Just when I had hopes that the Republicans would actually correct their path and set the government down the road to prosperity, low and behold it appears nothing has changed.
House Republicans have hired a prominent conservative attorney to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a pending lawsuit, legal sources say, and will make an effort to divert money from the Justice Department to fund its high-profile fight.
First off, I’ll point out that this isn’t really adding to the deficit, since the money (should) be one to one. What would have financed defending the DOMA by the Justice Department will now go to defend the DOMA by the hand of Congress.
By why the hell is Boehner picking right now, of all times, to trumpet spending on social issues? Or decisively choosing to only target liberal favorites?
If anything, Boehner should just move to defund the law, like he is with healthcare, and stick the Justice Department with the deficit. Or else try to run through legislation condemning the Obama Administration for trying to decide which laws it wants to enforce. Slap them up a bit, with legislative punishments.
But by insisting the law be paid for, at this particular time, just reinforces what most on the left are already starting to suspect. Pissing money away is just dandy when the right does it.
Nancy Pelosi’s part to play in all of this is the best.
“I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged,” Pelosi’s letter said. She also asked for details on the reported hiring of Paul D. Clement, a former solicitor general, specifically when a contract was signed and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee on House Administration.
I see she’s a regular libertarian-style fiscal conservative when she can’t send kickbacks to all her friends and connections. But the sad thing here is that I’m on her side.
Someone euthanize me.
What this really reminds me of is that I can’t trust anyone in our government, whether they’re on the right or left. If Republicans were really interested in getting the finances of Congress in order, they’d volunteer some of their own pet projects, many of which are just as pointless and stupid, up for the chopping block.
Take for instance, the Defense Budget.
You’re telling me Republicans cannot find one cent to slash from that budget?
Dr. Robert Gates himself pointed out something like $10 billion that could be slashed from unnecessary R&D and military programs that way outweigh anything we need right now. The Osprey and F/A-18 programs, for instance. Accompany that with a 2% reduction in the broader military budget ($685 billion in 2010) and you have an additional $12 billion.
Put that $20 billion or so up for the Democrats, if they can match it with cuts in their stupid entitlement crap, and you can probably save between $40-50 billion, easy.
Remind me what the target price was for saving (less than that), that we’ve been wasting months over?
It’s not that I don’t love military expenditures. I do. Being able to level a continent is pretty useful when you’re dealing with a world predominantly defined by dictators and assholes. But seriously, do we need to be building infrared space lasers in the middle of a recession? (No joke, $1.5 billion of last years’ budget).
See, it’s not that I have a one track mind for bashing liberals. They just make it so easy. But if Republicans keep pushing their social issues, they’re going to get curb stomped like the Democrats did last election. Healthcare reform was not about saving people money or streamlining the system. It was a social pet project. Similarly, people do not care about fighting abortion; not when those cuts are unaccompanied by other, larger reductions.
Right now is about balancing the budget while not stepping on the toes of business. If people want their Social Security and Medicare, then jack rates and taxes of everyone to pay for it. Whatever programs are left should be broken open, and systematically cut down. For each liberal pet project that gets the guillotine, throw in a conservative one. Maybe when we’re done, nothing will have changed, since it feels like half this money is counteracting itself anyways.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Should be able to cut more from a $700 billion defense budget than that … no? And what about the Discretionary Budget of $660 billion? Must be something in there that can be cut … after all, it is discretionary.
But at least you recognize that the defense budget isn’t some sacred cow … now tell your GOP friends on the 9th floor and see where that gets you.
Sadly, all of his GOP friends are on the 10th floor.
Actually the 13th floor.
Probably could cut more. My point wasn’t that a 2% cut was the right size. My point was that 2% should be easy as hell to pull off.
I’m a Canadian, so you’ll have to excuse such an obvious question– Americans–especially conservatives–repeatedly say how you have ‘the best country in the world’, and therefore the best system of government. If that is true, then why do so many of you hate your government so passionately. There is no doubt that governments are seldom free of corruption, but the outright disdain for most of what government stands for is a bit of a mystery to me. While I may not agree with what my political opponents may say, I do not feel the need to constantly vilify them and say that every single thing that ‘progressives’ have ever done has ruined the country.
From my perspective, the U.S. could be one of the most conservative ‘free’ countries I have ever been to, and yet there is a sense that you are sliding in the brink toward socialism, when your social programs are maybe the least generous of any in the G-7, and the inequity between rich and poor is approaching some so-called third world countries. Can anyone explain this apparent paradox to me?
I’m on the fringe of politics but will offer my thoughts; we’re pissed because USA used to be boss and now everyone’s squishy-fat and wants handouts. The all-or-nothing days where government kept its nose out of an enterprising individual’s business fill our history books. Canada’s population does not have such a grandiose past.
Hating our government is something of a tradition.
Look Cain!
You spout a lot of fancy vocabulary which boils down to the same thing when you strip out 90% of the ‘blurb’.
You dislike America.
So … just move to another country that agrees with you more. You’ll waste less of your life complaining on blogs like this and more time enjoying it.
Is that too straightforward?
What the fuck are you talking about? Aren’t you that bloke from the U.K?
Good memory.
Good piece Cain,
I decided long ago that neither party can be trusted.
Both parties continually argue over wich programs are “more important”.
Enough of that. If the right or left had any dignity perhaps they could conceed that realistically to satisfy the debt and the leftover deficit…cuts will be needed.
The fair thing to do would be to cut the appropriate percentage out of all programs.
If both parties had any dignity they could stop arguing and conceed that all programs are important.
Whatever the number is..2%, 3%, 4%…whatever.
But that number will be cut out of all programs. I don’t care what it is…defense, medicaid, planned parenthood…whatever.The point is all programs and “slices of the budgetary pie” get an equal percentage cut until the budget is balanced and the servicing of the debt is under control.
This would be the most fair and equitable solution.
This would also leave little room for a politician to argue their way out of the situation.
It would be easy to shame a politician for wanting less of a cut out of a certain program. Why? Because this country was founded on principles of equality.
The principle of equality would now be applied to each section of the budget. An equal cut to balance the budget and service the debt.
Enough of the “value judgements” that are placed on the importance of each program. (My program is more important because of X, Y, and Z etc…)
Maybe if they spent less time arguing over the importance of programs, they could focus on more important issues.
We would not have so much debt if losses were allowed back in 2008. People forget that..and it’s only been a few years.
Amazing.
Great piece Mr.Thaler.