-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Here is how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are addressed in the Pledge to America:
End Government Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that triggered the financial meltdown by giving too many high risk loans to people who couldn’t afford them, taxpayers were billed more than $145 billion to save the two companies. We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and establishing minimum capital standards. This will save taxpayers as much as $30 billion.
And here the plan for entitlements is outlined:
Reform the Budget Process to Focus on Long-Term Challenges: We will make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations. That means requiring a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, setting benchmarks for these programs and reviewing them regularly, and preventing the expansion of unfunded liabilities.
Fannie and Freddie could not be more deeply involved in the housing market. They currently back a majority of the mortgages in the U.S. To suggest that they can be reformed easily by “ending their government takeover” (which doesn’t make sense grammatically, by the way) takes a huge stretch of the imagination. Of course, the collapse of the housing market is the short-term problem for the U.S.
Entitlements are the long-term challenge. Phil alluded to this: reforming Medicare and Social Security is the difficult problem facing Congress. There is no point in trying to tackle government spending without addressing the looming entitlement crisis.
In other words, we’re facing a short-term crisis and a long-term crisis. The only response to either in the Pledge is a vague promise to “reform” the relevant programs. And this when the legislation, at least in the second case, is already written and scored.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/23/specificity-in-the-pledge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger| 9.23.10 @ 12:03PM
Booger's contract w/America.
1. A vote to repeal Obamacare in both houses every session.
2. If the vote in 1 fails, zero out funding for Obamacare in the all federal budgets. This will explicitly include zero funding for the IRS to hire enforcement agents.
3. Freeze all non-defense spending at 2008 levels.
4. Top to bottom audits of the resumes of federal bureaucrats in all departments. Resume padding has become endemic, many highly paid federal employees are entrenched in their careers as a result of resume fraud. Any federal employee found to have a fraudulent resume is immediately fired. Any federal employee contesting this firing should be criminally prosecuted for mail fraud: submitting false information to obtain government employment through the postal service. This audit will be conducted by the F.B.I.
5) A hiring freeze for non-defense departments until item 4 is completed.
6) All savings from items one through five will be used in a three-pronged approach: a) one-third to new tax cuts b) one-third to defense re-capitalization c) one-third to deficit reduction.
7) Institution of a flat federal income tax of 10%, retaining mortgage, child and charitable contribution deductions; exempting the first $20,000 of income; and eliminating the marriage penalty.
8) Reduction of the capital gains tax to a flat 10%.
9) Introduction of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
10) Authorization of the sale of f-22s and rebuilt/refurbished b-1 strategic bombers to Israel, along with a prohibition of selling ANY stealth aircraft technology to ANY other Middle Eastern nation.
11) Open up full drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, and zero out the budget of any federal agency that attempts to interfere. Authorize two new nuclear power plants per year and zero out the federal budget of any federal agency that attempts to interfere.
DerTeufel | 9.24.10 @ 11:09AM
Most of these sound good except for 9 & 10. Why is it the federal government's responsibility to legislate morality vis a vis defining marriage? It's the slippery slope that has led to the current mess. This issue should be left to the individual states. Let the people vote with their feet. As for #10, I would also say we have no business meddling in the affairs of other countries. Let them all kill themselves if they want. We have more pressing problems in our own country. The bottom line is we do not need them. If they can be peaceful, we will gladly work with them. If they are war-making, we will isolate them. Israel can defend herself if we keep our noses out of their business.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 12:05PM
Adding the things that you want could only help the Democrats. It's a mistake to worry too much about a meaningless "Pledge". We have a Marxist president who is going to veto nearly everything anyway. Writing a wishlist of fantasies doesn't get anything done.
Obama and the Democrats had the presidency and 60% of both houses of Congress, yet most of their platform was filibustered. How could anyone believe that a Republican house with a slim majority could overcome a Democratic Senate and Marxist president in order to turn this country into a libertarian stone age?
Booger| 9.23.10 @ 12:28PM
You only need a simple majority for budgetary items. It's not the libertarians who are causing regression in this country; please ignore that point if you were making reference to the libertarian position on drug legalization.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 1:03PM
I meant Lawler's ideas, not yours.
A simple majority won't help on budget issues when our Marxist president vetoes it. We'd need 2/3 of both houses to override.
DRed| 9.23.10 @ 1:14PM
Well, we don't have a Marxist president, but yeah, you're pretty much correct. However, the republicans aren't going to get 2/3 of both houses. So the question is-what are they going to do? The tea party line is that there can be no compromise.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 1:24PM
No, that's the Democratic line, that there can be no compromise. Like the gays heckling President Obama yesterday.
