-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I have no business “endorsing” or not “endorsing” this budget deal, or urging anybody to vote or not to vote for it. I think it is worth puzzling out how I would vote if I were in the House (or Senate). I haven’t seen all the fine print, but from what I understand, I’ll start by saying that my dire warnings last week appear to have been slightly off.
(See, readers: I can admit when events prove me partly wrong.)
I worried (by implication; I didn’t spell it out this specifically) that failure to support the Boehner plan would end up producing either a default or else a deal so favorable to the left that it would make us all gag. I feared something that might get, say, 52 Dems (all but Bernie Sanders) and eight or nine GOPers in the Senate, and then get about 180 Dems plus just 40 Repubs in the House. Such a deal would probably have included only the most nominal or non-defense cuts, plus a bias towards higher taxes. It would have been almost worse than a “clean” debt limit hike.
Well, that’s not what happened. The week-long circular firing squad over the Boehner plan ended up harming the Boehner end-stage negotiations only a little, apparently. I never foresaw much better than what finally emerged yesterday. But I did envision something a little better than this. In particular, I am worried sick about the likelihood of harmful defense cuts. And while my reading of this new agreement is that while it makes it very, very difficult to force new tax hikes, it also makes it very, very easy to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of next year.
As for the Defense cuts, let me appeal to the authority of… John McCain. Conservatives should take this seriously. Lord knows I have blasted McCain again and again and again over the years, and he’s frankly a rather nasty personality, and far from a conservative on a lot of things (although he is and always has been far better against wasteful spending than conservatives give him credit for — check the record!). But the one and only subject on which he always has been reliable is on fighting for a strong defense. Again, check the record: He is extremely knowledgeable, and extremely pro-defense. McCain, with reservations, says that he can “swallow hard” and stomach the potential for defense cuts in this bill. That’s at least somewhat reassuring.
As for the Bush tax cuts, here’s the reality: If Obama gets re-elected, there’s no way to save those cuts anyway. If Obama is not re-elected, then the math on the cuts is simple: Using the budget reconciliation process, Republicans will be able to save the tax cuts if they have 52 members in the Senate (this allows for two defections), and may be able to save those cuts with as few as 50 Senators (no defections, or with a crossover Dem or two, which is unlikely) plus the GOP Veep casting a tie-breaking vote. (In other words, the tax cuts would expire under Obama, but likely be reinstituted as the first order of business under a GOP Congress and president.)
In short, this budget deal probably won’t really determine the fate of the Bush tax cuts after all, but it will guard against broad-based tax hikes of any other kind, as long as the GOP appoints people like Sessions and Toomey to the commission, which is something I imagine Boehner and McConnell understand is quite necessary for purely political reasons (they know that agreeing to tax hikes before the 2012 election would be political suicide; their insistence during the debt-limit debate that no tax hikes be included shows that they understand this).
So what this boils down to is this: At a bit of risk to defense spending, and to a lesser extent than conservatives would like in terms of savings, this deal starts to turn the ocean liner around. It starts the process of getting budget deficits down to manageable size. As I said on a radio show the other day, this is an 800-bite hippo of debt that we’re facing, and the difference between Cut/Cap/Balance and the (now-modified) Boehner plan is really just the difference between five bites of the hippo and six or seven bites of the hippo. Either way, we need to come back for more.
In a vacuum, I am enough of a defense hawk that if I were faced with this vote with weeks to go before the debt ceiling deadline, or without being tied to the debt ceiling, I probably would vote no on this. But the risk of undermining the full faith and credit of the United States is far more profound than some conservatives are acknowledging. Hitting the debt ceiling and being forced to leave private vendors unpaid would cost a vast amount of private-sector jobs, rapidly hasten the abandonment of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency (a status that is a huge benefit to the American economy and which would be a huge detriment to lose), and have negative repercussions for years to come.
