the floor. Same game, different party. They get $174,000/yr to essentially ensure that they get that same paycheck 2-6 yrs later. Waste of my money and time.
On the topic of waste of time and money, the TEA party caucus poster boy, Rand Paul (R-KY) has released his budget proposal. While the Republicans have promised to cut $60-100 billion this year, Paul wants to cut $500 billion. And he's totally serious, especially because he has a monopoly on support from really angry people who think emotion, god and guns are the way to govern. But, his proposal is not based in reality. There is a big, fat, obvious line between starving the government and taking it out back and pulling an "old yeller" as Paul is suggesting. So, this budget, which he spent so much wasted time on will not budge beyond the paper it was written on.
The following numbers come from a Washington Examiner article:
Legislative Branch: $1.283 billion (23%)
Judicial Branch: $2.434 billion (32%)
Agriculture: $42.542 billion (30%)
Commerce: $5.322 billion (54%)
Defense: $47.5 billion (6.5% - WOW...that means our Def budget is over $730 billion!)
Education: $78 billion (83%)
Energy: $44.2 billion (100% - Nuclear is shifted to DOD)
Health and Human Service: $26.51 billion (26%)
Homeland Security: $23.765 billion (43%)
Housing and Urban Development: $53.1 billion (100%)
Interior: $10.934 billion (78%)
Justice: $9.057 billion (28%)
Labor: $2.803 billion (2%)
State: $20.321 billion (71%)
Transportation: $42.81 billion (49%)
Veterans: No Cuts
Corps of Engineers: $1.854 billion (27%)
EPA: $3.238 billion (29%)
General Services: $1.936 billion (85%)
International Assistance: $24.3 billion (100%)
NASA: $4.5 billion (25%)
National Science Foundation: $4.723 billion (62%)
Office of Personnel Management: $9.07 billion
Social Security Admin: No Cuts
FCC: $2.15 billion (22%)
ABOLISH: Affordable Housing, Consumer on Fine Arts, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for Arts, National Endowment for Humanities and State Justice Institute - $2.05 billion
Misc: $44.581 billion
I respect Paul for his ideological orthodoxy. But symbolic gestures like Paul's budget waste time. A lot of his proposed cuts are political nonstarters (cuts in Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, International Assistance, State Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Commerce) because they are linked to long term strategic goals accepted by a majority of both parties. Cuts in Agriculture will stymie economic recovery in rural states, cuts in Homeland Security, Defense, State and International Assistance will hugely affect creating stability in Afghanistan and the Middle East, abolishing Housing completely will create a larger population of homeless and any cuts in Commerce will slow down our economic recovery. Straight abolition of departments in the government, like Energy, Housing and Education, are still considered politically taboo and part of a fringe element.
Rand - If you want to seriously reduce the deficit and government spending, please introduce some common-sense budgets. If not, relegate yourself to the side, give up your salary and stop wasting my time. Then, Congress can get back to business (whatever it does...) and agree (pending a party-line vote) to accept two irrelevant members from the Paul family.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Michael Steele's False Sense of Entitlement
Michael Steele was elected as Chairman of the Republican National Committee less than a week after Barak Obama was elected president. The former Maryland Lieutenant governor was picked as an outsider to distance the Republic Party from the Bush Administration and its catastrophic defeats in the midterm elections of 2006 and the presidential election of 2008. Republicans wanted to reshape their image as a party that could elect a diverse group of internal directors while keeping to its conservative ideologies.
In the months leading up to the 2010 Midterm elections, Steele made some public gaffes that angered the base. His biggest mistake was calling the Afghan war "a War of Obama's choosing." On the face of it, the statement is true. But, its implications were much bigger: a declaration by the representative of the Republican Party showing that opposition to the administration was fair game even when it came to matters of National Security, Terrorism and the War on Terror not because it was inefficient, but because it had the Obama name to it. The use of a "surge" tactic by the Administration was supported by Republican Congressman, and this message showed an ignorance to the origins of the Afghan War (Bush Admin) and the implications of the Afghan War (National Security). Most importantly, it gave the perception that the Republican Party might value political partisanship over something as important as National Security.
His also had management and fiscal mistakes. His chief of staff and other aides were fired after using $2,000 of RNC money at a nightclub in West Hollywood. He also accumulated $20 million in debt with the RNC and lost many donors, catching the ire of the Republican base.
But, on the positive side he engineered the capture of the House of Representatives and major gains in gubernatorial races all over the country. And, he created a Republican 50-state strategy, including Democrat bulwarks that barely held or lost their seats.
Or did he?
