With Arlen Specter now a D, Dems at brink of 60

I take the cynical view. I see another career politician doing what he thinks is necessary to continue his career. It’s doubtful to me that ideology has anything to do with it. Sort of the same thing Sonny did here in Georgia.

It’s up to the people of Pennsylvania to keep him or not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sadly, Arlen says he won’t change his vote on EFCA. That may still
cause him to lose in PA dem primary.

• Link
• Report this comment

Based on the response fromt he GOP to Specter’s (and the last two moderate Republicans in the Senate from Maine) support for the stimulus bill — its hard to blame him.

The GOP is rapidly become a southern, angry, white male party.

Its a pity because there are many conservative ideals that deserve consideration — but when the party takes its cues from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that they must oppose everything Obama does to preserve their (dwindling) chances in future election and stifle internal debate — they make it harder for those ideas to get heard.

When the Georgia GOP’s Chip Rogers recently opined that talk of secession was a valid response to the recent elections — its clear that the GOP is losing it.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m looking forward to the spin the right-wing media will try to put on this, somehow claiming it as a “victory for the Republican Party.”

Will they take the “drive out the sane moderates” angle and pursue another purge, making their tent smaller and smaller until the entire national convention can fit in a Motel 6?

Or will they just bray “Now that they’re unstoppable, the Dems are bound to screw everything up and overreach, and then America will HAVE to vote for us!” That’s one inspirational platform, all right: Hoping the Other Guys Screw Up.

Either way, it’ll be fun to watch. Get a comfortable seat and a tall, cold drink, America!

• Link
• Report this comment

Spector was originally a Democrat, and was a registered Democrat when he first ran for district attorney in the 1960’s, though he ran as a Republican because the Democrats had their own nominee. Much like Michael Bloomberg in New York, who was a registered Democrat and merely switched parties because the Democratic machine in New York already had their own nominee.

I am not surprised. The Republican Party has been threatening Spector with ejecting him for not abiding by the Southern Leadership’s extreme right wing agenda. Spector has always been more the Linconesque populist Republican as opposed to the far right, pro-corporate wing that is prevalent in the Republican party these days.

This will hold up George Voinevich’s retirement a bit, because if Voinevich retired and they do not appoint a replacement but wait to hold a special election, the figures for filibuster change, and then it taked 59 votes to overcome a filibuster attempt because when there are two empty seats, the percentages change from 60/40 to 59/58 to overcome a filibuster.

I doubt that Spector will lose the Democratic Primary. Its a sure thing that a deal was struck to get him to switch party affiliations and that deal included his getting the nod from the Democratic Party as their nominee of choice.

• Link
• Report this comment

let the G-O-Pig gnashing of teeth BEGIN!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.”

Therein lies the reason Sen. Specter would have lost his seat in the GOP primary. No room for independent thinkers in today’s Republican party.

Great move. Win-win for both Specter and the Democratic party.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not a surprise, Susan. Nothing much here. Specter wasn’t very reliable when it came to the Republican agenda, so no loss.

Non-story, except that he has a better shot to get re-elected.

• Link
• Report this comment

The dems and repubs average IQ just increased 10%.

• Link
• Report this comment

A filibuster-proof majority means the Democraps will have no means of restraint for carrying out their agenda. If you think they’re spending money like drunken sailors now, just wait. They will have the ability to bankrupt the planet. This is scary, scary shiznit.

• Link
• Report this comment

A March 25, 2009 Quinnipiac University poll showed Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter running more successfully as a Democrat for reelection and receiving a 71 – 16 percent approval rating from Democrats.

Overall Pennsylvania voters have a 45 – 31 percent favorable opinion of Sen. Specter, but he gets a 47 – 29 percent unfavorable score from Republicans. He gets a 60 – 16 percent thumbs up from Democrats.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fine dems, y’all take him! Specter has been a RINO for far too long now and it’s high time he let everyone know where he really stands so he can quit embarrassing real conservatives. The fact that specter hasn’t stepped up and helped the right is reason enough for him to go.

Only reason him and the other democrats out there keep referring to the GOP as an “angry white male party” or a party with “no room for independent thinkers” is because true republicans and conservatives know where they stand and don’t shift their principles with public opinion every other day. After all, “independent thinker” is just a fancy way of saying “liberal repeater”.
And while it’s not good that this could bring the dems close to a filibuster-proof majority, the silver lining is that a democrat-controlled congress who can push their agenda through without debate will only expose their socialist propagandist agenda even faster. Heck, might help them go away even faster!