Finally, from a political standpoint, I actually think that anydeal is going to reassure markets so much that a large portion of the $1.5 trillion plus that has been sitting on the sidelines will finally start being reinvested in the economy. The economy will indeed start to pick up — slowly, to be sure, but still noticeably. If conservatives do not take partial ownership of this deal, they will cede all the credit for the “turnaround” to Obama. That would be a bad thing politically, in any circumstance.
The message COULD be:
Look, all the way through April, the president insisted that there be a “clean” debt-ceiling hike with absolutely no savings. The Democrats never produced a budget in 825 days; the Democrats never produced a single plan in legislative language to accomplish any savings. The only reason we got a deal that reassured the markets and helped the economy start to recover was because we conservatives insisted on significant savings. If we had gotten the savings we wanted, the recovery would be even greater. This is our recovery, not his.
So if the deal will help the economy at least somewhat, it is both decent policy and decent politics. If conservatives win the 2012 elections, they can ensure in the future that taxes are kept low and that defense isn’t gutted. If the 2012 elections go badly, there will be no way to do well on taxes and defense no matter what is in this deal. Therefore, the upside of this deal is ever-so-slightly greater than the downside.
If I were in Congress, I would be holed up in my office with the door closed, studying all the details, looking for jokers in the deck. I would reserve the right, in the next few hours, to change my mind, based on that detailed study. I would know that these savings won’t go far enough, but I would understand that a budget cap is different from a budget mandate — in other words, that absolutely nothing precludes us from producing Appropriations bills that save more money than called for in this deal, but that the caps ensure that the spending absolutely will not exceed these caps.
In short, let’s forget what I would do. Here’s what a lot of conservatives right now might be thinking: They would be leaning right now in favor of holding their noses, even though it sort of stinks, and voting for this thing.
Then, they could quote Ben Franklin, from the last day of the Constitutional convention, to this effect:
On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention [Congress] who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
Then, having banked these savings, they would immediately start planning their next assaults on overbearing government, my next assault on spending. They would indeed come back for more cuts, starting with the remaining Appropriations bills this year. Take ground, consolidate it, and then plan the next assault. Take ground, consolidate it, and then plan the next assault. And so on. In the Madisonian system of government we have, that’s what works. That’s how it is designed to work. And it’s a profoundly conservative approach.
View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/01/the-deal-sort-of-stinks-but-on
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- Current Wisdom
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Have you considered| 8.1.11 @ 12:17PM
Quin, this piece is very full of "ifs".
In order for "reconciliation" to occur, that requires that a budget be passed. I'll be a doughnut that the senate will not pass a FY2012 budget.
You say (if) "GOP appoints people like Sessions and Toomey to the commission." From what I understand, it will only take one weak Republican to side with 6 Dems, and waa-la, tax hikes. Simple majority rules.
You say: "So if the deal will help the economy at least somewhat," What on earth do you see in this deal that will help the economy? Maybe the NYSE companies, but certainly not small business. I see no review of EPA rules; I see no review in NLRB; no changes or repeal of Obamacare; no lift of the defacto moratorium, and on and on.
I see no relief here, sshheesh, they can't even de-fund NRP or the Obamacare implementation.
Bottom line, this is a Bad Deal as far as I can see, and yet the back patting has already begun.
