The new party of Reagan
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15405) 11 years ago
This is a good article that shows just how far off base the current crop of Republicans in congress have gone.


By Dana Milbank, Published: July 19

After he switched to the Republican Party in 1962, Ronald Reagan famously quipped: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."

Now, the Republican Party is doing the same thing to him - and Democrats are happy to take Reagan back.At Tuesday morning's meeting of the House Democrats, caucus chairman John Larson rallied his colleagues for the day's debt-limit debate by playing an audio recording of the 40th president.

"Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility," Reagan says in the clip. "This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations."

"Kind of sums things up," Larson said, playing the same clip again at a news conference.

Nobody knows what Reagan, who died in 2004, would make of the current fight over the debt limit. But 100 years after Reagan's birth, it's clear that the Tea Party Republicans have little regard for the policies of the president they claim to venerate.

Tea Party Republicans call a vote to raise the debt ceiling a threat to their very existence; Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling during his presidency.

Tea Party Republicans say they would sooner default on the national debt than raise taxes; Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.


Tea Party Republicans, in "cut, cap and balance" legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product; under Reagan, spending was as high as 23.5 percent and never below 21.3 percent of GDP.

That same legislation would take federal spending down to a level last seen in 1966, before Medicare was fully up and running; Reagan in 1988 signed a major expansion of Medicare.

Under the Tea Party Republicans' spending cap, Reagan's military buildup, often credited with winning the Cold War, would have been impossible.

No wonder Democrats on Tuesday were claiming the Republican icon as one of their own. After the caucus meeting with the Reagan clip, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) began the day's debate by reading from a 1983 Reagan letter to Congress warning that "the full consequences of a default - or even the serious prospect of default - by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate."

"In the year of his 100th birthday, the Great Communicator might be amazed at how far his own image has shifted from the original," Quigley charged. "He'd see his most dedicated followers using his name as justification for saying no to honoring our debts. He'd see his legacy used to play chicken with the world's greatest economic engine."

Republicans have continued their ritual praise of Reagan during the debt-limit fight. Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.) claimed that the budget caps would allow America to be "that great city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of." Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) invoked Reagan's belief that "the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal government program."Kevin Brady (Tex.) cited Reagan's line that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are `I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'?" Both Steve King (Iowa) and Bobby Schilling (Ill.) informed the body that they had granddaughters named Reagan.

But while Reagan nostalgia endures, a number of Republicans have begun to admit the obvious: The Gipper would no longer be welcome on the GOP team. Most recently, Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (Calif.) called Reagan a "moderate former liberal .?.?. who would never be elected today in my opinion." This spring, Mike Huckabee judged that "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere," pointing out that Reagan "raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field."

During the debt-limit debate, a procession of Democrats - Vermont's Peter Welch, Maryland's Chris Van Hollen, New York's Paul Tonko, Texas's Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green - claimed Reagan's support for their position. Reagan is "revered by many Democrats," said Welch, who praised Reagan for fighting "the absurd notion that America had an option when it came to paying our bills."

Half a century after he left the party, the Gipper is winning one for the Democrats.


http://www.washingtonpost...story.html
Top
Posted by tax payer (+348) 11 years ago
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN_OBAMA_SHIFTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-23-09-47-18
Top
Posted by tax payer (+348) 11 years ago
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is
a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not
pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial
assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless
fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and
internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead,
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our
children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of
leadership. Americans deserve better."

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
Very interesting article, Richard. Thanks for posting it.

Along a related line, here is an article from the Arizona Republic newspaper (not exactly a bastion of liberal politics) cautioning Congress not to throw the baby out with the bathwater as it cuts expenses.
http://www.azcentral.com/...html


Judicious cuts and even sacrifices, yes.
Wild-assed politically motivated stunts, NO!
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
Taxpayer - Wow, you're a genius! You've found a speech that states what is a fundamental truth. But do you really think Obama or any other president could have handled the crises (PLURAL!) that this country has faced over the past 4 years without incurring more debt? And are you really willing to have this Nation, the number one economic machine on this earth, default on its debt in order to make Obama look bad?

