Contessa Brewer Slams Shadegg For Nonsensical Republican Budget

It's no joke:

GOP Presents Their Alternate Budget...Which Is Nothing

The Republicans reinforced their "Party of No" label by adding the word "nothing" to the repertoire. That "nothing" refers to their well-publicized event today that was supposed to be a presentation of their alternate budget for Congress to debate. Instead of bringing something to the table, empty rhetoric was the only thing reporters could find.

From TPM:

There certainly was no hard budgetary data in the attractively designed 18-page packet that the House GOP handed out today, its blue cover emblazoned with an ambitious title: "The Republican Road to Recovery." When Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was asked what his goal for deficit reduction would be -- President Obama aims to halve the nation's spending imbalance within five years -- Boehner responded simply: "To do better [than Obama]."

When pressed further by reporters, Boehner promised that Republicans would release their actual budget within the next few days and pointed a finger back at the president.

After Obama delivered a prime-time speech previewing his budget, Boehner said, "he didn't offer his details until days later."

The lack of any statistical heft in their packet left the House GOP stumbling out of the gate as it worked to re-dub itself as the "party of yes," in the words of No. 3-ranked leader Mike Pence (R-IN). House Republicans unveiled an alternative plan for the foreclosure crisis yesterday, and they are continuing to tout their economic stimulus proposal (along with an erroneous claim that it creates more jobs than Obama's).

The GOP's "Road to Recovery" packet, divided into sections on spending limits, job creation/tax reduction, and debt control, is certainly replete with big promises. The plan commits Republicans "to ensur[ing] that the federal budget cannot grow faster than families' ability to pay the bill" ... though it doesn't explain what metric the party would use to measure the "average" family's debt burden.

Big promises, little action. That is what the nation has come to expect from the Republican party. From this Republican caucus, the reign of George W. and back beyond Reagan, there have been grand ideas but nothing much has ever been accomplished aside from making the wealthy wealthier at the expense of the working and middle class. Now that most people are starting to understand that, it is getting harder and harder for people like Boehner to trick the American people anymore.

Obey Gets The Message

In case you haven't been paying attention to the news over the budget in the last week or so, ya might not know that the Democrats in Congress caved to the President yet again over Iraq. Not only did they cave, their "compromise" for letting Bush have his way in Iraq was to have $10 billion in pork projects while Bush got $70 billion to have more soldiers die in that god forsaken country. Just the news that Americans want to hear after they elected a Democratic majority to get us out of Iraq.

Thankfully David Obey of Wisconsin realized that people were getting pissed off over the Democratic Congress' actions. Of course he decided to blame Republicans (who always deserve some credit for failing to compromise) for the budget snafu, but at least he was taking a positive step for the nation.

From RawStory:

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said he might abandon an effort with moderate Republicans to split the differences between increases sought by Democrats and the strict budget submitted by President Bush in February.

Instead, Obey said, he would rip up the compromise bill and devise a new one using the strict spending ceiling set by Bush — but would reach it by whacking GOP priorities and stripping the measure of billions of dollars in pet projects for lawmakers in both parties.

Obey's remarks to The Associated Press came two days after White House budget director Jim Nussle promised Bush would veto Democrats' omnibus spending bill for exceeding Bush's budget by $18 billion.

Very nice David, but what about the $70 billion that Bush wants to waste in Iraq and Afghanistan? He doesn't want any part in a deal that gives that type of money to Bush's wars but unfortunately he just chairs the committee. If his omnibus bill makes it to the floor, we have to depend on Pelosi and ultimately Reid in the Senate to pass a budget that will stand up to the American people. Reid and Pelosi however, think that the most important person to impress is George Bush. They obviously do not get it.

It isn't unfair to bash our Democratic leaders, either of them have given us no reason to have faith that they will lead us out of Iraq. Until they have the guts to stand up to a failed President, I do not expect them to fulfill their promise to the people that put them in power.

We All Knew This Was Going To Happen

The weekend has been a slow one for me in terms of news. Seeing old friends, driving down Candy Cane Lane, eating Latkes and enjoying the warm air of L.A. have all been priorities of mine in the last three days or so. However, I am sad to see that the Democrats cowered and caved yet again to George Bush. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are pathetic attempts of two human being to make difference in our government for the multitudes that helped give them power in the Congress last year. Completely, utterly, wholly.....pathetic.

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion spending package being assembled in Congress if Democrats pushed for too much additional money for domestic programs.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, accused Democrats of trying to tie money for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to what the president considers excessive spending for federal agencies and home-state projects.

“Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield success,” Mr. Nussle said.

This is already after the Democrats agreed to give the President all that he wants for his war in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid are cowards. Yeller belly, goddamn cowards. These two people do not deserve to be in the leadership, they do not exhibit any of the requisite qualities of such positions. We need people with real guts to deal with out maniacal President and his cohorts that still exist on Capitol Hill.

For Mitch McConnell to have any kind of authority on the budget is ridiculous. The guy is looking like he'll have trouble keeping his own Senate seat next year, yet Democrats treat him and the President like the kids that'll beat them up for lunch money. Nancy and Harry have now failed three times to try and do something about the war that the people spoke to last year in the voting booth. I personally think three times is enough. When 2009 rolls around....and we still have our majority...those two need to be demoted.