Quin| 8.1.11 @ 1:19PM
Thanks for your thoughtful points. I love constructive criticism. To answer your questions, A) I was trying to be clear that in discussing "reconciliation," I was talking about AFTER the 2012 elections. B) I have very little fear that McConnell and Boehner will appoint squishes to the commission, for the simple reason I explained: Even McConnell, and much more so Boehner, understands that a tax hike is electoral death, and therefore will NOT appoint a potential tax hiker. It's just not gonna happen. C) I explain why I think the economy will be helped somewhat: because I think that a lot of the $1.5 trillion-plus that has been sitting on the sidelines will finally start to come off the sidelines if the deal is passed. I may be wrong on that, but my long experience with all of this tells me that this is probably what will occur. In the past, I have almost always been right about these things. I could cite chapter and verse of the many times I was right about the effect of various policies on the overall shape of investments in the real economy. Instead, as a matter of good faith, I will cite the one time I was clearly wrong: I expected the Obama administration to produce a short-term surge in economic activity, via the "stimulus" package, just in time to affect the 2010 elections. Obviously I know that government spending in the long run is a wet blanket, not a boost, for the economy -- but I also know that when times and designed right, it can produce short-term effects that appear to be salubrious. I did not expect the Obamites to be so inept that they would fail to take advantage of this. But they were indeed so inept. They tried to time the stimulus payouts to be politically advantageous, but failed. So I was wrong, and darn glad to have been wrong. But it's the only time, in decades, I have been so wrong on such macro-economic effects. In this case, I really do expect the money to come off the sidelines -- but I absolutely know it will NOT come off the sidelines if the deal is not passed, and that conservatives will get the blame if that happens.
Interested Conservative| 8.1.11 @ 1:47PM
Those are very interesting comments Quin, especially the points under C.
I wonder, though, if events simply overtake most of this analysis. Sure, the POTUS gets to push the debt ceiling issue past the election, but so what? As most other commenters, and certainly the Tea Partiers, note - the issue is the debt, not the debt ceiling.
Granted that there may be an intermediate effect of 1-2 T$ coming off the sidelines, won't 2012 still be framed the same way, with "defense cuts" and the BBA enhanced and added to the GOP talking points?
Alas, I'm coming around to the view that this is a better political deal for the GOP than many foresaw, but a more negligible economic accomplishment. Still, it appears they've at least begun to turn the titanic.
Derek Leaberry| 8.2.11 @ 9:32AM
The truth is that nothing gets cut in real terms. The cuts are only of increases. And even the cuts of increases won't happen as there is nothing this Congress can do to prevent a Democratic Congress from spending as it wishes four or eight years from now. The stupid party- the Republicans- lose again.
Clint| 8.1.11 @ 12:29PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
"This evening Congress is asked to vote for a bill that claims to reduce spending in the future, thereby accepting the fiction that legislation passed today somehow can control Congress in the future. The fate of legislation like Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in 1985 and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act prove the fallacy that laws passed today somehow will restrain congressional spending in the future.
More recently, I would remind my colleagues that the legislation creating the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan contained language requesting congressional action to control Medicare costs when program expenditures reached a certain “trigger.” When this trigger was reached, Congress simply passed legislation delaying the date at which Congress would have to implement the cost controls supposedly mandated by the original bill.
The claim that spending cuts in this bill equal the amount by which it increases the debt ceiling also is mistaken. First, as explained above, it is highly unlikely that Congress will abide by these caps in the future. Second, an immediate $1 trillion increase in borrowing authority does not equal a $1 trillion cut if that cut is phased in over ten years. To pretend otherwise totally ignores the time value of money, not to mention the inevitable erosion of the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar as the Federal Reserve continues desperately to try to breathe life into the stagnating economy via QE 3,4,5,6, etc."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.
Stand & Fight.
Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 1:07PM
Quin, as you, myself and most other semi-intelligent humans know, there is nothing about this deal that should be considered GOOD. It was simply/hopefully the best deal that the minority [1/3] Republicans could accompolish considering the fact that the Democrats and their socialistic policies were majoritively [2/3] in competition with same. As you indicate, the only true solution rests with 11/4/12 and electing Republican majorities in the Senate and president. At that time it will either be LEFT or RIGHT, and there will be no middle ground. Left we DIE, right we SURVIVE AND THRIVE OVER TIME. What's disheartening are these supposedly tea partiers here who constantly lambast BOTH parties politicians as worthless [which is acting STUPIDLY]. These people obviously do not have the intelligence to distinguish between the historical platforms of both parties and their politicians. Every other word coming forth from their ignorant mouths is directed ar Republicans, and never Democrats. If these idiots can read, I'd recommend for them to contemplate James Thunder's excellent article in today's TAS. As indicated also, it's never the intent to glorify Republicans as saintly and worthy of unlimited praise, BUT in comparison to Democrats, there is no comparison at all. Democrats='EXTREME' and these so -called conservative tea partiers had better get their heads out of their rear-ends before it's too late. If they end up siding with Democrats, this country is going over the cliff to devastation. The Republican Party is simply the only HOPE for this country!!!!!!!!