• Link
• Report this comment

Good lord, I take a nap and wake up to a world where hell hath frozen over.

Maybe I should go back to sleep and see what else happens.

Specter to switch parties? My eyes! My eyes!

Actually, I hate this kind of crap. A few years back when the Dems were the toxic party, there were all kinds of switchovers. People knew they couldn’t win with that albatross around their neck and they switched over.

Why can’t people just stick to their guns and their party – why not take back your party Arlen?

• Link
• Report this comment

say what…

There is another option I suspect you don’t want to consider.

60 Dems plus Snowe and Collins now, and 2 or 3 more seats in 2010,
will bring this country into the 21st century.

Americans will be delighted and the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs and the Mugwumps.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch,
nice post. I couldn’t agree more.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jennifer E,

You mean Obama wasn’t flying the plane? LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

Republican Step 1: Scream that this shouldn’t be legal, talk about how Specter was never a ‘real’ republican, hint darkly at terrible secrets he’s keeping, and throw around phrases like ‘traitor,’ ‘benedict arnold,’ and ‘betrayal.’

Step 2- Try to recruit some Dems to jump to the GOP.

• Link
• Report this comment

ty,

Did that hurt much?

Just kidding.

• Link
• Report this comment

First rule. The 180 degree rule.
Whatever a GOP operative says, the truth is opposite.

Second Rule.
The GOP propaganda machine will always spin the facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Planet Bjork – anybody get that? She’s one weird chick.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sadly, Arlen says he won’t change his vote on EFCA.

But has he promised to vote against cloture? That’s the real issue. I suspect that vote just became a whole lot less reliable.

• Link
• Report this comment

All the Democrats might want to temper your enthusiasm for the moment. I know that a lot of the things that Republicans wanted went by the wayside when they took power. They came in talking about term limits, smaller government, and pro-life. They gave us career politicians, huge debt and abortion that is legal in all 50 states. Given that health providers and insurance companies gave a lot of money to both sides I’d hold off on celebrating health care just yet. The same Specter that voted against the card check might not be quite as reliable a Democrat as you’d think.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you want to switch parties then do it when you are running for re-election

Given that the 2010 primaries are only a year away, that’s basically what he’s doing anyway.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

I could go to sleep right now and sleep the rest of the day. Hey, guess what? I found out my liver works yesterday – that’s always good news.

I saw your t-shirt idea – I got so wrapped up with the Specter news I forgot to mention it. I’m tellin’ ya’ with our t-shirt ideas and my new keyboard cleaning system (I figured out it’s more of a “system” than a tool) we are on the brink of riches beyond our wildest dreams!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgia’s representatives in Washington just got even more irrelevant.

• Link
• Report this comment

And this is really why Republicans have been losing elections. Either the Reagan Democrats have passed away, or they have decided that the Republican party has simply become too radically right wing and abandoned it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans made their bed, now they are wetting it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well things in Georgia are changing as they usually do in most states. The changes occur at the lower levels of government, local and then move on to higher levels. I was rather stunned when one of the most conservative areas in the region here elected a Democrat to the state legislature and tossed out the Republican. A sign of things to come.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now is the time to seperate the savers from the big spenders anyways. Going to need that list when America wakes up to the historic debt being racked up with each and every passing day..

• Link
• Report this comment

1 billion spent per day for Obama first 100, with nothing to show for it. What a legacy!!

• Link
• Report this comment

What do you call a republican with brain cancer?
A new democrat.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Specter is selling his soul to win his next election in PA”

I’d say he’s saving it.

• Link
• Report this comment

N.J.,

I couldn’t disagree more. I think people should vote their conscious or how their constituents want – simple as that. If people actually did that, we wouldn’t have the dysfunctional Congress that we currently have. Instead they vote along party lines because they know to not do so will cost them their job – which again, is a symptom of how dysfunctional most of them are.