If the answer to either of those questions is Yes, then all I can say is:

Taxpayer - WOW! You're an idiot!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Geez Richard. If you don't want to be lied to anymore, don't be taken in so easily.

Tea Party Republicans, in "cut, cap and balance" legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product


http://blog.heritage.org/...d-balance/



Ezra Klein, the Washington Post's liberal political blogger, has been pushing a pair of questionable assertions in his posts on congressional Republicans' plan to, as they say, "cut, cap, and balance" the federal budget.
Klein has claimed, falsely, that the plan would cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP. In fact, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act passed by the House on Tuesday brings spending down to 22.5 percent of GDP in 2012, then gradually reduces it to 19.9 percent in 2019, where it remains. Klein has also claimed that federal spending has not been "anywhere near" 18 percent of GDP since 1966. In fact, spending sat at 18.2 percent of GDP in 2000 and 2001 (as you can see in the chart above).


Now the fact that hacks like Milbank and Klein might sit around the same WaPo watercooler and fabricate numbers together should surprise nobody, but in the end, facts are facts. Spending is our trouble.

Everyone knows (other than apparently Milbank) that nobody truly wants a default. In the end, it won't happen. Brinksmanship is just part of the game.

If you doubt it, take a look at this vote from 2006. http://www.senate.gov/leg...vote=00054

If a vote against raising the debt ceiling is a vote for default, as Milbank is suggesting, then every Democrat in the Senate in 2006 voted for default, including then Senator Obama.

Now if you want to pretend all those people suddenly changing their minds is a product of pure-hearted conscience, be my guest. But the most likely explanation is this is simple political football. And President Obama has already admitted as much.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
President Obama may be playing political football (it takes two to play that game, remember?)

BUT

The Tea Party is committing political suicide. Hopefully they won't take the rest of us with them when they pull the trigger.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18345) 11 years ago
Yeah, Richard, you should be getting your facts from the Heritage Foundation, not the liberal commie pinko socialist mainstream media.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
RE: Runaway Spending, Not Inadequate Tax Revenue, Is Responsible for Future Deficits.

That's truly inane.

Why do some people think we can simply look at only one of the two factors in this equation? And why do they insist on ignoring the equity issues underlying the problem here.

Even the biggest champion of supply side economics has to admit that democracy cannot survive once the wealth of the masses has been siphoned off and amassed by a few. That road ends up in aristocracy at best.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Ahem. Heritage is really just a "Libertarian Think Tank" and definitely not just another appendage of the Republican Party.

Thanks Bridgier

Anyway, the real cap percentages aren't exactly a state secret

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...alance_Act
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Even the biggest champion of supply side economics has to admit that democracy cannot survive once the wealth of the masses has been siphoned off and amassed by a few. That road ends up in aristocracy at best.


Absolutely, 100% true. I agree with that.

Where we disagree is how to get there. When our middle class thrived the most was when they were allowed to be productive and they PRODUCED the most. This is the 'Supply' in supply-side economics. We've got to get back to honest-to-goodness production and get back to offering real work to people again.

To have any long-term hope, we need to reindustrialize. At least to some extent. The sad thing is that our energy sector is probably one of our largest sources of exactly this kind of production. Strange to me that we seem to be at war with it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
The only thing you say above that I disagree with, Rick, is your view that we (which I assume you direct at "liberals") are "at war" with the energy sector.

No way. Regarding oil and gas and other exploration and production, we liberals just want it to be done in an environmentally responsible way - and we also want the real costs of production to be reflected in the price of that energy. That includes cleaning up the messes left behind when tankers run aground and deepwater drills leak millions of gallons of crude into prime fishing waters.

And we also want to give alternate forms of energy a fair chance of being developed. If there has been a war conducted in the energy sector, it's been waged by Big Oil against the development of sustainable forms of energy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
and we also want the real costs of production to be reflected in the price of that energy.