Sharpton Takes On Spitzer

The brewing feud between Governor Steamroller and the health care unions has taken another twist this weekend. Al Sharpton has joined forces with 1199 S.E.I.U. and the Greater New York Hospital Association to fight against the new health care budget proposed by Spitzer. The Reverend has lent his name to a mass mailer and spoke for a radio blitz that claims the new plan short changes the poor and the cuts are in the worst place possible. Or are they?

From the radio spot:

“With H.M.O.’s raking in excessive profits to the tune of $5 million a day in New York alone, it’s unreal to me that Governor Spitzer would pick on underpaid nurses and health care workers in order to meet his bottom line,” Mr. Sharpton, left, said in a statement.

In the radio ad, he says nurses “are being forgotten in Governor Spitzer’s budget."

The Governor's spokeswoman Christine Anderson immediately fired back that the budget would actually provide historic increases for education funding and insurance for every child. Spitzer himself wrote a piece for the NY Post to explain his position.

From the Op-Ed:

We face this crisis because special interests - not the needs of patients - have guided health-care policy decisions in Albany.

My plan for health-care reform would transform our health care system into one that puts the needs of patients first.

I would make insurance available to every child in New York right away and reduce the overall number of uninsured by half over four years. I would not cut Medicaid benefits. I would increase public-health funding to prevent diabetes, obesity, asthma, lead poisoning, HIV/AIDS and cancer. I would use the state's bargaining power to cut the price it pays for prescription drug and improve care for seniors.

These proposals would be funded in part by holding down the growth in the bloated subsidies the state now provides to hospitals with relatively few Medicaid patients.

Not surprisingly, Big Health Care has objected to this proposal. They claim the most vulnerable patients and hospitals would be hurt.

This is nonsense. The total impact on hospitals would be less than 1 percent of total operating revenues. For the sake of comparison, hospital revenues have increased by an annual average of 7 percent over the past four years.

The Governor also proposed funding 20 more low-income area hospitals and fighting the unchecked billions of dollars that flow through the system. It seems that much like the NY state legislature, people are getting pissed off at Spitzer for shaking up the system that has been so miserably entrenched for far too long.

Expensive Real Estate Equals Big NYC Surplus

Yesterday Mayor Bloomberg announced that the city has a $3.9 billion dollar surplus for the year. Thanks to skyrocketing real estate prices that have defied the experts predictions as of yet, NYC is flush with cash. This number is double what the predictions were just two months ago. As the exorbitant prices help the city's piggy bank, how will the Mayor help our citizens who are being driven away by high prices?

From the NY Times:

Since 2005, tax revenues have been cascading in at surprisingly high levels, a phenomenon reflected in the quarterly financial plan updates the mayor is required to present. In addition to the projected surplus of $3.9 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, the plan forecasts a $1.4 billion surplus next year; both sums will be rolled over into the following years.

In a City Hall news conference, the mayor attributed the exceptionally large surpluses to a boom in property transfer taxes, including mortgage recording taxes, which can generate millions of dollars when large properties change hands. All told, the city expects to collect $2.9 billion in such taxes this year, compared with $902 million in the fiscal year Mr. Bloomberg took office.

As properties are bought and sold, residents are on the move...out of the city to make way for those that can afford the ever-increasing cost of living in the five burroughs. Again, the question is what will the Mayor do for those that are less fortunate? Well we already know Bloomberg is cutting property taxes by $750 million and other taxes by $250 million. He also mentioned how to achieve happiness:

“The ways to be happy long term, however, is to not go out and spend everything you have on one night of food and a few drinks.”

Instead of a night on the town, why not focus on those that can't afford Smith & Wollensky or Tao and give more to homeless shelters and other tools to help the poor. According to the Coalition of the Homeless, family homelessness is rising rapidly at an eleven percent clip. Not only must we provide more shelters, increases for job training and family assistance would be nice as well.

Reading the NY Times article, you can see that plenty of people have grievances on how the Mayor should spend, or not spend the surplus. Conservatives want to rein in pension contracts with unions, business organizations want to make the property tax cut permanent and to pay down other debts.

To the Mayor's credit, he is introducing a plan to rebuild schools in the long-term to the tune of $28.4 billion in the 10 year capital plan. It is a start and there is so much more that is need to be done.

What Would You Do With $1.2 Trillion?

I wouldn't know what to do with $1.2 billion, let alone $1.2 trillion. We know what Bush has done with that massive amount of money. He spent it on Iraq (PDF File). He spent it on guns, contractors and lost revenue from all the national guard and reserve units that are being deployed once, twice, three times overseas instead of that 'one weekend a month, two weeks a year' bullshit that the National Guard used to advertise about.

The business section in the NY Times has some ideas:

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

The final big chunk of the money could go to national security. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place — better baggage and cargo screening, stronger measures against nuclear proliferation — could be enacted. Financing for the war in Afghanistan could be increased to beat back the Taliban’s recent gains, and a peacekeeping force could put a stop to the genocide in Darfur.

So we could have secured our nation and made it a better place to live, regardless of our socio-economic position? We could have started rebuilding New Orleans as well? The decider has no idea on how to decide anything wherein it benefits Americans and not just Bush and the cronies that surround him