Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

OG_slinger wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Awful lot of honkies over here.

They must have misplaced all those binders full of women after the election...

It's also nice to see they put Lamar Smith in charge of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee seeing how he doesn't believe in global warming and introduced both the SOPA and Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers (PCIP) Acts.

Not believing in Global Warming, get how that's bad (my brain is considering ragequitting). Understand, minorly, the problem with SOPA. What was the issue with PCIP that makes you want him not to chair this committee?

Well...

Like many Americans, I am concerned about the environment. The Earth has undergone tremendous change in the past and is experiencing similar change now. Climate change has the potential to impact agriculture, ecosystems, sea levels, weather patterns, and human health.

Kind of a slippery answer, but not really a denial of climate change.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Well...

Like many Americans, I am concerned about the environment. The Earth has undergone tremendous change in the past and is experiencing similar change now. Climate change has the potential to impact agriculture, ecosystems, sea levels, weather patterns, and human health.

Kind of a slippery answer, but not really a denial of climate change.

Does he believe humans may have influenced the amount of that change and can have impact on it in a more positive way by reducing our emissions into the environment... or that nature is just not understandable in any way and even if it was, how could we change something like NATURE?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Well...

Like many Americans, I am concerned about the environment. The Earth has undergone tremendous change in the past and is experiencing similar change now. Climate change has the potential to impact agriculture, ecosystems, sea levels, weather patterns, and human health.

Kind of a slippery answer, but not really a denial of climate change.

He doesn't believe that climate change is caused by humans, Norman. That gives him a very convenient out because if he doesn't think that humans are causing climate change then there's really nothing we can do to stop or limit it.

Worse, he thinks there's an active conspiracy by scientists to push the claim that humans are largely responsible for climate change. Remember the so-called Climategate involving emails stolen from East Anglia University? Here's what Smith had to say about that:

ABC, CBS, and NBC are the winners of this week’s Media Fairness Caucus’ highly un-coveted ‘Lap Dog Award’ for the most glaring example of media bias.

The networks took two weeks to devote any coverage to the ‘Climategate’ scandal on their evening news programs.

We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data.

But for two weeks, none of the networks gave the scandal any coverage on their evening news programs. And when they finally did cover it, their reporting was largely slanted in favor of global warming alarmists.

The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change. During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study.

The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.

What several independent inquiries (four, I believe) found was that there wasn't any attempt to hide contradictory temperature data and that the science is solid: the earth is getting warmer and human activity is largely responsible for the change.

Smith quoting the Business and Media Institute study is rich, as well. How much credibility should you give an organization that aims to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values"?

How much credibility should you give to the 11 year-old report, which was based on an 'analysis' of 50 media stories from only five news programs? I mean there can't possibly be any bias in that report when it paints thousands of climate scientists as "liberal environmentalists" in the very first sentence...

Demosthenes wrote:

What was the issue with PCIP that makes you want him not to chair this committee?

The act required ISPs to keep detailed logs of your internet activity for 18 months and store it in a single database that law enforcement could trawl through anytime they felt like it. The log would include any site that you visited and anything you typed--including user names, passwords, credit card information, etc.

So... the guy is really REALLY bad, got it. Really like if you're going to be on that committee, there should be some kind of required reading/night classes on basic scientific principles before you're allowed to try to create legislation on it.

On the Issues - http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Lamar_...

Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)
Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)
Regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act. (Oct 1993)

Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on delaying digital TV conversion by four months. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)
Permanent ban on state & local taxation of Internet access. (Oct 2007)
Sponsored requiring websites to police for copyrighted materials. (Oct 2011)
Member of House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. (Mar 2011)
Prohibit the return of the Fairness Doctrine. (Jan 2009)

That'll teach me to be optimistic.

Rep. Eric Cantor, the number two Republican in the Congress, has now joined his leader, House Speaker John Boehner, in calling for President Barack Obama's health reform law to be put on the table in the debate over how to avoid the fiscal cliff.

And as the article states, this is being done despite non-partisan studies which show the ACA will actually reduce the deficit.

But, the ACA cuts costs? And if this nonsense is really about business, adding even more uncertainty into this market in 2013 is suicidal to the economy. I swear, House GOP is looking to go at this cliff like Thelma and Louise.

KingGorilla wrote:

But, the ACA cuts costs? And if this nonsense is really about business, adding even more uncertainty into this market in 2013 is suicidal to the economy. I swear, House GOP is looking to go at this cliff like Thelma and Louise.

Of course they are, the problem being that they seem to think they'll look like heroes while the rest of us watch and say... wait, you just drove that off the cliff... no I'm not giving you my car now. Think I'll stick with the guys who appear to have been trying to swerve us off or tried to grab the wheel from you while you continually punched them in the face.