• Link
• Report this comment

Where’s Whiner Andy? Maybe he committed suicide or something?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, if this don’t make you want to break off and form the Southren States of America I don’t know what will. It’s bad enough we took a butt whoopin last election. Now we got people in Congress that don’t even want to be part of us anymore. When I get home tonight I’m hiding my anti-tank weapon and two machine guns that I use for hunting and self defense. And I’m putting even more money in my cement vault so this Pelousy woman can’t get her hands on it. This Texas Gov. is right. We need to break off from the U.S. of A. again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch

Good news on the liver. Just heard from a friend the other day – spouse had a growth on the liver. They’re waiting to hear if it’s malignant or not. Nasty stuff.

I think you’ve broken the code – ya gotta have a ’system.” There’s more money to be made if it’s part of a ‘process.” Hey, maybe we could get that guy who hawks the shamwipes or shammierobes or whatever they are..

I’ve a feeling Specter’s not gonna vote party line as much as some who’re hoping for a veto-proof majority would hope -

• Link
• Report this comment

The spinners at FOX don’t give a whit about how much money the Democrats spend (though that is what they will tell you). They are scared to death about the appointment of judges! Obama now has clear sailing.

• Link
• Report this comment

As far as nothing to show for it, there are companies all over the country reopening their doors when they had to shut down and lay off hundreds of workers all over the country.

One example:

…reopened Chicago window factory that had been a symbol of the plight of the American worker but now is touted as an example of economic reinvigoration thanks to the federal stimulus.

A California company has reopened the former Republic Windows and Doors factory that received national attention last year when workers briefly occupied the building after the former owners gave them just a few days notice before Christmas that they were shutting down.

The new owner, Serious Materials, has started rehiring some of the more than 200 laid-off workers to make energy-efficient windows at the plant.

This is happening all over the country. Small businesses are retooling and reopening using money from the stimulus package.

All over the northern and midwestern states, there are two seasons, winter and construction season. Unemployment in the construction industy nationally is much higher than the average unemployment, 20-25 percent, depending on the states you look at and millions of construction workers have already been hired and are waiting for May and june to come rolling around to start work on the many infrastructure projects that were stopped in mid construction and are now ready to be finished with stimulus money.

The national organizations that represent construction workers are all very vocal about the massive effect that stimulus is already having on their industry and their workers:

Grateful construction workers have shovels ready as Minnesota digs into first stimulus-fueled road projects

Derek Asrouch’s shovel is ready. A crane he’s been helping to repair is ready, too.

Asrouch, a member of Operating Engineers Local 49 who usually works for Brooklyn Park-based Egan, believes that because of the federal stimulus package, he almost certainly will be working this summer.

Which highway construction companies will be getting work on 14 different “shovel-ready” projects will be announced Friday, when Minnesota Department of Transportation officials award contracts to the lowest bidders.

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/03/12/7336/grateful_construction_workers_have_shovels_ready_as_minnesota_digs_into_first_stimulus-fueled_road_projects

Or even more locally in Georgia:

Stimulus creates local jobs weatherizing homes

Philip Pennyman warmed his wife and three children with logs in the fireplace last winter because he couldn’t afford to use the furnace.

Rob Brondell burned through his retirement savings because he’d lost his job.

Their lives intersected in a beneficial way through the federal stimulus plan. Brondell found work weatherizing homes — including Pennyman’s — while Pennyman qualified for the government-funded improvements. He said he can’t hold a job because of an incident that left him wheelchair-bound three years ago, and said he stopped using heat after his electric and gas bills reached $700 one month.

“They said I was losing a lot of energy,” Pennyman said, as he watched a half dozen workmen scurry about his ranch-style house in south DeKalb County on Wednesday. He used to be able to poke a finger between the outside door to his master bedroom and its frame, but now it was sealed tight against the wind.

Pennyman and Brondell are benefitting from $8 million in grants that the Clarkston-based Partnership for Community Action is expecting from Washington over the next three years. Agency president Mohammad Saleem said the stimulus should allow him to increase the number of houses he weatherizes in DeKalb and three nearby counties from about 240 a year to nearly 700.

The federal stimulus is designed to create jobs and reduce the nation’s energy dependence.

“There is a high demand,” Saleem said of the weatherization work. “We could never do enough, so this stimulus will definitely help.”

http://www.ajc.com/traffic/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2009/04/20/weatherizing_stimulus.html

• Link
• Report this comment

RW extremists are driving sane Americans away.

• Link
• Report this comment

NJ,

From the treasury dept. yesterday. The US will borrow 361 billion dollars this quarter. They will be required to borrow 500 billion in the month of July alone which is more than has ever been borrowed before in an entire year.

