An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Calderon’s Bush-Style Militarization of Mexican Politics: La Jornada, Mexico

‘Lost Smiles’ as Obama Prepares for Europe: Corriere della Sera, Italy »

The Republicans Present Their Own Budget Plan With One Tiny Hitch

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Economy, Politics.
Mar 27th, 2009 | Comments

The hitch: After blasting President Barack Obama on the budget, it turns out that Rep. Mike Spence can’t answer a question on what the deficit would be under the new Republican plan — and he continues to blast Obama’s projected deficit even after he can’t answer the question about the GOP’s:

It’s clear what the GOP’s strategy is heading into 2010. This is its real theme song (and most of the words do seem to fit):

The AP reports the GOP presentation this way:

House Republicans released their response to President Barack Obama’s deficit-laden budget Thursday — a glossy pamphlet short on detail and long on campaign-style talking points.

It promises to simplify the tax code and cut income tax rates to 10 percent for people making $100,000 or less. The brochure itself promises to cut domestic spending below current levels, and that pledge seems to include Social Security and Medicare. Republican aide Matt Lloyd clarified later that the politically sensitive programs won’t face outright cuts.

It’s impossible to determine the projected deficit based on their offering.

The GOP plan comes two days after Obama criticized Republicans for offering criticisms of his budget blueprint, currently making its way through Congress, instead of solutions.

Republicans said more details will be out next week as the party offers an alternative promising spending amounts, revenue levels and the size of the budget deficit in a more traditional format.

“We’re going to show a leaner budget, a budget with lower taxes, lower spending, and lower borrowing,” said Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House. “And it’s going to be a budget that says, ‘Here’s how best to get America out of this struggling economy.’”

The reaction at the White House? From the AP story, it sounds like barely concealed glee:

From the podium in the White House press room, press secretary Robert Gibbs happily continued the mud fight.

“I think the party of ‘no’ has become the party of ‘no new ideas,” Gibbs said. “The rhetoric inside the budget seems to be a road map for the failed policies that got us into this mess … The administration’s glad that the Republicans heard the president’s call to submit an alternative. We just hope that next time it will contain actual numbers so somebody can evaluate what it means.”

It turns out some Republicans are angry about the way this was rolled out…

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

GeorgeSorwell

But did they read it from a teleprompter?

Skaredykatt

Its not a budget. Its a blueprint. Their are no intricate details.

There would obviously be no numbers associated with it other then vague generalities.

Then again perhaps.........just perhaps they want Obama to pass his 1.7 trillion dollar deficit budget, behind closed doors with no imput from the GOP. Imagine the cries of anguish coming from them and the press and America. Even though the press might love Obama.....they love freedom and democracy more.

DdW

I understand that the "budget" was 19 pages short:

Eighteen pages for the Table of Contents, and the nineteenth page blank.--a place holder.

RevDave

Give them credit for offering a good placeholder - huge tax cuts for anyone over $100,000 with no real spending cuts. So that takes the existing huge deficit and reduces it, correct? All those new tax savings for people over $100,000 will fuel a massive economic expansion which lifts all boats. Interesting theory that we ought to try sometime.

DdW

On another thread I had an exchange about how important OPTIMISM is for our economic recovery. I believe it was "pooh-poohed"

Just saw on the news that a Gallup poll shows that OPTIMISM about the American economy has gone up in two weeks by a whopping 12 percent, from 17 percent to 29 percent.

What a bummer for those who want our economy to fail.

Of course, some will say, this could just be a bleep, one of those "cyclic" things...

DaGoat

It looks like Democrats have adopted the "Party of No" meme as a response to any calls for fiscal conservatism. While I'm sure they mean it derisively, it is the proper role of the minority party to balance the excesses of the majority party. In fact, the Democrats voiced an interest in controlling spending up until last November, when they lost interest in being a "Party of No".

This isn't a defense of the GOP, who by their own runaway spending betrayed the fiscal conservatives that helped put them into power. My point is that there has to be a "Party of No" to some extent as that is a role of the party not in power. While it's reasonable to criticize politicians who blindly mount opposition purely out of partisanship, the "Party of No" accusations now seem to be applied to almost all opposition.

CStanley

I agree with you, DaGoat, but it's foolish for the GOP to go on defense about being the party of no, and then come out with an unserious outline of a proposal and claim that it's a thorough alternative plan. They obviously rushed this out in response to the criticism- they'd have been better off just saying no than to pretend otherwise with such a shallow veneer of seriousness.

Boehner really needs to go. Cantor would be much more effective.

DaGoat

Can't argue with that CStanley, my observation was more that Party of No is becoming a knee-jerk response like "Bush lied, people died", "It's all about oil", "Bush was selected, not elected", etc, etc. It essentially defers actual consideration of the issues and replaces discussion with a catch phrase.

In the case of the budget it is appropriate for the GOP to be the Party of No to some extent.