Seriously though, folks. What else do they have? What other possible choice do they have than to bolt the bunker doors while Ziukov rolls into town?

I don't understand why the Democrats aren't being more concise about what they're willing to do. If they would clearly explain what they want, wouldn't they have more proof that republicans are being obstructionist?

JC wrote:

I don't understand why the Democrats aren't being more concise about what they're willing to do. If they would clearly explain what they want, wouldn't they have more proof that republicans are being obstructionist?

I don't think they need to be clear. They have already won. If nothing happens and tax rates rise along with the budget cuts, the GOP is going to get all the blame.

JC, it's easier for both parties to argue about taxes and healthcare because almost no elected official would rather publicly discuss the real problem: entitlement reform. It doesn't matter if the tax rate is 20% or 90%--projected increases in claims based purely on demographic changes (we needed more kids 20-40 years ago) means insolvency. Insolvency atop an already huge debt has, according to TPTB, reached a dangerous threshold.

JC wrote:

I don't understand why the Democrats aren't being more concise about what they're willing to do. If they would clearly explain what they want, wouldn't they have more proof that republicans are being obstructionist?

Also, keep in mind that most of the American public has already made up their mind as to which party's views they agree with. Nothing on this green earth will convince them to change their minds. The small percentage of the population that *is* willing to look at the information out there and use that to make up their mind has the ability to look past the soundbites to the data behind the soundbite.

JC wrote:

I don't understand why the Democrats aren't being more concise about what they're willing to do. If they would clearly explain what they want, wouldn't they have more proof that republicans are being obstructionist?

Depends on what you're talking about. There's a couple of things happening at the end of the year.

The big one is that the Bush era tax cuts, which were temporarily extended because of the financial crisis, are set to really expire at the end of this year. The Democratic position is that those tax cuts should be maintained for anyone making less than $250,000 and allowed to expire for anyone making more than that. The Republican counter is to extend all the tax cuts yet again because raising the top tax rate from 35% to 39.6% is going to cause the fabled job creators to stop not creating jobs like they have in recent years and generally cause another financial Armageddon.

Another is the temporary 2% payroll tax cut that was included with the legislation passed during the financial crisis. This tax cut was already extended once back in 2011. The Democratic position on this is exactly the same as the Republican position: let the tax cut expire.

Another is the poison pill from last year's debt showdown. That pill mandated $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 year--equally split between non-military and military programs--if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction couldn't come up with legislation that cut $1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. The Committee failed to do that, so the poison pill took affect, and it kicks in on January 1st. The Democratic position on this one is irrelevant as the cuts are mandated by law. The only positioning I've seen on this is some weasely Republican moves to try to get military spending exempted from the cuts, but I believe that effort's been crushed.

Another is that tax increases mandated by Obamacare are kicking in on January 1st, including a 3.8% surtax on capital gains, dividends, and other investment income for households making more than $250,000. Again, this is law so there's no positioning.

These four things combined are what everyone talks about as the fiscal cliff.

And then there's the general budgetary BS of Congress passing budgets that require it to borrow money and then having a separate political showboating vote on raising the debt ceiling. By passing a budget, Congress authorizes the spending of the money and, if we don't have the money, it authorizes the borrowing of that money. The debt ceiling law is unconstitutional.

Keithustus wrote:

JC, it's easier for both parties to argue about taxes and healthcare because almost no elected official would rather publicly discuss the real problem: entitlement reform. It doesn't matter if the tax rate is 20% or 90%--projected increases in claims based purely on demographic changes (we needed more kids 20-40 years ago) means insolvency. Insolvency atop an already huge debt has, according to TPTB, reached a dangerous threshold.

Insolvency is impossible.

The real reason taxes need to be raised is income inequality. It will balance the power from the financial class back to the workers and consumer class.

Yeah yeah. Silly me thinking our elected officials would have actual discussions and debates to reach a consensus and compromise. Instead they'll just stand there and point fingers.

Douchebags.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make two arguments or one bad one...

goman wrote:

Insolvency is impossible.

What do you mean by this? We are insolvent now. That's why we have a huge and growing deficit. Why are we insolvent is a more useful question. I'm far from an expert but I would proffer two primary reasons: 1) there being too many tax cuts and credits, especially in the last ten years, and 2) the demographic issue mentioned before. In other words, we have been shortsighted on both the taxing and the spending fronts and should fix both. JC asked earlier why politicians won't actually talk about what they propose. Answer: ANY potential cut, tax increase, or eligibility restriction will piss off some group that has many votes and even more money to use during campaign season.

goman wrote:

The real reason taxes need to be raised is income inequality. It will balance the power from the financial class back to the workers and consumer class.

