Republican Leadership in Congress: Stupid is As Stupid Does
BY Glen Tschirgi
12 years, 5 months ago
My apologies to all those Republican stalwarts out there, but I stopped identifying with the G.O.P. some time ago and now count myself primarily as a Conservative.
And when I see posts like this on Hot Air, I feel amply justified.
A couple key bits:
The congressional Super Committee is long gone, but the consequences of its failure will be felt by millions of Americans unless Congress addresses mandatory cuts that take effect Jan. 2, 2013.
A new study released today by economist Stephen S. Fuller of George Mason University and the Aerospace Industries Association estimates that 2.14 million U.S. jobs will disappear as a result of the Budget Control Act’s sequestration mandate. That would push the nation’s unemployment rate above 9 percent.
Automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion will hit the defense industry particularly hard. Defense-related jobs makes up about half of the lost jobs, according to the study. The report estimates losses for other sectors of the economy as well: 48,059 jobs in healthcare, 98,953 in construction, 473,250 in manufacturing. California, Virginia and Texas will fare worst.
And just who was it that agreed to the genius idea of a “Super Committee” and the “draconian” sequestration in the (all too predictable) event that the Super Committee failed to reach agreement? Yep, those guys in leadership like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Someone please remind me just why it was so clever of Boehner and McConnell to agree to this deal with the Democrats? A deal that these very same people are now scrambling to escape and avoid like kids caught stealing from a candy store. “Yeah, we did it, but we didn’t think we’d actually get punished for it or anything!”
And if the whole sequestration idea wasn’t bad enough, the particulars of the deal are just, downright horrible:
Cuts to America’s military are particularly alarming. The across-the-board cut of more than $500 billion over the next decade comes in addition to the $487 billion in cuts already proposed by President Obama for the Department of Defense. The Budget Control Act hits the military hardest.
Chart produced by The Heritage Foundation based upon figures from the Congressional Budget Office.
These nitwit Republicans agreed to drastic spending cuts that barely touch the Entitlement Monster that is breaking the U.S. Treasury.
And why did the G.O.P. leadership do this? Because they were afraid of forcing real and immediate spending cuts in 2011 as part of the debt ceiling “crisis.”
Anyone for a Conservative Party? I don’t think America can afford the Stupid Party much longer.
On July 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm, Davod said:
When the deal originally came out, I said typical. Don’t send babies to negotiate with union negotiators.
On July 17, 2012 at 2:11 pm, Rich Buckley said:
This Libor fraud-tail may start wagging the dog more than anything in the budget. 20+ years of lying by Libor reporting agencies accounts $10-$100 Trillion (with a “T”) of over payments by consumers…. enough to fund all our black budget items.
On July 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm, Herschel Smith said:
It was a stupid deal when they made it, it is stupid today, and tomorrow it will be just as stupid as it is today.
And take careful note of my prediction as to where the money to fund entitlements would come from:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/07/13/sustainable-defense-task-force/
The followup post:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/01/08/what-defense-cuts-can-and-cant-accomplish/
And Glen’s followup to that:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/01/15/stoopid-talk-about-cutting-defense-spending/
On July 17, 2012 at 6:37 pm, Burk said:
Hey Guys-
You have to keep your stories straight.. the stimulus didn’t create jobs, so government spending can’t create jobs, so government spending cuts can’t reduce jobs. Who taught you the catechism?
How much would spending (and jobs) be reduced if you had your way to no deficit? Gosh, I wonder- sounds like a real popular program- even smarter(!) than the GOP’s.
On July 17, 2012 at 6:46 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Burk,
I will allow you to comment as long as it doesn’t get any more snarky than this. But frankly, I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
The first paragraph is addressed to … who? over … what assertions? … in supposed contradiction to … what?
In order to make any sense whatsoever of what you’re trying to say, you might have to clarify.
The best way to get answers is to ask questions. This … you haven’t done. If you do you might learn something.
On July 18, 2012 at 9:02 am, Rich Buckley said:
I notice I posted on your first mentioned link as well, under name Warbucks. It appears the massive hidden budget items are starting to surface as The White Hats straighten out the financial ledger so when we discuss budgets we can discuss reality of what really goes on.
On July 21, 2012 at 10:43 am, TeeJaw said:
Like you, I consider myself a conservative and not a Republican. Maybe a distinction needs to be made between establishment Republicans, such as the current leaders, and Tea Party Republicans such as many if not most of those new ones elected in 2010.
Since third parties don’t have a very good history of success in America, a strategy of the Tea Party taking over the Republican party might be a better way to go, especially if it results in a Republican party unstuck from stupid.
I also suggest a clear definition of stupid when it comes to the Republican party. In the circumstances we face today, any agreement with Democrats no matter what subject, is stupid.
On July 21, 2012 at 10:21 pm, TS Alfabet said:
Agree with you, TeeJaw.
But a third party need not be an all-or-nothing proposition. Many times, pundits with an interest in keeping the GOP alive use the canard that to start a 3rd party would be a futile endeavor. This isn’t true, of course. The GOP itself was a 3rd party that was started in the 1850’s as a consequence of widespread dissatisfaction with the Whig Party. The Whigs promptly dissolved not long thereafter.
But a Tea Party or Conservative Party could choose to only run at first, candidates in those few districts where there was, for example, not a strong conservative candidate and the Republican was no better than the Democrat. It is simply undeniable that many people, for whatever reason, will not voter for a Republican no matter what. But they may vote for an independent candidate, one not aligned with either party. If elected, Conservative Party congress critters could choose to caucus with Republicans in order to keep the majority out of Dem hands, but it certainly gives conservatives alot more leverage with the RINOs in Congress if they know that a member can bolt the caucus. Conservative Party candidates might be especially effective in state and local races where the resources required to win are not as great.
Over time, I imagine that conservatives would flee the GOP in greater numbers than they already do (and Libertarians may join a Conservative Party), leaving only the liberal Pubs who should probably be Dems anyway. The GOP would shrivel up like the Whigs and it would be back to a 2-party system.