Clint| 8.1.11 @ 1:28PM
More Arlen Specter/John McCain RINO-CINO "Lesser Evil" Fartin' Dude Horseshit.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.
Stand & Fight
Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 2:02PM
Hey MORONS, this is what your FRIENDS [Democrats] are saying about you [while you're back-stabbing fellow conservative Republicans]:
'... Tea Party Overplayed Its Hand on Debt Crisis
Monday, August 1, 2011 10:28 AM
By: Kathleen Parker
Take names. Remember them. The behavior of certain Republicans who call themselves tea party conservatives makes them the most destructive posse of misguided patriots’ we’ve seen in recent memory. If the nation defaults on its financial obligations, the blame belongs to the tea party Republicans who fragged their own leader, John Boehner. (Fragging: "To intentionally kill or wound [one's superior officer, etc.], esp. with a hand grenade.")They had victory in their hands and couldn't bring themselves to support his debt-ceiling plan, which, if not perfect, was more than anyone could have imagined just a few months ago. No new taxes, significant spending cuts, a temporary debt-ceiling solution with the possibility of more spending cuts down the line, as well as their beloved constitutional balanced-budget amendment. These people wouldn't recognize a hot fudge sundae if the cherry started talking to them.The tick-tock of the debt-ceiling debate is too long for this space, but the bottom line is that the tea party got too full of itself with help from certain characters whose names you'll want to remember when things go south. They include, among others, media personalities who need no further recognition; a handful of media-created "leaders," including Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips and Tea Party Patriots co-founders Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler (both Phillips and Martin declared bankruptcy, yet they're advising tea party Republicans on debt?); a handful of outside groups who love to hurl ad hominems such as "elite" and "inside the Beltway" when talking about people like Boehner when they are, in fact, the elite (FreedomWorks, Heritage Action, Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity); and elected leaders such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, head of the Republican Study Committee, and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who grandstand and make political assertions and promises that are sheer fantasy. Meanwhile, freshman congressmen have been targeted and pressured by some of the aforementioned groups to vote against Boehner's plan. South Carolina's contingent was so troubled, they repaired to the chapel Thursday to pray and emerged promising to vote no. Why? Not because Jesus told them to, but because they're scared to death that DeMint will "primary" them — find someone in their own party to challenge them. Where did they get an idea like that? Look no further than Sarah Palin's Facebook page, where she warned freshman about contested primaries and urged them to "remember us 'little people' who believed in them, donated to their campaigns, spent hours tirelessly volunteering for them, and trusted them with our votes." Her close: "P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries." While they're at it, they also should remember that Palin came to the tea party long after the invitations went out. The woman knows where to hitch a wagon.Unfortunately for the country, which is poised to lose its place as the world's most-trusted treasury and suffer economic repercussions we can ill afford, the stakes in this political game are too high to be in the hands of tea partyers who mistakenly think they have a mandate. Their sweep in the 2010 election was the exclusive result of anti-Obama sentiment and the sense that the president, in creating a healthcare plan instead of focusing on jobs, had overplayed his hand. Invariably, as political pendulums swing, the victors become the very thing they sought to defeat. Who's overplaying their hand now? It must be said that the tea party has not been monolithic — and the true grass roots shouldn't be conflated with leaders who disastrously signed on to the so-called "Cut, Cap, and Balance" pledge. What is it with Republicans and their silly pledges? Didn't get enough scouting? This pledge now has them hog-tied to a promise they can't keep — the constitutional balanced-budget amendment. As many as a third desperately want a pardon from that commitment, according to sources close to the action. Hubris is no one's friend and irony is a nag. The tea partyers who wanted to oust Barack Obama have greatly enhanced his chances for re-election by undermining their own leader and damaging the country in the process. The debt ceiling may have been raised and the crisis averted by the time this column appears, but that event should not erase the memory of what transpired. The tea party was a movement that changed the conversation in Washington, but it has steeped too long and has become toxic.
