House GOP sacrifices progress for purity
By any rational measure, House Republicans were on the verge of a major accomplishment a couple of weeks ago.
Even though they held control of only one legislative chamber, they had backed President Obama into proposing a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package, including more than $3 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade. Enacted into law, it would have easily been the largest budget-cutting package in U.S. history. All they had to do was say yes.
But they could not bring themselves to utter that word.
Their victory, you see, must be absolute and total or it is not victory at all. A “win-win” outcome — fine for liberals and RINO pansies — is insufficiently decisive to those who feel morally obligated to turn politics into scorched-earth warfare. They are Harry Truman demanding unconditional surrender from Imperial Japan.
And they have the Bomb.
As a result, a historically significant reduction in the federal deficit and in once-untouchable entitlement programs had to be rejected, because in their minds its purity was tainted by an increase in taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.
In his latest column, David Brooks assesses the messianic radicals of the GOP with brutal clarity:
“They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn.”
Well, they’re not.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
621 comments Add your comment
Joe Cool
July 19th, 2011
4:03 pm
I would like for Prez O to come out and endores a Repub. plan re: anything and the CONs would STILL be against it….
@@
July 19th, 2011
4:07 pm
Paul:
BTW – using the pool much?
Every chance I get.
Just got a robotic sweep – way too much $$ but it does exactly what I need so it’s worth it.
I’ve had mine for years. It SUX.
Bosch
July 19th, 2011
4:09 pm
Scout,
Let’s just say, if they need the drug, I’d rather have them on it than not.
1811/0311
July 19th, 2011
4:12 pm
Bosch:
I agree, but if they are still in a candidate stauts the public has the right to know when voting for a president.
@@
July 19th, 2011
4:15 pm
Here ‘ya go, josef.
Obama endorses Feinstein bill to repeal Defense of Marriage Act
Inouye said the bill introduced by Sen.Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to repeal it would “uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”
Last year, Obama supported the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Earlier this year, the administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court, though it would continue to enforce the law unless it is repealed. But Obama supported the use of “discretion” by immigration officials in cases of married same-sex couples in which one spouse is undocumented.
Yet even as Feinstein spoke to a group of reporters about Wednesday’s Senate committee hearing on the repeal, Obama had not officially endorsed it.
Rather vague as I see it, but then rarely does anyone, other than conservatives, ask Obama to be more specific.
Bosch
July 19th, 2011
4:15 pm
Scout,
And I totally disagree. If the candidate has a severe mental condition like bi-polar disorder or schitzophrenia, then sure, but something like being on an anti-depressant or Xanax, that’s nothing and totally private.
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
4:19 pm
Thomas @1:19 pm
So right, which is why I’ve been against means-testing for SS for a long time. Two people working side-by-side at the same job making the same salary for the same number of years and paying the same $$ into SS. But one is a spendthrift and reaches retirement age with nothing saved, owing huge credit card bills, etc. The other is a conscientious saver who lives within his (or her) means. But people want to pay out SS funds to the irresponsible one and punish the other by withholding those funds. And the way the law will work is that the latter could go to Vegas the day before hitting retirement age and blow the whole sum on hookers and booze and be eligible for full SS.
Similarly, many want to raise or remove the income cap on SS taxes. But they don’t want to increase the maximum payout.
Tying benefits to current assets rather than payments into the system, and disconnecting payments into the system from benefits received from the system would render SS little more than a massive welfare system transferring payments from those with means to those with needs, according to Marx’s best dreams.
I suppose if they were willing to finally admit that SS is little more than a welfare transfer payment, it would at least be honest.
1811/0311
July 19th, 2011
4:22 pm
Disagree:
One can overdose on Xanax quite easily. The public has the right to know.
Just like they have the right to know if a presidential candidate is having an affair ……….. blackmail.
No one makes someone run for president. It’s voluntary.
If you choose to do so ………. your life must become an open book ……… or go find something else to do.
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
4:28 pm
AmVet @1:23 pm How can 485,000 Americans who “make” between $100,000 and $500,000 per year pay no federal income tax? How can 18,000 Americans who “make” more than $500,000 per year pay NO federal income tax?
About the only way this can be done for an individual is to donate virtually all of their income to charity. There’s just not *that* many loopholes in the individual tax code that can be exploited to render taxable income low enough to meet this criteria otherwise, and AMT kicks in on most all of those.
I’d be very interested to know how to do it otherwise.
Schrodinger's cat
July 19th, 2011
4:33 pm
one could overdose on water quite easily as well
just curious…has a canidate ever released a list of prescribed meds before?