I don’t like spending. I didn’t like it when Bush did it but his spending was childs play compared to what is happening now.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Southern States of America. I find that amusing from a region that virtually exists on federal funding. The net wealth of the entire south would drop by 20 percent if it had to pay for what exists here on its own tax steam.

The only region of the country that gets back more from the federal government than it pays to the federal government is the south. For every dollar it sends in taxes to Washington, it gets back 1.19.

The first thing that would occur is that local taxes would have to be raised, significantly, in order for most of the state to function and even more, for most businesses to stay open.

• Link
• Report this comment

One in four dollars spent in every locality in Georgia are federal dollars sent to the state in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Without that money most small businesses in Georgia would collapse.

• Link
• Report this comment

And yet, NJ, you never have figured out why that is about the South. A couple of states in particular.

And in case you haven’t figured it out, our costs for government would be significantly lower in the Southern States of America.

Keep trying, NJ. One of these days, you’ll be right. Of course, you’d have to try thinking for yourself instead of posting others writings first.

• Link
• Report this comment

Love that timeline. For all those who assert that Bush was good for getting rid of unemployment, his entire presidency saw a continual rise in unemployment every month of every year.

I remember when Bush decided that it would be a better idea to measure worker productivity by “WEEKLY” measures rather than hourly productivity because for the first time in Post WWII history the hourly productivity of the largest European nations passed American productivity, in some cases considerably.

• Link
• Report this comment

Might have to tune in for a bit of Hannity today on the way home.

Hehehehehe.chortle.snort

• Link
• Report this comment

The Bush Administration’s Dirty Legacy

Don’t forget what Bush and the Republicans did to our environment. Another timeline.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R,

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

NJ,

And where do you think that one in four dollars is coming from, Obama’s piggy bank.

All govt. money comes from private industry mostly taken from industry in the form of tax. The govt. doesn’t create products or services which they sell. When the small business gets their one dollar back it came from someone else in private business.

All of these stimulus projects you are so proud of are being financed not by Obama, but by the evil world of private enterprise. Obama just collects the money from them and redistributes it. This is why its called redistribution of wealth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another comment sure to go down in the annals of Susan Myers history.

Just as valuable as her “casualty” figures for the Iraqi war.

And let’s not forget her “Bush ordered the torture of prisoners in Abu Graib” line. Still haven’t seen that memo ordering Lynndie England to leash-up a couple of naked Iraqis, Susan. But of course, the White House ordered them to do it, and then let them go to prison, right?

Too much tin foil IS harmful to your health, Susan.

• Link
• Report this comment

The difference between the Obama and the Bush budgets? Obama spending in the U.S. on Americans, Bush spending in Iraq on Iraqi’s

• Link
• Report this comment

The real thing Repubs are upset about with Spector is that Spector sees which way the wind is blowing and that the Republican party is fast becoming an irrelevant party, and the American people are fast rejecting their radical right slant. The Republican party is basically has become a party of radicals while the Democrats are seen as centrists by the majority of Americans

• Link
• Report this comment

Budget deficits

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d glad that Spector has become so comfortable with the Notheast’s radical shift to a radical liberal agenda. Maybe he can divorce his wife and marry his boyfriend which would check all the boxes for this loser.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is good news today. Now maybe we can get the remaining 3 or 4 sensible Republitards to do the same and join the 21st century. I predict that before too long, all that will be left of the Repub Party will be the Book of Genesis addicts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not at all. I got kicked off a liberal website for DEFENDING Liebernans decision to vote the way he did, largely because it was a position held by a very large percentage of his own constituency in Connecticut.he voted on Iraq the way his constituency wanted him to vote. His constituency is largely very pro Israel and their position was very much pro Iraq War. On the other side on every other issue he was reliably liberal in his vote, so taking him to task over that one position was inappropriate. The result of him running as an independent proved that his constituents still favored his position over that of the person the Democrats nominated to run on the Democratic ticket.

• Link
• Report this comment

I absolutely opposed the position the Democrats took with joe Lieberman regarding his vote on Iraq, because it was largely the position that was taken by Liebermans own constituency. He was on the whole a reliable liberal voter on 99 percent of all other votes, and to take him to task over that single vote and put up another candidate against him was inappropriate. Just as it is for Mitch McConnell and others to threaten Spector, Snowe and Collins for their vote on the stimulus.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh Dave, Dave, Dave, poor little pitiful thang!