It's time to toss it out....'
Clint| 8.1.11 @ 2:26PM
Apparently, Fartin' Dude Is A Liberal Mainstream Propaganda Flunkie Wannabe.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.
Stand & Fight.
Oldefarte| 8.1.11 @ 2:52PM
Apparently, Clint is a STUPID-FART. No, no apparently about it....it's a FACT!!!!
RJ| 8.1.11 @ 1:28PM
I don't see what the GOP gained in this deal. Spending goes up now. Congress will try to deal with spending "cuts" in the future by having a "bi-partisan commission work on it. Farming it out to a commission for a later day rather than addressing the problem now is a true sign of failure to me. The GOP has also been cornered into letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
All in all this looks like a complete failure by the GOP to deal with excessive spending and they have signed on to tax increases. This is not why I voted for the GOP in 2010.
Bob Grant| 8.1.11 @ 1:44PM
Quinn,
I agree with your basic premise that if no deal occurred through the deadline, an even worse deal than the current one would have passed.
The problem is, however, when things settle back to normalcy the congressmen/women will return to their political ways and promise everything under the sun to their constituents. Saying one thing and acting another. And with a straight face.
The latest example of this is an interview I watched on C-Span this morning with Thaddeus McCotter FROM MICHIGAN who - with a straight face - railed against the stimulus program, Obamacare, and all other massive government spending but defended bailing out GM with TARP funds.
He sounded reasonable but the hypocrisy was palpable.
Only a massive fundamental change will stop this BS which is what the Tea Partiers are attempting to address.
LarryK| 8.1.11 @ 1:56PM
What the heck do you mean "Sort of..."?
Jeff Perren| 8.1.11 @ 2:03PM
"If Obama gets re-elected, there's no way to save those cuts anyway."
If Republicans take a large enough majority in the Senate, why not?
Quin| 8.1.11 @ 2:35PM
Because the cuts expire AUTOMATICALLY unless extended by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Of course, if the president vetoes an extension of the tax cuts, it would take two thirds of both houses to override him. There's no way to get to two-thirds.
martin j smith| 8.1.11 @ 3:18PM
This bill should not be voted on until it is fully understood and vetted to the letter. And then debated and then a vote. How is that for common sense ?
Jim| 8.1.11 @ 3:37PM
The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves. It is time for another revolution! King George had nothing on these guys!!
Paul| 8.1.11 @ 4:07PM
Something is better than nothing, though I would prefer to see a higher amount of those cuts taking place now. A trillion over ten years doesn't make much of a dent in the deficits we have right now. I have seen it said that freezing all spending at existing levels would be scored as $9 trillion in cuts over 10 years, so relative to that, $1 trillion is not a great achievement.
However, we knew that significant change could only begin after November 2012. Keep Republicans' feet to the fire. Insist that they talk about real reductions. Don't just support the party - insist on candidates who do more than just talk about how government is too big.
Pat| 8.1.11 @ 4:16PM
What this “all boils down to” is that the world will have to discipline us, we can’t - or won’t - discipline ourselves. But, as our Washington “elected” employees fully realize, there isn’t a blasted thing the rest of the world can do for the time being. Our irresponsible debt level is based on the cherished myth America is forever fiscally sound, the dollar is as good as gold and the heavens continually smile on these United States.
For the moment, the world has no choice but to watch this political farce play out. And we don’t have an understanding Germany who will step in and bail out the American dollar, Canada isn’t interested in helping stabilize the Western Hemisphere’s version of Greece and Mexico is receiving too much foreign aid through our illegal immigrants’ home bound money orders to contemplate interference.
