Showing posts with label common sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common sense. Show all posts

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Divided Government and Common Sense

From The New York Times' "Taking Control, G.O.P. Overhauls Rules in House," you can get an idea of Republicans' insanity on spending/taxes:
... To reverse what they say is a Congressional process tilted toward spending increases, the new Republican majority in the House — over strong Democratic objections — approved rules that would require spending increases to be directly offset with cuts elsewhere. But the rules would allow future tax cuts to be enacted without offsetting spending reductions, and would permit repeal of the health care legislation, which was estimated to save the government more than $140 billion over 10 years, without any requirement that those revenue losses be made up elsewhere. ...

... Democrats criticized the changes, saying Republicans were returning to the policies that had put the government on a path to deep deficits in the first place and would open the door to “Enron-style accounting” that covered up the costs of tax cuts and their other legislative efforts.

“House Republicans are like the fellow who bellies up to the bar, asking for just one more round of tax breaks for his buddies, while declaring, ‘Put it on my tab,’ “ said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas. “But it’s really our tab. By focusing on only half the budget equation, and avoiding revenue stewardship, they reject sound fiscal leadership.”
The rules would allow tax cuts to be enacted without spending reductions! That is like having your pay cut and continuing to spend as you did when your income was higher. It leads to more debt. Did the Republicans forget to bring their "common sense" to Washington? No. They never had any.

For some insight into how difficult it is going to be for Republicans to enact their agenda, the Times' Carl Hulse wrote, "As Boehner Ascends, His Power Comes With Caveats," yesterday:
... While he will preside over a substantial and energized Republican majority, Mr. Boehner must contend with a Democratic president with whom he has little personal history and a Democratic Senate leader who is disinclined to make Mr. Boehner’s life easier and who failed to consider hundreds of bills passed by the House even when his own party ran it.

“The problem is going to be the grass-roots movement out in the countryside,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican House member and Washington lobbyist who served with Mr. Boehner in the 1990s. “They have no sense of the limits on a party that controls only one of the three seats of power. Managing that relationship is going to be difficult.”...

... Mr. Boehner’s expanded rank-and-file is populated by more than 80 newcomers — some with no elective experience — who do not seem of a mind to make the compromises that can be required when power is shared in Washington. And he sits atop a leadership team full of young and ambitious lawmakers eager to step up should Mr. Boehner falter, as did the last Republican speaker who engineered a House takeover, Newt Gingrich. ...
Will the reading of the Constitution in the House be enough for Republicans to learn about the limits of their new power? It's doubtful: they're intent on increasing the debt like they did during the Bush years. They have demonstrated an inability to learn from their own experience. How would reading anything help them?

An AP article, "PROMISES, PROMISES: GOP drops some out of the gate," finds that Republicans have alreay broken their campaign promises on spending.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Uncommon Sense - Friday, December 17, 2010

I've chosen the name "Uncommon Sense" for this, the blog's new feature. Like the "Circus News" feature, "Uncommon Sense" will run when it's warranted, as when "common sense" has run off the road, rolled over and burst into flames.

Now, I've read that Sarah Palin is "cautiously" courting what she calls the "lamestream media," because, "Everyone has just come to the conclusion that being silent while other people talk about you and try to define you hasn’t netted the results that we’d necessarily like,” according to Tim Crawford, a Palin aide, who is quoted in a story written by Politico writer Kenneth P. Vogel.

But saying more isn't going to help Sarah Palin. There is a reason why Republicans told her to "sit down and shut up." With every Tweet, interview and Facebook rant, voters' opinion of Sarah Palin solidifies into something perhaps best described by the Russian "nyet." American voters are "nyet" happy with Sarah Palin.

How unhappy? The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart has written -- as usual, with a lot of uncommon sense -- "Palin vs. Obama: No she can't," which links to some polls that tell of the dire straits Palin is in with respect to electability. Sure, Palin told ABC News that polls change, but she has so thoroughly surrounded herself with a cheap, tawdry, one-trick-too-many, white trash aura that she's got an insurmountable job ahead of her. Voters expect more of a President; they expect the President to be better than they are.

"Common sense" is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's being carried there by Sarah Palin. When Sarah Palin tells ABC's Robin Roberts that running for the presidency is a "prayerful consideration," then you must surely begin to doubt God's omnipotence. Why would He (She? (It?)) need Sarah Palin? Why can't It (Think about it! If God is immortal, then why would God need to reproduce?) effect It's will without her?

Here is an excerpt of Palin's interview with Robin Roberts:



Now, think about it. Do tax cuts create jobs? No. A business creates a new job when the cost of employing another person is less than the additional revenue the new employee will generate. Why? Because that spells p-r-o-f-i-t.

A tax cut may artificially boost a business' profit, or, more likely, reduce a business' losses. But tax cuts don't require innovation, increased productivity, increased sales, superior products or any of the other things businesses have traditionally relied upon to increase their profits. Tax cuts are corporate welfare; they foster government dependency. If Sarah Palin supports Free Markets, why would she want to artificially prop-up marginal businesses that would otherwise fail? In a Free Market, businesses dependent on tax cuts for their survival should fail.

Don't be bamboozled by Sarah Palin. She doesn't know what she's talking about.

P.S: ABC News has an article about the Washington Post/ABC News poll, here. The Atlantic Wire also considers the polls, here.