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

Spector is an issue only to the dimwitted who beleive that there is a difference between the democrats and republicans. Carreer politicians are carreer politicians. Crooked scum all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Spector just came out of the closet. He has been voting (D) for years. Now rather than duplicitous scum, he’s just scum.

• Link
• Report this comment

The entire outcry about Specter’s switching parties is sheer hysteria. I’ve seen no evidence that all Democrats will vote in lock-step, even if the party were to get a 60-vote majority. The Blue Dog Democrats can’t afford to offend their constituencies, which are largely moderate to moderately conservative.

• Link
• Report this comment

GOP = IGNORANCE

N.J.,

These wingnuts ignore facts. They just spout what they’ve heard from their masters (Rush, Sean, Ann, Neal) even when presented with facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Simply by letting those two tax cuts expire, the deficit vanished and the national debt gets paid down.

None of the supply side revenues that Republicans from Reagan to Bush43 have ever been realized and the government has had to borrow every year to function. The borrowing will become unneccessary when the tax cuts expire. The same projected surpluses that would have been available had Bush not given his tax cuts becomes realizable.

• Link
• Report this comment

This recession is little more than the bill coming due on ‘w’s credit card economics.

How come nobody is asking ‘why’ Arlen jumped ship?

Because we all know – nobody likes a loser.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not leaving the Republican party is the equivalent of being a guard at Auschwitz and not leaving after you saw how the gas chamber worked.

• Link
• Report this comment

Their strategy was two-fold: first, stoke the resentment of the population about the calamitous state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions had been created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretended to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.

A look inside the playbook.

• Link
• Report this comment

It not over yet. There are still Collins and Snowe to consider and if the Republicans leadership put up alternative candidates to these two they might make the same choice.

• Link
• Report this comment

What NJ wants us to ignore is all the spending going on outside the historically high 3.5 T budget. Which is only 400 Billion higher than the last historically high budget by dems that was 800 B in the red. Not to mention the huge drop in the GDP. Which put us at about 77% debt to GDP. Damage that will take generations to pay off.

Of course, its not going to be paid off by those paying no federal taxes(mostly democrats)…, luckily for Obama, and therefore gets rave reviews from the media pushing an agenda.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nope, Obama’s repeal already factored that in. There will be ZERO capital gains on the first 50,000 dollars of retirement income from investments on people who are also collecting Social Security. That is people who retire EARLY on investments will see their capital gains go up but those who retire after 63 wont pay a DIME in capital gains at all.

Obama has outsmarted the Republicans because all thesev old folks are being told by their tax preparers and brokers that they will be better off under Obama than under the current structure.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan,
your 3:31 post might take the prize for the dumbest thing ever posted on this blog. I don’t know if you’re uneducated or just trying to get a rise out of people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan, your last post:

“Not leaving the Republican party is the equivalent of being a guard at Auschwitz and not leaving after you saw how the gas chamber worked.”

is completely and totally out of line. To take a ideological line of thought and equate it to the murder of millions in the name of racism goes beyond the pale. You are everything that is wrong with this country, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course what REALITY KING ignores is who Bush was borrowing 50 percent of the money he was spending from. Those people who pay payroll taxes saw their retirement income go to give tax cuts to people who pay almost nothing in payroll taxes at all.

Right wingers always conveniently forget that INCOME TAXES only account for 40 percent of government revenues and payroll taxes account for 40 percent of what the govenrment SPENDS each year.

The top two percent of income earners, those earning 350,000 dollars a year or more only pay payroll taxes on one third of that income and it accounts for less than one half of a percent of that 40 percent. The bottom 98 percent of income earners pay more to run the government than the income taxes of the top two percent do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan

125600 minutes……

• Link
• Report this comment

What al your figures mean, NJ, is that Hope & Change’s budgets will INCREASE our budget deficit almost double what it is now. Thanks for playing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R,

Such a soretail loser you are!

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

ty webb,

Your mind.

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

And you are a hate-filled, drug-addled monster.

Now that we have all the name-calling out of the way, try posting something of substance. Wait! You can’t! You’re a liberal! Join the ranks of Ambling Veterinarian, Taxpayer, Copylefty and Midori as being a complete and total waste of oxygen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a fun piece about the fate of the GOP from the great orange satan.