That is a worthwhile value discussion and may be true, but the issue this month and into next year is how to balance the budget, first, not how best to balance different economic interests, which is a praiseworthy goal but not one that necessarily would resolve our budgetary woes.

Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, folks. What else do they have?

The House. Spike the ball all you want, but this isn't 2008 - we won and own half the legislative machinery, so any deal will simply have to satisfy many if not most of the House Republicans. It may not be convenient for the left, but they actually have the right to fight for the best deal possible. Asking to put Obamacare on the table is essentially red meat for their base.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Spike the ball all you want, but this isn't 2008

Are we very certain of that? All this political back and forth seems extremely familiar, and I'm really excited about The Dark Knight still.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, folks. What else do they have?

The House. Spike the ball all you want, but this isn't 2008 - we won and own half the legislative machinery, so any deal will simply have to satisfy many if not most of the House Republicans. It may not be convenient for the left, but they actually have the right to fight for the best deal possible. Asking to put Obamacare on the table is essentially red meat for their base.

So, to make it perfectly clear - You feel that it is acceptable for the GoP to refuse to cooperate whatsoever (we will compromise as long as it is only your position that changes is *not* cooperation in any sense of the word) with the remaining part of the legislative machine.

Keithustus wrote:

What do you mean by this? We are insolvent now. That's why we have a huge and growing deficit.

A couple of things.

One, the US is not insolvent. Being insolvent means that you are incapable of paying your debt. As it stands now, the US has absolutely no problem servicing its debt: six cents of every tax dollar goes towards the debt. Whether or not this amount is too high or not is a different discussion, but the US is most certainly not insolvent, nor are we in any immediate danger of becoming insolvent.

Two, goman was correct when he said that insolvency is impossible for the US (technically). That's because whenever Congress passes a budget they legally authorize the Treasury to 1) spend money on stuff, and 2) borrow said money if there's not enough tax revenues to cover the previously authorized spending on stuff. As long as there's a market for US debt the nation technically can't default. We can always borrow more money to pay off our old debt.

Can this continue forever? Absolutely not. But as the past couple of years have shown, the world's investors seem to think Treasury bonds are a solid investment even with all our problems. Until the EU gets its collective act together or China becomes the dominate economy of the world, the US will always be able to borrow money.

Three, debt and deficit are two different things. Get them straight. Our national deficit is large, but it is most definitely not growing. In fact, it's been actually shrinking by a couple hundred billion dollars each year under Obama, the fastest rate since the US demobilized after WWII. From 2009 to 2012, the deficit as a percentage of GDP shrank from 10.1% to 7.0%.

Keithustus wrote:

That is a worthwhile value discussion and may be true, but the issue this month and into next year is how to balance the budget, first, not how best to balance different economic interests, which is a praiseworthy goal but not one that necessarily would resolve our budgetary woes.

No one is really talking about balancing the budget over the next couple of months. Balancing the budget would require us to make over a $1 trillion in spending cuts or increased revenues now. Not over the next decade, but next f*cking year. What that means is that 1/3 of all federal spending would simply vanish come January 1st. That's why no one is actually talking about balancing the budget. To do so would push us into another recession.

Hell, even the vaunted Republican budget plans didn't talk about balancing the budget. The Ryan Plan kicked that can down the road about 15 or 20 years (meaning we'd still be running deficits each year and increasing our national debt) and the Romney plan required about a decade of some wildly optimistic economic growth to happen before the country was back in the black.

Again, goman is right. Taxes need to be raised because all that the tax cuts since Reagan on have done is concentrate wealth into the hands of the rich, not grow the economy.

The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, published a report in September 2012 that concluded that there was absolutely no correlation between cutting taxes on the wealthy and economic growth. However, what it did find was that there was a correlation between those tax cuts for the wealthy and growing levels of income inequality.

The response of Republicans to this refutation of their economic policy for the past 30 years was measured and thoughtful. Ah, who am I kidding? Rather than admit they were wrong, Senate Republicans simply forced the CRS to "unpublish" the report.

More importantly, economists are now recognizing that high levels of income inequality is damaging our economy. Not only is it slowing economic growth since more money is ending up in the hands of rich people rather than being spent, but it is also causing financial instability because all those rich people want "innovative financial products" that give them high rates of return...the same "innovative financial products" that brought us mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, and the financial meltdown.

How unequal are we? Well, the US's Gini coefficient, the statistical measure of inequality, rivals that of African dictatorships. There's even been studies that have shown that income was more evenly distributed in the US when we had slavery than it is today...

mudbunny wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, folks. What else do they have?