Schrodinger's cat
July 19th, 2011
4:40 pm
wouldn’t requiring or even requesting a precribed meds list violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
4:41 pm
Paul @1:37 pm “That may be so, but I hardly think Pres Bush and Congress were thinking “hey, and let’s adjust the AGI level to what it will be in 12 years or so…””
They certainly didn’t. The $379,150 figure is simply the latest inflation adjusted limit. It has gone up steadily with inflation over the years.
In 2000, for example, the maximum married filing jointly marginal rate was 39.6% on income over $288,350.
2001: 39.1% on income over 297,350
2002: 38.6% on income over 307,050
2003: 35.0% on income over 311,950
2004: 35.0% on income over 319,100
2005: 35.0% on income over 326,450
2006: 35.0% on income over 336,550
2007: 35.0% on income over 349,700
2008: 35.0% on income over 357,700
2009: 35.0% on income over 372,950
2010: 35.0% on income over 373,650
2011: 35.0% on income over 379,150
Implying Pres. Obama didn’t want to role back the limit along with the rate is nice and all, but ignores the fact that the limit is raised each year (as are the limits for all brackets) to account for inflation. If he *had* said he wanted both the rates and the limit to revert, that’d be a huge effective increase.
Peter
July 19th, 2011
4:47 pm
No the Republican’s have created larger government under Bush, and now want to screw the little guy, by cutting all the programs they stole the money from for WAR !
ODDOWL
July 19th, 2011
4:49 pm
The Obama administration and the Democrats in congress must raise taxes on the richest 10% of the population significantly. Congress must use a graduating scale and increase the top federal income tax rate to 50%. Congress must increase the corporate, capital gain and inheritance taxes up to 40%. The Feds could pay off the national debt in five years with the increased tax revenue. Share the wealth, TAX THE RICH, pay down the debt.
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
4:57 pm
Fletch @3:09 pm “My partners and I own an Air Charter, Liquor Distribution and PEO here in Atlanta, 2 Beef Production outfits in Central and Norhtern Montana, and 2 Security firms in Las Vegas and Los Angeles. I don’t consider us to be “highly skilled” in any particular area, and we certainly believe that our taxes could go up 10% to 20% more and not affect our quality of life.”
Then you’re either being obtuse or artificially humble. You clearly excel at owning and operating businesses (I *am* assuming they are at least somewhat successful endeavors). I daresay that the vast majority of people do not possess the necessary skills or wherewithal to create and operate even one successful business, let alone seven (did I count right?) business in very different areas of operation and locales.
As to the extra 10 or 20%, by all means feel free to write a check to the Treasury.
“Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782 “
Thulsa Doom
July 19th, 2011
5:09 pm
MPercy,
One thing I didn’t see in your posts in regards to poverty is this. The average “poor” American also has more square footage living space than the average European. That’s not more than the average poor European but more living space than the average middle class Frenchman or German. Anyone who has lived in Europe also knows this to be true. Car ownership is another one. Many Americans don’t understand that while a lot of poor people here in the U.S. own cars many average Europeans do not. Anyone who has lived in Germany as my dad did for several years can attest to this. Now I know this data is also verified by the census bureau in regards to square footage of living space and I believe that the car ownership is also verified. Also a good article was written by economist Walter Williams on where best to be poor. And once again using U.S. govt data it was of course the U.S. govt.
MPercy
July 19th, 2011
5:15 pm
Thulsa @5:09
I’ve heard the same comment re: living space, etc. but was not willing to repeat it since I cannot provide a verifiable source that is not going to be dismissed as “biased”. More research, for me to do I guess.
Having spent time in EU I am inclined to accept the proposition as completely plausible and even likely to be true, but would feel better about providing an acceptable source for verification purposes.
Schrodinger's cat
July 19th, 2011
5:31 pm
Heck you can get a working farm in Sicily for less than $100k US
50-100 olive trees, almonds, grapefruit, and lemons to boot….of course the farmhouse is usually a fixer upper
Joe Mama
July 19th, 2011
5:47 pm
Dave — “Modus operandi for that poster, SKH. You’re wasting your time trying to reason with them.”
And after we had a polite exchange last week, Dave.
BTW, have you finished your research into the NATO Charter yet, or am I still wasting my time trying to reason with you? (laughing)
Joe Mama
July 19th, 2011
6:00 pm
MPercy @ 323P — “Appliance usage comes from a Department of Energy Survey [www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined], one part of which breaks down appliance use in US homes by household Income. It does detail use of coffee makers, microwave ovens, etc. by households below the poverty line.”
I’ve marked the link and the study; I hope to be able to give them a good examination over the next couple of evenings. I think it deserves a fair and critical reading on my part before I post any critique of it.
Joe Mama
July 19th, 2011
6:06 pm
S Cat — “wouldn’t requiring or even requesting a precribed meds list violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?”
I don’t know, but if a physician did it, it’s a HIPAA violation. The patient could release his or her records, but no one else can (except possibly someone with a health care POA for the patient).