House GOP struggles to kick spending addiction.
(Page 4 of 4)
In Charlie’s case, uneasiness is abroad in the Sheen family and at CBS. Politically, unease is now abroad in the land of talk radio and elsewhere in conservative quarters. Then… then… bam!
Charlie hits the wall. He lashes out in a radio interview …at CBS, at Alcoholics Anonymous, at his producer. He says of AA: “I was shackled and oppressed by the cult of AA for 22 years.” Things rapidly go downhill.
Politically? Now House Republicans announce that well, they can’t make the $61 billion in cuts either. Another $20 plus billion in cocaine — uh, cash — has been delivered. Now they can only do less than $40 billion in cuts. Welcome to the political version of Charlie Sheen’s “Sober Valley Lodge”! Can you say it? Winning! Winning!
Addiction? What addiction? Those who criticize this agreement are being depicted as the political equivalent of Charlie Sheen’s view of AA. Cutting spending and setting in place tax cutting policies for economic growth is an indication of some sort of obsessive cult. A $14 trillion debt? Who cares? The only real issue they’re addicted to is Winning! Winning! Tiger Blood! Duh!
SO NOW WHAT? If the promise to enter political rehab was at a $100 billion level, then $61 billion, than finally less than $40 billion — each promise taken with the Charlie Sheenish pledge that no, really, the NEXT time we’ll get it right…honest…honest. Then….
Houston, we have a problem here.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, the new GOP House Budget Committee chairman, is attempting the role of Martin Sheen here. Martin Sheen has apparently done everything the distraught parent of a 45-year old can do when said parent believes that his son is an addict. He has tried, fruitlessly, to ask for “conservatorship” of his son’s affairs.
Congressman Ryan’s bid for “conservatorship” of both the House Republican and the nation’s approach to the $14 trillion deficit is to be found here.
With a quiet deliberation, Ryan is well out there, understanding the risks — and taking them anyway. He understands that Mr. O’Donnell will weep, that being called a “wacko” will be the least of his problems.
But Ryan is standing his ground. He is doing an intervention. He is asking, in his Midwestern politeness, whether or not the nation and the Congress shouldn’t take a hard look at themselves before they — we — become the political equivalent of Charlie Sheen in that video. Isn’t it time to take a long and deeply serious trip to the political version of Betty Ford?
Alarmed, President Obama has announced he will now — belatedly — step forward with his own plan.
What does this mean?
Among other things, it means that Mr. O’Donnell and his political friends on the left are wiping their tears away because they understand more than enough to be relieved here. Obama’s formal entry into the budget battle means one thing in the world of addiction: Any proposed trip to a political Betty Ford Center is off. The bartender has opened the tavern. The dealer has arrived — not with a suitcase but an 18-wheeler trailer truck. Winning!
Which means Republicans will be facing two choices as they face the debt ceiling and 2012 budget.
Summoning their inner Inchon.
Or, bang by bang, hit by hit, one missed opportunity after another, joining the American Left in becoming the Party of Charlie Sheen.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online