Republicans are happy just to have a real political party, something we haven't had for years. This is the first Contract With America in 16 years. During this election cycle we had real primaries, with establishment candidates defeated, for the first time in many years. There is now discussion of Republican Party problems, instead of the "Democrats are bad" censorship we had 2 years ago. Republican legislators are voting unanimously to defeat Democratic legislation, instead of rubber-stamping it like they did two years ago.
No one is saying that there can be "no compromise". The point is that either we play as a team or we don't. The establishment needs to listen to us and COMPROMISE, not just run us over.
DRed| 9.23.10 @ 1:37PM
Well, I hope you're right. I thought one of the issues people had with RINOs was that they compromised with democrats, but I may have misunderstood that.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 1:45PM
Issues are part of it, for sure, but not all of it. Carly Fiorina disagrees with some Tea Party positions, but she visited Tea Party groups anyway, explaining what they had in common. So the Tea Parties mostly ended up supporting her.
It is different for senators like Snowe, who according to Tea Party blogs I've seen on the web won't even speak with them.
Big Brother| 9.23.10 @ 12:23PM
"End the government takeover" = Newspeak for "Privatize".
Libs use that word as an epithet to scare Indies, that's the reason for the obscure formulation.
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 1:15PM
The GOP can't seem to Get Real coming into Midterms , about Social Security & Medicare Spending .
Real Patriots should Deal With The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room .
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 1:49PM
It's amazing how the Republican Party has gone from one extreme to another so quickly. Just two years ago, nearly the entire party rolled over and accepted John McCain as presidential candidate, on a left-wing platform not much different from Obama's. (including cap & trade, etc.)
Now in 2010 the party is so strongly libertarian that a conservative platform is instantly ripped to shreds. Now it seems that nothing but absolutely pure libertarianism will do.
Two years ago we were told that we needed to just "hold our noses" and vote for the best candidate. Everyone was pushing us to unite behind McCain and the other candidates in order to win. Now the general push seems to be division.
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 2:21PM
Two years ago there was No Tea Party and No Rebellion
Now there is a Tea Party & A Tea Party Rebellion.
Ronald Reagan ,"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
We , Tea Party Rebels can bring forward the discussion & debate on Social Security , Medicare and Defense Waste right after The Midterms .
Apparently , the GOP is concerned about the Midterms and the Democrats spooking Voters about The GOP & these issues.
The Tea Party can tackle these issues
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 3:07PM
Libertarians were just a tiny part of Reagan's coalition. He governed as a conservative, not a libertarian. Indeed he never could have been reelected or even got legislation passed if he tried to govern as a libertarian. Libertarianism is a theoretical, utopian idea like communism.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 3:08PM
If the Tea Party runs on social security reform, they will lose badly. (Like the Libertarians do every year.)
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 3:44PM
We Tea Party Rebels already are .
"Joe Miller The Tea Party Candidate for U.S. Senate in Alaska reiterates a common position for his party, that Social Security and Medicare should be privatized (Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan also hold this position regarding the entitlements, all or part of which they’d like to see turned over to the private sector. "
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 4:52PM
Angle and Paul are doing much more poorly against their Democrats than their establishment primary rivals did. Under the pressure of the media, the libertarian candidates are unwinding their positions, and fudging.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 4:59PM
WTF are you smoking? Angle is basically in a dead heat with the sitting majority leader and Rand Paul is over 8 points up. There is no way to know how their primary rivals would have fared at this point since you can only speculate.
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 6:54PM
Dick Morris spoke today on Sean Hannity's radio show and said that Harry Reid was "Dead In The Water " and that Sharron Angle will take him down in Nevada .
Rand Paul is solid in The Commonwealth of Kentucky
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 7:25PM
Read : Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders by U.S. Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Paul Ryan (R-WI trumpets Rep. Ryan’s ‘Roadmap’ budget plan that would privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with a voucher system .
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 3:27PM
You can argue with Ronald Reagan's definitions .
You're playing semantics & parsing Libertarian & libertarian.
Many of We, who are Registered Republicans and Tea Party Rebels and The Reagan Democrats were never Libertarian Party Members , but we were & are libertarian in our philosophy .
Here's the full quote .
Ronald Reagan :
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 3:59PM
Thank you!!
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 4:49PM
That is specifically saying that Reagan was NOT a libertarian. I agree with that statement totally. It describes the reasons for being conservative instead of libertarian. Reagan lists the many problems with libertarianism, which is why he wasn't one, and I agree with him.
