House Republicans have passed the Paul Ryan budget resolution, a sweeping plan that slashes long-term mandatory spending, goes under the discretionary spending targets set by the debt limit deal, cuts taxes for the rich and corporations, changes Medicare to a voucher program, eliminates Pell grants for hundreds of thousands of students, and generally authorizes just about every conservative wet dream you can name. And after all that, Ryan’s budget doesn’t even balance until 2040, because it’s nearly impossible to do so without anything on the revenue side.
The vote was relatively close, with the budget passing 228-191. Ten Republicans voted against the budget resolution, up from four last year. Here they are:
Walter Jones (NC), Jimmy Duncan (TN), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Chris Gibson (NY), Justin Amash (MI), Todd Platts (PA), Ed Whitfield (KY), David McKinley (WV), Denny Rehberg (MT), Joe Barton (TX).
Not too many of those votes are because the budget wasn’t conservative enough: that explains Huelskamp, Amash and maybe Barton. The others face tough re-election battles, or in the case of Rehberg are running for Senate in Montana. Walter Jones is just idiosyncratic. But I agree with Dave Weigel, 10 Republicans out of 238 isn’t that many, considering they’ve opened themselves up yet again to charges of ending Medicare as we know it (regardless of what Politifact says).
This piece is worth reading in full:
””My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore.”
I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I’m a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up. It’s ironic. The root of the word conservative is “conserve”. A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.”
Paul Ryan, outlining his latest budget proposal in the House TV studio Tuesday morning, said the policies of the Republican presidential nominees “perfectly jibe” with his plan, which slashes the safety net to pay for tax cuts mostly for wealthy Americans.
“Do you wholeheartedly believe they will accept your budget?” NBC’s Luke Russert called from the audience.
“Absolutely,” the House Budget Committee chairman replied without hesitation. “I’m confident.”
Makes perfect sense, in a way. Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, is on record as saying, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” And Ryan has just written a budget that supports Romney’s boast.
Ryan would cut $770 billion over 10 years from Medicaid and other health programs for the poor, compared with President Obama’s budget. He takes an additional $205 billion from Medicare, $1.6 trillion from the Obama health-care legislation and $1.9 trillion from a category simply labeled “other mandatory.” Pressed to explain this magic asterisk, Ryan allowed that the bulk of those “other mandatory” cuts come from food stamps, welfare, federal employee pensions and support for farmers.
Taken together, Ryan would cut spending on such programs by $5.3 trillion, much of which currently goes to the have-nots. He would then give that money to America’s haves: some $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, compared with current policies, according toCitizens for Tax Justice.
Read the rest of this article, this rhetoric amazes me. It’s like he thinks (or wants his supporters to think) that he is doing some kind of “moral duty” by taking safety nets away from poor Americans.
I’m at a loss to comprehend what these people really think, when they say things like this. Do they truly believe that cutting taxes for the rich while reducing help for the poor will make things better? Or are they basically trash talking themselves higher up the ‘conservative’ mountain? Or maybe they’re just trying to grab as much money as possible for their friends and to hell with anyone else. But to be so blatant about is is almost psychopathic in nature.
Republican presidential candidate MITT ROMNEY, during a 2008 debate, referring to a national healthcare program a la — drum roll please — RomneyCare!
But ssssssshhhh, stop asking Mitt Romney about RomneyCare.
No chance it’ll pass, but you should know about it anyway. Some of the highlights, from The Hill:
- Aims to cut $11 trillion and achieve a $111 billion surplus in FY 2017
- Changes to Medicare: ” The lawmakers said they would turn Medicare into a premium support plan that would give seniors the same healthcare plan as members of Congress. They say this would save an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years.”
- Alter Social Security by increasing the retirement age and indexing benefits based on individual incomes
- Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps and child nutrition programs would be funded through block grants
- Cut discretionary spending to FY 2008 levels
- No national defense spending cuts
- Freeze foreign aid spending at $5 billion/year
- Eliminate the Department of Commerce, Education, HUD and Energy
- Privatize the TSA
- Repeal the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
- Establish 17 percent flat tax for individuals and corporations
Karen Santorum, wife of Republican front-runner, Rick Santorum. (CBS)
Rick Santorum has made his campaign about his extreme views on social issues. Pointing the finger at the media doesn’t change that.
Relentless attacks on the Chevy Volt from Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians have taken their toll, as General Motors has announced a five-week suspension in production of the range-extended electric car. Conservative enemies of clean energy and the Obama administrationseized on isolated reports Volts with battery fires, calling the cars “Obama-mandated death traps.” Limbaugh even said GM was a “corporation that’s trying to kill its customers.”
These conspiracy-tinged partisan attacks have now cost American jobs, with 1300 workers temporarily laid off in the face of lower than expected demand for the innovative cars, even as gas prices rise.
They’re just good for heterosexual sex, making babies and cleaning up the house, right, Rick?
Amazingly, about half of half of the country is nonetheless prepared to vote for this spiteful dick.
(via the New York Times)
(Rick Santorum’s) loss in Michigan raises the possibility that he has hit a ceiling with Republican primary voters; he may even have damaged himself with some by a string of controversial comments, particularly his assertion that President Obama is a “snob” for advocating that every American have access to a college education.
Even some high-profile Republicans who have stayed neutral in the race noted that going to college had long been part of the American dream.
In some speeches, Mr. Santorum has portrayed an America in decline. He has been panned by some conservative pundits.
In a column this month in The New York Post, John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary Magazine, called Mr. Santorum a “sourpuss.”
“The former Pennsylvania senator looks like he swallowed a lemon — and he acts like America is the lemon he swallowed,” he wrote. “There is no way that a man who expresses such a dark view of the American national character can win the presidency.”