GOP: Even more of a rump regional southern party

Here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/28/725399/-untitled-story

Stats at the bottom of the article are interesting.

Republicans and Conservatives : America just isn’t that into you!

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan,
Yeah, you compare republicans to nazis gassing the jews, and I’M the crazy one.

• Link
• Report this comment

Coleman should not concede. Whenever two sets of rules are used to apply to ballots, there is no fairness or equality in an election. You Dems are big on disenfranchisement, but only when it applies to elections you think you lost.

If anything should be a do-over in elections, Minnesota would be the poster child.

• Link
• Report this comment

N.J.,

Quit presenting facts here. You’ll make our resident right wing fringe’s heads explode. ewwww

• Link
• Report this comment

One need only look at Europe to see what high deficit spending does to the unemployment rate and GDP. Has the GDP ever not grown under a president?? Might be, looks like, another historical first for Obama..

• Link
• Report this comment

Geeee NJ…, who pays the other 60% of taxes the govenrment SPENDS each year??

• Link
• Report this comment

And is Obama changing those super high Bush tax rates on the poor?????

• Link
• Report this comment

‘debate’ is not something you knuckledraggers partake in, Asbysmally Retarded.

I’ve been watching you sling your feces around.

It’s ok for you, but not for anyone else, correct? How dare someone respond to your filth in kind.

How “R”epublican of you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Midori why are you always concerned with others names?

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. Godzilla

I really don’t think he will. We’ve created a monster system wherein everything gets litigated. I think Bosch and I were talking about it one day – thought that if the initial vote was within so much of a percent that it should be an automatic do-over. We’ve this idea that even if it’s litigated and recounted and weighed and balanced it’s gonna be perfectly accurate – it’s not. It’s just the most accurate under the last set of circumstances laid down.

I still think this will likely go to the Supremes. And I think it would’ve gone there no matter which candidate would’ve been behind – in which case Coleman supporters would’ve been making the same arguments Franklin supporters are making now.

Dave R – NJ

Unless I’m mistaken, this is the first election in which we’ve seen Social Security taxes lumped in with Income taxes when discussing tax cuts, tax rebates, etc. Before then, SS was standalone, as it was designed. Then again, it was a way to avoid addressing the fact that a significant number of households pay no tax on earned income and could have weakened the ‘fairness’ argument. How can it be unfair that I earn significantly above the poverty level and pay no tax, when someone way above my earnings pays a lot of tax?

If certain politicians want to make an argument that Social Security taxes ought to be scaled according to income, they should make the case. But that is a road full of potholes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Dave,

how’s that “permanent republican majority” working out for you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Check it out.

Most of the government spending was created under Reagan, largely for military spending and pretty much under threat of veto for additional Social Spending. Same thing with Bush. During his first six years as president he did not VETO a single massive increase in spending by the Republicans, but in his last two year when Democrats attempted to reign in his Iraq War soending and increase social spending Bush issued 12 vetoes and threatened to veto 40 times unless the Democrats removed social spending from the budget. Until the Democrats took office in 2006 Bush was one of the few presidents in history to never use the veto pen.

Reagan issued 78 vetoes agaist Democratic sponsored legislation. Carter used it 31 times, For 66, George H.W. Bush 44 times in 4 years. Clinton and Carter have the lowest veto record in the last 30 years. Republicans have used the veto far more often.

Why dont YOU get real about the “constitutional skills”

Bush basically gave the Republican majority a free hand and then started either vetoing or threatening vetoes at a rate of about two a month for the last two years.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bush’s very first veto of spending was of course a veto for Social Spending when Democrats wanted to add money to school and health care spending. He sent his budget back with increased for defense spending and threatened to veto any budget that increased social spending.

• Link
• Report this comment

Along with that the CBO study concluded that the long term effect of the Bush tax cuts would harm, not help the economy:

A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out and quite possibly to outweigh any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.

Again the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs, as the unemployment rate rose consistantly and steadily throughout the Bush presidency.

The vast majority of Bush spending was in defense. Again almost no jobs were created in the United States as a result of Bush’s increased spending.

The FACTS about the Bush tax cuts and job creation:

Research Dispels Bush Claims That Tax Cuts Create Jobs
by Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK – Despite considerable opposition from lawmakers, including some within his Republican party, President George W. Bush seems determined to push ahead with plans to introduce further cuts in taxes for the rich, continuing to assert that it would create more jobs for the poor.