The two theoretical extremes are communism and libertarianism. The truth is conservatism, which as Reagan says is NOT libertarianism, but is much closer to libertarianism than communism.
If fact the reason why TARP was necessary was because Bush's government tried some libertarianism (really neglect), and it failed. Some of the Depression-era rules which were necessary to keep banks from going wild were removed in the late 90's. That led to the bubbles which caused the TARP to be absolutely necessary late in Bush's administration. The TARP is bad, and it should have been prevented by sticking with the time proven conservative, but not libertarian, rules for banks.
A conservative, like Reagan, would say that sometimes regulations and laws are good, while a libertarian wouldn't. A market, like a basketball game, runs best with a referee and rules.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 5:10PM
The only regulations and rules the federal government should be dealing with were put forth in the enumerated powers. All other laws and regulations are up to the States. Just like basketball, the game runs best when the "local" officials on the court have control. If they had to check with the NBA headquarters, who then had to check with their appointed czar on every call, the game would take 18 days to play.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 7:38PM
Yes, and the interstate commerce clause gives Congress constitutional power to regulate almost anything. Any power in the Constitution may be used to its full extent. The Democrats don't like the second amendment, but its still there. Libertarians don't like the interstate commerce, general welfare, and "necessary and proper" clauses but they are still in the Constitution.
Also, Congress is specifically granted powers by several amendments, including the 14th. The entire constitution needs to be considered.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 8:35PM
You debate like a liberal. The Supreme Court through its misguided rulings have given the commerce clause more power than ever originally intended. Still, the power derived from the clause is not limitless. There has been Supreme Court rulings which attest to that. The 14th Amendment again is used out of its original context and has no relevance to this topic, but of course you throw it in not because of relevancy, but I guess to give your unfocused rants some stealth meaning. Your paranoid about Libertarians, who by your own account are a meaningless fringe, but yet you can't help but bring them up in every discussion. You should really focus on the 17th Amendment and push for its repeal to again give power back to the States.
DerTeufel | 9.24.10 @ 11:28AM
Exactly. If the so-called "commerce" and "general welfare" clauses (which I'm not conceding are even really clauses but preambles) give Congress the power to do anything they want, why do we need the rest of the Constitution at all? Why bother arguing and spending all the time to write the rest of it when they could have just said that "for the general welfare of the people and to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can do as it pleases"? "General Welfare" is such a general term that can and has been abused. What's to stop the government from outlawing cars because some people are too stupid to drive properly? What's to stop the government from intruding into every aspect of our lives for "the common good"? Wake up!
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 7:19PM
Causes of The Financial Crisis began with The Carter Administration , Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ,which pushed Lending Banks to write Mortgage Loans in risky Redlined Areas , The 1995 Clinton Revisions to The Community Reinvestment Act , orchestrated by then Clinton Economic Adviser Robert Rubin and then Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen , allowing the securitization of Sub-prime B-Paper , The threatened Democrat Filibuster of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 ,which then Senator Barack Obama refused to Co-Sponsor . The repeated failure of The Democrat controlled Barney Frank Chaired House Financial Services Committee and The Democrat controlled Chris Dodd Chaired Senate Banking Committee to act on repeated Bush Administration warnings about FNMA & FHLMC , 17 times in 2008 alone .
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 6:36PM
A conservative like Ronald Reagan is a libertarian .
Again, Siegfried is playing a parsing semantics with Big " L " Libertarians and small " l" libertarians .
It's more Clintonian "It depends on what the meaning of "is " is. " Apologetics .
Read it again." If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer......"
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Rise Up !
I am John Galt| 9.24.10 @ 1:03PM
Siegfried is a decepticon! He's a fake, phony conservative just like Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Deregulation had nothing to do with the root causes of the financial meltdown. The entire problem started with Woodrow Wilson and the Federal Reserve. Central Banking/Planning doesn't work!
In the past, banks actually lent their depositors' money to worthy borrowers because if they lost the money, the partners of the bank would have to go into their pockets and pay back the depositors. Now, banks are given limitless credit lines by the Fed. Then the banks lend this money to anybody that fits in a government mandated box. Once this money has been lent, the banks are able to sell these loans to quasi-federal agencies or they are packaged and sold to morons that say "if it's good enough for gubmint, it's good enough for me".
The reason the federal gubmint created TARP was not to "save" the economy! They did it because they knew that they caused the problems and if they didn't bail out the banks, they might shine a light on their giant scheme.
We're arguing Red Sox vs. Yankees and they're laughing all the way to the BANKS!