Japan isn’t strong economically and the government of China’s fiscal soundness is based on their massive holdings of U.S. Treasuries – at the present, alternatives to America are decidedly lacking. We don’t “owe” our federal debt to ourselves anymore, almost 50% of our debt is held by foreigners.
And while they’re helpless for the moment, they are talking among themselves about America’s lack of fiscal prudence – a reality TV “intervention” on our behalf isn’t likely, but thankfully the good ole days are almost over – we’ve enjoyed our short time in the sun and will no longer be able to defend the entire world while “helping” the suffering among America’s whining, urban mendicants. It’s almost a relief to know our days of glory are fully spent and the world will shortly be forced to look elsewhere for a risk-free investment – Ben Franklin, who lived during a time when America was an international “nobody”, would be nodding and smiling.
B. Samuel Davis| 8.1.11 @ 4:55PM
I don't like it - how is $2.1 trillion going to deal with $1.4 trillion deficit every year? It only pushes the problem down the road - to Obama's benefit. Didn't the TP just give Boehner the House? Why doesn't he do something with it, instead of this? Boehner never seriously supported cap, cut and balance - it was a sop - how about getting out there and making the case for it?
Boehner doesn't have the stomach for this - we needed someone stronger, more articulate, and it just isn't him. We are RIGHT here - not just to the right, but where everyone should be - has to be for our nation to survive. Why not wait for Obama's plan? Why not make a case that MORE needs to be done?
Instead Boehner gave it away - I'll work against any Republican who votes for this - as well as any Democrat whether they vote for it or not.
This is an opportunity - and once again Boehner blows it. We need another leader.
vicky bennett | 8.1.11 @ 5:14PM
So Quin, you seem to be saying we are screwed either way. I agree.
There are no tax cuts actually, and since I believe Obama will somehow pull off another term (GOD HELP US) I see the Bush tax cuts as being let to expire...
Yes, Boehner has blown it.. I want to see a Tea Party Member of the house be speaker.
Rod Hug| 8.1.11 @ 6:27PM
The trigger provides for most of the cuts to come from the Military and Medicare. This would be on top of the $600 billion Obama already cut from Medicare. Apparently the presidents plan is to abolish Medicare and substitute Obamacare, thereby creating a powerful class (seniors) of voters who will resist repeal of Obamacare.
And Boehner said he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Incredible!
TheAntiProgressive| 8.1.11 @ 6:54PM
Washington DC style "Rope a Dope" may yet win another round as nothing significant is accomplished to stop the car from getting out of the ditch and off the cliff.
I am a TEA Party Terorist. My mentors were the founding fathers who to a man would not possibly conceive of passing on such debts to future generations. Debt was a viewed as a loss of liberty. Debt was considered amoral which is what this bill continues to be.
Annual figures.......
3.6T - .2T = 3.4T spending 1.7T over budget and an adder to the debt going forward.
Real sincere progress does not appear to be present.
jfxgillis | 8.1.11 @ 9:10PM
Quin:
"Using the budget reconciliation process, Republicans will be able to save the tax cuts if they have 52 members in the Senate (this allows for two defections), and may be able to save those cuts with as few as 50 Senators (no defections, or with a crossover Dem or two, which is unlikely) plus the GOP Veep casting a tie-breaking vote."
Wrong. You can't use reconciliation unless it's revenue-neutral or better. Otherwise, extending the Bush tax rates will be subject to a Budget Point of Order, which requires 60 votes.
