Below is a scan of a letter to Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor recommending using the budget process to defund “Obamacare”. Here is the penultimate paragraph:
Since much of the implementation of ObamaCare is a function of the discretionary appropriations process, including the operation of the “mandatory spending” portions of the law, and since most of the citizens we represent believe that ObamaCare should never go into effect, we urge you to affirmatively de-fund the implementation and enforcement of ObamaCare in any relevant appropriateions bill brought to the House floor in the 113th Congress, including any continuing appropriations bill.
— signed by eighty Republican Congressmen
This letter should resolve any questions about GOP motives in regard to the current government shutdown.
Matt Miller from the Washington Post writes that Paul Ryan is no Ronald Reagan:
Did I mention that Ronald Reagan ran the federal government at 22 percent of GDP when the country’s population was much younger, and health care consumed about 11 percent of GDP?
Now Paul Ryan says we can run the federal government at 19 percent of GDP as the massive baby-boom generation retires and when health costs (largely for seniors) have already soared to 18 percent of GDP.
Sorry, but Ryan is either deeply confused or doing his best to snooker us.
Yes indeed. The numbers don’t add up. So what is his real aim?
The title is deliberately provocative and the answer is “yes.” But we are also very dysfunctional democracy. As E.J. Dionne points out in an article in the Washington Post, the solution to the repeated budget crises is, among other things, more democracy " let bills come to a vote in both House and Senate.
The solution to the problems of democracy is more democracy, so let both houses hold votes on all the potential remedies — on Obama’s own proposal, on packages put forward by Democrats Chris Van Hollen in the House and Patty Murray in the Senate, and on anything the Republicans care to proffer, including the sequester itself.
Let the House Republican majority show that it can come up with a substantial alternative or, failing that, allow a plan to pass with a mix of Republican and Democratic votes.
In the Senate, ditch the unconstitutional abuse of the filibuster and let a plan pass by simple-majority vote. Misuse of the filibuster is a central cause of Washington’s contorted policymaking. Let’s end the permanent budget crisis by governing ourselves though the majorities that every sane democracy uses.
Total Federal Tax Revenues (ftx) as % of GDP. Source.
Federal tax revenues in 2012 are down by 23% compared to 2000. Perhaps this has something to do our deficits? Something to think about. WWED? (1)
year ftx ------------- 2000 20.6 2001 19.5 2002 17.6 2003 16.2 2004 16.1 2005 17.3 2006 18.2 2007 18.5 2008 17.6 2009 15.1 2010 15.1 2011 15.4 2012 15.8
(1) What would Eisenhower do?
In a New York Times article, Grand Old Parity, Sheila Bair comments on and documents the continuing and sustained rise in income inequality in the US. Not good for democracy, and not good for the 99%. See the extended quote below. However, the following paragraph stood out:
Republicans should also put rebuilding the nation’s transportation and energy infrastructure high on our political agenda. From Lincoln’s transcontinental railroad to Eisenhower’s highway system, Republicans have understood that investing in critical infrastructure projects creates jobs and expands commerce.
The reference to Eisenhower reminds us of how far the Republican party has strayed from its policies of the past. Can one imagine the modern GOP advocating a program of the magnitude of the interstate highway project? Reflect for a moment on what it has done for the US economy.
The same holds for the Lincoln reference. In the midst o the Civil War, in the depths of our darkest hour, Lincoln looked to the future – and it wasn’t just transportation. Lincoln established the system of land grant colleges and also the National Academy of Sciences.
It is time for our political parties – but I must say, especially the Republican Party – to focus on the common good, the nations’s future, not on tribal warfare and knocking out the other guy. The other guy is us. We are knocking out ourselves.
LAST month Emmanuel Saez, a celebrated economist at the University of California, Berkeley, issued another depressing report on income inequality. Among other things, Mr. Saez examined how real family incomes changed in the United States from 2009 to 2011, the first two years of the recovery. The richest 1 percent of Americans, he found, saw their incomes grow, on average, by more than 11 percent. As for the other 99 percent? You guessed it: incomes shrank by nearly half a percent.
The phenomenon is hardly new. The yawning gap between rich and poor has been growing since the 1970s and reached a 90-year peak in 2007, just before the financial crisis. The Great Recession narrowed the gap a bit, but now, once again, the richest Americans are vacuuming up what wealth is out there, a trend that Mr. Saez expects to continue.
I am a capitalist and a lifelong Republican. I believe that, in a meritocracy, some level of income inequality is both inevitable and desirable, as encouragement to those who contribute most to our economic prosperity. But I fear that government actions, not merit, have fueled these extremes in income distribution through taxpayer bailouts, central-bank-engineered financial asset bubbles and unjustified tax breaks that favor the rich.
This is not a situation that any freethinking Republican should accept. Skewing income toward the upper, upper class hurts our economy because the rich tend to sit on their money — unlike lower- and middle-income people, who spend a large share of their paychecks, and hence stimulate economic activity.
But more fundamentally, it cuts against everything our country and my party stand for. Government’s role should not be to rig the game in favor of “the haves” but to make sure “the have-nots” are given a fair shot. …
<a href=”http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/”>David Frum on the GOP gone mad</a>