While he can take credit for returning the House to Republican control, it was not his strategy that created such a result. Republican congressman like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan took the helm in creating strategic language to show a massive divide between the goals of the Democratic-controlled Congress, the Administration and the Public. With the help of extremists like Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Dick Armey, the TEA Party arose as a standard bearer for conservative orthodoxy. The administrations fight over the healthcare bill and the perceived notion that they were ignoring the flailing economy worked well for Republicans in the midterm elections. Armed with filibuster, death panels, Obamacare, socialism, mounting debts, bailouts and Government Motors the Republicans Party took back the House from the Democrats and seriously reduced their majority in the Senate. Whether it was grassroots or astroturf, it did not happen because of the leadership of Micheal Steele.
In the months leading up to the 2010 Midterm elections, Steele made some public gaffes that angered the base. His biggest mistake was calling the Afghan war "a War of Obama's choosing." On the face of it, the statement is true. But, its implications were much bigger: a declaration by the representative of the Republican Party showing that opposition to the administration was fair game even when it came to matters of National Security, Terrorism and the War on Terror not because it was inefficient, but because it had the Obama name to it. The use of a "surge" tactic by the Administration was supported by Republican Congressman, and this message showed an ignorance to the origins of the Afghan War (Bush Admin) and the implications of the Afghan War (National Security). Most importantly, it gave the perception that the Republican Party might value political partisanship over something as important as National Security.
His also had management and fiscal mistakes. His chief of staff and other aides were fired after using $2,000 of RNC money at a nightclub in West Hollywood. He also accumulated $20 million in debt with the RNC and lost many donors, catching the ire of the Republican base.
But, on the positive side he engineered the capture of the House of Representatives and major gains in gubernatorial races all over the country. And, he created a Republican 50-state strategy, including Democrat bulwarks that barely held or lost their seats.
Or did he?
While he can take credit for returning the House to Republican control, it was not his strategy that created such a result. Republican congressman like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan took the helm in creating strategic language to show a massive divide between the goals of the Democratic-controlled Congress, the Administration and the Public. With the help of extremists like Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Dick Armey, the TEA Party arose as a standard bearer for conservative orthodoxy. The administrations fight over the healthcare bill and the perceived notion that they were ignoring the flailing economy worked well for Republicans in the midterm elections. Armed with filibuster, death panels, Obamacare, socialism, mounting debts, bailouts and Government Motors the Republicans Party took back the House from the Democrats and seriously reduced their majority in the Senate. Whether it was grassroots or astroturf, it did not happen because of the leadership of Micheal Steele.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Obama's Speech at Arizona Memorial Service
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Friday, January 7, 2011
Montana Pushes Coal Exports through Washington to China
This creates a zero sum game in regards to global greenhouse gas reduction goals. Here are some misconceptions put in recent articles about Montana coal and Washington:
Seattle gets most of its power from hydro and the rest from a mix of solar, wind and natural gas. In fact, the entire state of WA only get 17% of its electricity from coal. Seattle does not get coal power from Montana, as Gov Schweitzer says.
Millennium Logistics, a subsidiary of Ambre Energy: "there will be no net increase in GHG emissions in the state of WA." False. You might not be burning the coal, but you will have to increase rail traffic. And, unless they cover the cars (which they won't) you will have a dramatic increase in particulate pollution. While it is not GHG technically, particulates are a public health risk (respiratory illness, etc).
Gov. Schweitzer also said that Montana has "relatively clean coal." False. Montana coal is low-sulfur sub-bituminous, which is one step above lignite. Lignite is practically caked detritus and is terrible in quality. Sub-bituminous PRB coal from Montana burns at around 8,000 BTU, which is much lower than bituminous coal from Illinois Basin or Appalachia. This means they need to burn more of it to achieve the same power output. PRB coal also tends to catch fire when sitting in piles, unless properly stored. The dust from the coal also tends to create secondary combustion, which could cause damage in transport or at the facility. None of that can be remotely characterized as "clean."
Seattle gets most of its power from hydro and the rest from a mix of solar, wind and natural gas. In fact, the entire state of WA only get 17% of its electricity from coal. Seattle does not get coal power from Montana, as Gov Schweitzer says.
Millennium Logistics, a subsidiary of Ambre Energy: "there will be no net increase in GHG emissions in the state of WA." False. You might not be burning the coal, but you will have to increase rail traffic. And, unless they cover the cars (which they won't) you will have a dramatic increase in particulate pollution. While it is not GHG technically, particulates are a public health risk (respiratory illness, etc).
Gov. Schweitzer also said that Montana has "relatively clean coal." False. Montana coal is low-sulfur sub-bituminous, which is one step above lignite. Lignite is practically caked detritus and is terrible in quality. Sub-bituminous PRB coal from Montana burns at around 8,000 BTU, which is much lower than bituminous coal from Illinois Basin or Appalachia. This means they need to burn more of it to achieve the same power output. PRB coal also tends to catch fire when sitting in piles, unless properly stored. The dust from the coal also tends to create secondary combustion, which could cause damage in transport or at the facility. None of that can be remotely characterized as "clean."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)