Skaredykatt

I really believe the GOP wants the democrats to pass this insane budget.

The new talking point of the left is to blame everything on the GOP while the democrats slip in this budget thru the backdoor all the while screaming how obstrucionist the GOP is.

Criticizing them for no plan and yet changing the house rules so that everything their peanuts miniority proposes can be shot down immediately.

The democrats are such villians here that I believe the GOP simply wants this insanity to pass and the mass chaos it creates all across the world will be all thats needed to watch the democrats lose 40 house seats and 4 or 5 senate seats in 2010.

The democrats really are proving they are nothing more then toddlers in a candy store with no self discipline and the few that are daring to stand against this insanity are now under attack by Moveon.org and MIchael Moore.

Forgive me D.E. While I go hang out with my ILK somemore.

StockBoySF

I'm not sure they rushed to get this plan out.... From the linked article, '“In his egocentric rush to get on camera, Mike Pence threw the rest of the Conference under the bus, specifically Paul Ryan, whose staff has been working night and day for weeks to develop a substantive budget plan," said a GOP aide heavily involved in budget strategy."

It seems that the Dems have been working just as long and were able to offer a thorough plan. It's not as though the Republicans were caught off guard and forced to do this at the last minute.... especially since they've been working day and night for weeks. They al knew the budget plan was due. My thought is that they are responding to the criticism that their plan is lacking in specifics.

But still I'll give them a few more days to come up with a plan as comprehensive as the Democratic plan. I think that's fair. But since the GOP offered this blueprint with few details it is also fair for them to be criticized on it. The GOP was looking for reaction by releasing this blueprint.

CStanley

Stockboy, I too would have preferred if they'd gotten out in front of this, but honestly I can't remember a time when a minority party was expected to have an alternative, fully fleshed out budget plan in place at the same time the president released his.

Isn't it typical that the president initiates the process and his party in Congress generally supports it, while the opposition party tries to push back?

I also think it's a bit of a 'heads we win, tails you lose' game that the Dems are playing here. If the GOP did have full alternative plans which differed substantially from the President and Dem Congressional ones, then they're not willing to work in a bipartisan way. If they don't have a plan, then they don't get to participate in negotiations because they're just saying no without offering an alternative.

The only way to win that game is to not play.

DdW

I agree. We should give Republicans at least a few more days to come up with a detailed, substantiated, numbers-supported budget that will show us once and for all how we can get out of this economic/financial mess. Then, Democrats should take a close look at it and seriously consider the sound parts of it.

Skaredykat: "Forgive me D.E. While I go hang out with my ILK somemore" I did not have you pegged as one of Limbaugh's ilk who wants our economy to fail. Your comments and discussions do not lead me to think of you that way. But correct me if I am wrong.

mlhradio

Frankly, I was really, really, REALLY hoping to see a real budget proposal from the Party of No. I *want* to see serious alternative ideas, I'm not particularly enamored with Obama's plans (I see it more as a massive, bitter pill to swallow *now* to prevent even worse things from happening *later* - I don't like it, but understand the necessity). I was hoping to see some reasonable thoughts and ideas from the Party of No.

Boy, was I fooled! Everyone lined up to watch and listen to the Party of No present their 19-page pamphlet, then sat around incredulously as the Party of No bunted. No new ideas, just a broad general outline that essentially is a clone of Bush's failed policies (reduce taxes, deny reality, reduce taxes more, name-calling, reduce taxes even more, and then a miracle occurs) with absolutely no real numbers to examine.

I wanted a meal; the Party of No gave me a puff pastry.

The sense of utter embarrassment among the republicans was palpable. The Party of No had a golden opportunity to step up to the plate and put Obama in his place...and they BLEW IT. Big time.

I have friends who are downright gleeful at this political seppuku moment, going so far as to opine that the republicans are starting to enter Whig Party territory. That's certainly an exaggeration, but you gotta wonder, as they keep hitting new low after new low, just how farther they could drop into irrelevancy.

As for me, in the final analysis, I take no comfort in the continued republican failures and embarrassments of late. Sure, I pointed and laughed like nearly all of America when they finished their little news conference yesterday, and had my little moment of fun. But on further reflection, I would rather have a competent, intelligent republican party putting forth smart, workable ideas instead of watching them fail. This country would be much better off if they did. While I see Obama's path as *a* road to recovery that will work, I would prefer a *better* road to recovery to be presented, if possible. But instead, the Party of No decided to remain...the Party of No. Color me, disappointed.

ChrisWWW

We should give Republicans at least a few more days to come up with a detailed, substantiated, numbers-supported budget that will show us once and for all how we can get out of this economic/financial mess. Then, Democrats should take a close look at it and seriously consider the sound parts of it.

Don't hold your breath on any of that :-)

Mike_P

Don't worry, though they took a well deserved hit on this roll-out, I'm sure next Wednesday's version will go much better. That's right, just wait 'til April Fool's Day for the real one.