Jon B| 8.1.11 @ 10:10PM
It appears I may be a little more left leaning than most on here, but I would say the deal is not all that great and frankly leaves alot to be desired for Democrats and Republicans. The big questions regarding taxes, cuts, reforms are pushed to whoever wins the 2012 elections. In this day and age it looks to me like a President has about 1 year (if that) to get legislation through before the public flip flops, the media lampoons him, and politics for the midterms takes over. From a logical perspective, what is the resistance to some increase in revenues, modest defense cuts, and reform of the big players - SS, Medicaire, Defense? Under a higher tax system in the 90's the economy did just fine and we actually balanced the budget. Through the 2000's, taxes were cut, deficits soared, and the economy tanked. There's no logic or evidence that lower taxes is good for the economy, so why the resistance? Regarding Defense, who are we really afraid of attacking the United States (not Israel, not Georgia, not our "allies", but the American homeland)? China and Russia are the only countries large enough to actually do something, and both are not going to (Russia knows they would lose and China can't afford to). Surely some modest cuts are acceptable here... On Social Security, why not stop borrowing money from it to start with and adjusting the cap on taxable income from 106,000$ to 250,000$? To help with Defense, couldn't retirees who got their twenty years in pay a slightly higher premium for health care since they are no longer on active duty and typically have a new career? I'm not saying these are the solutions or the answer, but if it's this easy to rattle some htings to marinate on that are logical, why is it our elected officials are incapable of producing intelligent legislation? It really isn't rocket science and once you keep the ideology from dominating the discussion, I'm pretty sure any first year poli sci student could think through some of the solutions.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 8.2.11 @ 12:29PM
Quin Hillyer is 100% wrong. I've actually checked McCain's record. He is extremely ANTI-DEFENSE and totally ignorant on defense issues.
During the 1990s, McCain fought to close both the B-2 bomber program and the Seawolf class program, and succeeded both times. In 2005, he managed to prevent a good man, General Gregory S. Martin, from becoming the leader of the PACOM. During the 2008 campaign, he railed against defense spending and weapon programs, endorsed the "no more conventional wars" fiction, and promised to close over 100 weapon programs, as did his economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Since Obama took office, John McCain has endorsed all of his defense cuts and has vigorously argued for them, including the 2009 cuts (when over 30 crucial weapon programs were closed), the 2010 cuts (outlined in February 2010), and Obama's most recent cuts. He says the DOD should and will see further budget cuts and has vowed to close all weapon programs that go even slightly overbudget or behind schedule. He is also a longtime supporter of nuclear disarmament and voted together with his RINO buddy Lindsey Graham and 13 other RINOs to bring the New START treaty to the floor for a vote.
So no, McCain is NOT "pro-defense" (let alone "extremely pro-defense") and not knowledgeable let alone "extremely knowledgeable" about defense issues. Quin Hillyer, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about and is babbling nonsense. He has never learned that he should be silent about issues he knows nothing about. By babbling gibberish, he's misleading the public.
And by the way, conservatives, when the Tea Party tried to get McCain voted out of office, remember who backed him? Sarah Palin. I will NEVER support her for any office, not even dog catcher, not even against B. Hussein Obama.
Oldefarte| 8.3.11 @ 10:24AM
John McCain has his faults [like all of us], but to slander someone who almost gave his life in defense of this country during the Viet Nam War is moronic and stating STUPIDLY. He supported and lead the political charge for the military surge in Iraq [when ALL OF THE GD DEMOCRATS WERE AGAINST IT AND WHEN ALL OF THESE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO DILUTE THIS COUNTRY'S MILITARY AND CAUSE ITS DESTRUCTION SO THAT THEY CAN SPEND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOLLARS ON THEIR FAVORED WELFARE]. Additionally his father and grandfather were CAREER MILITARY SERVERS. It's fair and acceptable to dispute/question some of his political decisions CONCERNING A NO-DOUBT DESIRE TO DECREASE GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING UPON WASTEFUL/UNNECESSARY MILITARY EXPENDATURES THAT PRIMARILY BENEFIT DEFEANSE CONTRACTORS, but please, please don't attempt to slander or question this man's patriotism or his loyalty to this nation, especially in comparison to the Jane Fondaish type liberalism that permiates throughout the entire Democratic Party and its congressional representators!!!!!!!!!!