But the findings of a new study suggest that Bush’s claim on job creation is based more on political rhetoric than actual facts related to the nation’s economic realities.

“It’s a great sound bite that unfortunately does not hold true in the real world economy,” say authors of the report, entitled, “Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market.”

Changes in tax policy suggest no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction, according to the 22-page study released Tuesday by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), an independent group that tracks the growing economic divide between the nation’s haves and have-nots.

Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains, say the researchers.

Based on statistical analysis of changes in tax polices and rates of job growth in the past 60 years, the report points out that tax reduction does, however, disproportionately lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor.

“No workers have really benefited from President Bush’s tax policy,” says Gloribell Mota, a bilingual education specialist at UFE. “But Blacks and Latinos have suffered disproportionately.”

The study shows that African American unemployment remains about twice as high as that of White workers. Moreover, it indicates no sign of growth in quality jobs (defined as paying at least 16 dollars per hour and including health benefits and a pension plan) for workers from any racial background, including Whites.

Last year, one million people fell below the poverty line, a disproportionate number of them children, while the number of billionaires rose to 374, the study says, adding that the number of people living in poverty rose from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.7 percent in 2004.

The study also shows that the percentage of American workers benefiting from employment-based health insurance was down from 63 percent in 2000 to less than 60 percent in 2004. This despite the fact that U.S. workers are spending more than 1800 hours per year at work while their counterparts in other technologically advanced nations work for 1600 hours a year–a difference of five full work weeks.

In June 2003, the Bush administration had claimed that the president’s tax cut policy would create more than five million jobs by the end of 2004, but the study shows that only 2.6 million jobs were created–1.6 million less than what would have been expected without any special economic stimulus.

…The fact remains that from 1913 to date, tax cuts have NEVER stimulated the economy OR created jobs. Ever.

On the contrary, you cannot find a period in which Republican administrations enacted tax cuts that was not almost immediately followed by a relatively long and deep recession, and tax increases that followed them always resulted in a recovery.

• Link
• Report this comment

A lot of interesting points and counter points. Remember though, most Presidents create their legacies in their first term and defend their legacies in the second term .All of which means that losing a couple of seats in 2012 won’t matter that much because all of the major reforms will have been enacted. Also , remember that 2010 is an off year election. Traditionally, the party of the incumbent President loses seats in an off year election, so if Republicans actually lose seats in 2010 , then it is even more unlikely that 2012 will mark the “counter-revolution”. No, these last two election cycles have all the chracteristics of political realignmnet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Or finally, since the end of WWII, it has largely been Democrats who exhibited both fiscal restraint as well as federal spending that was stimulative of the economy, rather than a drain on it.

Looking back to every administration as far back as 1920, every Republican Administration has had at least one recession started in it, most have had two recessions, and most have presidend over lukewarm growth of GDP and lukewarm stock markets, which followed on the heels of tax cuts which led to speculative stock markets, rather than markets where share values reflected the actual net values of the assets of the companies issuing shares.

hoover presided over the speculative markets of the 1920’s fueled by excess wealth made available to the wealthy by dropping the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent under Wilson, to 25 percent by 1925. The market was not doing as well as real estate so the money of the wealthy went into speculative investment in real estate, specifically in Florida, and when the values of land collapsed below that of the stock market, money started being pulled from real estate, which had collapsed in value and dumped into the stock market, creating a market bubble which took about 3 years to burst.

Under Reagan, as REIT’s collapsed because there were more office buildings being built than renters to rent space in them, people again started shovelling money into the markets, junk bonds based on the REITs exploded in face value with nothing to support them and then the market collapsed. The economy entered a recession just as Reagans predecessor took office.

On the other hand while Carter was president, inflation was a problem but the recession that economists were predicting for two years never occured. Or at least not until Reagan was elected and started to institute his supply side economics. The economy entered a recession as Reagan started to attempt to give inflation his full attention, rather than other factors.

During the period of Reagan/Bush 41 the nation saw one huge collapse of the stock market and two relatively steep recessions.

A recession started at in April of 2000 under Clinton, but the market had recovered all of its value by the time Clinton left office. Bush changed policies immediately and then there was a full burst of the economic bubble.

• Link
• Report this comment