StockBoySF

CStanley, yes, as I mentioned I'll still give the Republicans a few more days to come up with their plan. But they can't blast the Dems, only to present a general blueprint (that's not even agreed upon by their own party members) without facing some criticism. If I were the GOP I would have foregone the blueprint and made a general statement that in the following days the GOP will present their own alternative.

As for your assertion that the Dems are playing a 'heads we win, tails you lose' game.... Perhaps they are.... But I honestly don't know how much involvement the Dems sought from the GOP in the formation of their plans so I can't answer that question meaningfully.

But I will say that it is many Republicans who want Obama to fail, and who, during the stimulus negotiations requested concessions from Dems, which were given to them. Only to have the Republicans still vote against it. I'm not giving the Republicans a benefit of a doubt..... But I'm also not going to discount any games the Dems may be playing....

Anyway, this post is about the (non)plan of teh Republicans, I commented on it- and now I'm waiting to see their full plan. We'll see how popular it is (and it could be very popular with the lower taxes gambit, though I'm not sure people want lower social security and medicare benefits, especially in the face of inflation. At any rate, I don't really have any more informaiton to comment further.

CStanley

But they can't blast the Dems, only to present a general blueprint (that's not even agreed upon by their own party members) without facing some criticism. If I were the GOP I would have foregone the blueprint and made a general statement that in the following days the GOP will present their own alternative.

Yep, that was my point as well. That's what I mean by not playing the game; they shouldn't have snapped at the bait of the complaints about not offering alternatives. They either need to come up with credibly detailed plans (and take the appropriate time to do it, not rushing in with a sparse outline of ideas) or just continue to offer principled opposition.

GreenDreams

Rachel Maddow gleefully points out how stupidly the GOP took "the bait"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29904566

Then goes on to take apart the empty plan for what it is: "the biggest tax break for the rich IN HISTORY"

Skaredykatt

I can understand how the Left hates Rush Limbaugh. When I watch Rachel Maddow I want to puke and wonder secretly if her and Olberman are married IRL and if they are not, they should be.

Anyway.

Earth to GOP. Get a clue. Talk about Obama's budget. Not yours. It doesnt matter if you come up with a 100000000 page budget the dems are just going to not invite you to the debate and then have an up and down vote using sleazy methods anyway. Your only hope? Truly moderate democrats that are aghast at this 1.7 trillion dollar extravaganza.

I sending away for my Chinese language course now. You all might want to start brushing up on your Chinese as well.

GreenDreams

typical rightist response skardy. Maddow is a Rhodes scholar. Doubt you are. So you attack HER instead of making a substantive comment on what she said. She's right. The GOP flunked politics 101. And let me remind you of the 4 trillion dollar Bush extravaganza on top of the $3 trillion from Reagan and 1.5 from Bush 1.

As a % of GDP, these three presidents are the ONLY ones since WWII who have increased our indebtedness. Those are the facts, m'am. GOP IS the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

From White House figures (including the Reagan, Bush and Bush WH)

http://greendreams.wordpress.com/our-legacy/

As for your China comment, I agree with you. Ever since Nixon opened up to China, we've spent ourselves into the poorhouse on Chinese money. I've said so many times. Administrations and legislatures OF BOTH PARTIES have gone along with this. Now what do you propose we do about it?

DaGoat

If Obama asked for GOP input merely to bait them, he is being juvenile and putting politics ahead of solving the crisis. The GOP problem wasn't that they responded, it's that they responded prematurely and badly.

And Rhodes scholars can't be annoying?

Skaredykatt

Green your assumption is correct. I am not a Rhodes Scholar.

So you attack HER instead of making a substantive comment on what she said.

Okay Green why should I give her the time of day???????????????????????????????

She is a partisan hack. She gets her paycheck by doing EXACTLY what Rush Limbaugh does. How many of you around here spend time........how did you put it..........."making a substantive comment on what she (He)said." ?????????????

I have 7 phds. I am the smartest man in the world. I know everything. I have written 100 books. I teach at Harvard. Or maybe Im just a redneck drinking beer, whose unemployed and sitting on the front porch on his couch and telling the missus to fetch me another beer. What does it matter?

What matters is that YOU seem to be enamored with a partisan hack. I am not. I am not enamored with Limbaugh and I certainly am not with Maddow or Olberman.

That aside I actually did opine. I guess you just stopped reading after I said she makes me sick.

I said..............Earth to GOP. Get a clue. Talk about Obama's budget. Not yours. It doesnt matter if you come up with a 100000000 page budget the dems are just going to not invite you to the debate and then have an up and down vote using sleazy methods anyway. Your only hope? Truly moderate democrats that are aghast at this 1.7 trillion dollar extravaganza.

Which is sorta pretty much what she was implying in her piece. In fact I even used her tone and style and quit nicely too. It just doesnt translate well on paper. Thank you for your time.

blog comments powered by Disqus