The House. Spike the ball all you want, but this isn't 2008 - we won and own half the legislative machinery, so any deal will simply have to satisfy many if not most of the House Republicans. It may not be convenient for the left, but they actually have the right to fight for the best deal possible. Asking to put Obamacare on the table is essentially red meat for their base.

So, to make it perfectly clear - You feel that it is acceptable for the GoP to refuse to cooperate whatsoever (we will compromise as long as it is only your position that changes is *not* cooperation in any sense of the word) with the remaining part of the legislative machine.

The GOP has a small majority in one side of Congress. You know, a mandate from the people to enact their plans fully and completely. Duh. Much like GWB knelt and scraped before the all-powerful Democrats for the last two years of his presidency.

I guess Democrats should have elected more Representatives to get around this pesky divided government issue. Spare me the mandate whining.

The Democrats are getting what the want, Bill Clinton era taxes, reduced defense spending, and no changes to entitlements. The icing is that they can blame the republicans for it all and will beat that drum to win back Congress.

Conversely, the republicans are setting themselves up for political suicide in 2014. Bill Kristol gave them good advice. Pass the Democrats plan and make them own it if it fails.

We are witnessing political theater from now until the new year.

Thank you OG... you explained my points clearly.

Unfortunately most Conventional Wisdom is actually wrong. Follow the money.

It isn't ball spiking or triumphalism. It is just me honestly asking where the heck the GOP goes from here now that they have bet all in and lost. Where do they go philosophically now that they have tissue grafted themselves to a political identity that begins and ends with obstruction? Do they compromise and get primaried out of existence? Unlikely.

They will continue on this course to its logical conclusion.

Norman, bear in mind that the Republicans *lost* five or six seats this cycle in the House, and failed to take the five or even six seats they were forecasting in the Senate. Even though they held the House, Democratic candidates out-polled Republicans by over a million votes. And while Bush's 2004 re-election was widely touted as a mandate, Obama won re-election by over a million votes more than Bush had.

I think maybe you're in the Bargaining stage of the phases of grief. Nevertheless, you make a good point - Republican views have not been crushed, and should not be. However, the burden of compromise lies on *both* parties, and while Obama has offered up entitlement cuts, Republicans have not offered much at all in return. If it comes to smashmouth politics again, the numbers have shifted away from the Republicans, and that is a pretty important consideration for Congressional Republican leaders.

It's time to slaughter sacred calves and get on with life. Remember, the debate about "soaking the rich" is a debate about a maximum 3.6% increase in the top rate - from 36% to a max of 39.6%. As Bill Kristol pointed out last week, maybe that won't end the world after all, and frankly, compromise is the business of Congress. They should get back to it, and Republican voters should adjust back to what's been our reality for centuries, that compromise is what makes America's system great.

Their no-compromise approach has not served us well for the last decade or so, and it needs to change.

Bloo Driver wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Spike the ball all you want, but this isn't 2008

Are we very certain of that? All this political back and forth seems extremely familiar, and I'm really excited about The Dark Knight still.

I work at Lehman!

mudbunny wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously though, folks. What else do they have?

The House. Spike the ball all you want, but this isn't 2008 - we won and own half the legislative machinery, so any deal will simply have to satisfy many if not most of the House Republicans. It may not be convenient for the left, but they actually have the right to fight for the best deal possible. Asking to put Obamacare on the table is essentially red meat for their base.

So, to make it perfectly clear - You feel that it is acceptable for the GoP to refuse to cooperate whatsoever (we will compromise as long as it is only your position that changes is *not* cooperation in any sense of the word) with the remaining part of the legislative machine.

"Fighting for the best deal possible" isn't "refusing to cooperate whatsoever", so no, that's not what I'm saying.

Robear wrote:

I think maybe you're in the Bargaining stage of the phases of grief. Nevertheless, you make a good point - Republican views have not been crushed, and should not be. However, the burden of compromise lies on *both* parties, and while Obama has offered up entitlement cuts, Republicans have not offered much at all in return.

I fully agree that both parties have to compromise. I'm not sure the mere fact of "entitlement cuts" qualifies as a compromise on the Democratic side, though. Obama has repeatedly said spending needs to be reigned in, that's his existing position.

Greg wrote:

I guess Democrats should have elected more Representatives to get around this pesky divided government issue.

I guess this was meant to be snarky but it's actually true. If the country had completely repudiated the Republican viewpoint, that's what would have happened.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I fully agree that both parties have to compromise. I'm not sure the mere fact of "entitlement cuts" qualifies as a compromise on the Democratic side, though. Obama has repeatedly said spending needs to be reigned in, that's his existing position.

I guess that is where we see things differently. I see that as Obama taking the first step in compromising. Yet the GOP still claims that Obama hasn't made any compromises.