Unfortunately, 'real costs' in this case are totally subjective.

And outside of that I think Obama put this principle into words when he said that energy prices would have to necessarily skyrocket (in order to save the planet or whatever it is the end goal is supposed to be)



The problem is you can't have it both ways. If you want to charge what the bureaucracy deems to be the "Real Cost of Production" you can't then go on and lament that Joe down at the Corner Conoco shouldn't have to pay $4 a gallon.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
Yes I can because right now that $4 a gallon cost does NOT reflect the cost of production. In fact, I challenge you to tell me what it really does reflect. I've listened to representatives of Exxon and BP try to explain and justify it, and I don't think even they believed what they were saying.

I have no problem with people paying $10 a gallon for gasoline if that is what it really costs - AS LONG AS they also have the opportunity to buy fuel efficient cars. It's long been known that GM was close to producing an electric vehicle back in the 80s, but Big Oil put the kabosh on that project. Just think how profitable GM would be if it had put out the Volt before Toyota offered the Prius.... Can you say "no need for bailout"?

And the other thing about reflecting true costs in the price of gas and oil - once it becomes clear that our tax dollars have been used to substnatially subsidize the oil and gas industry, then we'll recognize what a bargain it is to provide loans and grants to speed the development of sustainable energy. In fact, I'm betting those investments will look like a bargain at that point, especially when taking into account that it will cut our dependence on the Middle East and Venezuela.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (7/24/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18345) 11 years ago
Ahem. Heritage is really just a "Libertarian Think Tank" and definitely not just another appendage of the Republican Party.


BWAHAHAA! Google "Heritage Foundation" and this ad comes up:

The Conservative Comeback | AskHeritage.org
The Heritage Foundation is leading the fight. Join now.
www.askheritage.org Become a Member
Join Rush Limbaugh Join Sean Hannity
Receive 5 FREE Pocket Constitutions


Five FREE Pocket Constitutions!!!!! Do I get a bag of TEA with that????
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Ah, Steve. I knew we'd get back to the conspiracy theories sooner or later.

Electric (aka Coal Powered) Vehicles aren't really a solution. They do what you claim that you don't want to do... hide real costs of operation.

And Volt is a mess, BTW
http://content.usatoday.c...san-leaf/1

And the cost of production of gas is pretty well tied to the cost of oil. I've posted this before



Now tell me again how it's those evil 'Big' Oil companies who are setting the worldwide price of crude.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4455) 11 years ago
Gunnar, you're going to have to take up any issues you have with Bridgier.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15405) 11 years ago
One of the problems here is that somewhere along the way congress (mostly republicans) confused a "tax and spend policy" with "borrow and spend"policy. Every time republicans have cut taxes, Democrats have warned about making sure that we have the cashflow to cover our bills. Under "tax and spend" you don't end up with a deficit unless your spending more than you are taxing. Under "borrow and spend", which is what Bush did and Obama has sort of followed suit, you are left with a double whammy because you have to not only cover your spending, but pay back what you borrowed with interest.

There is no way to generate enough cash to do both without raising taxes. I contend, as stated in the article, that Reagan understood this and would be raising taxes. I agree that we need to cut spending. But, if we look at what Reagan or Clinton did they raised taxes and got us back to where we were in much better shape than we are now. We need to raise taxes AND cut spending.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (7/24/2011)]
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+279) 11 years ago
So what kind of government other than a democracy do all of you want ?,,,,,//korkyII//...
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
Rick - I knew you would trot out that lovely little blue bar chart sooner or later. To which I ask, what does that have to do with the price of gas in Poughkeepsie (or Miles City?)

Your chart is interesting, to be sure. But putting one chart up and then kicking back like you've just kicked ass is just plain silly. Taking one bite of the apple is not the same as eating the whole thing - and it certainly won't get you to the core of the matter.

If you study just a few of the facts listed on the table at the link below, you'll see that the the big oil producing countries on your list have a much smaller role in the U.S. energy picture than your chart would indicate. So I ask you - what's your point?

http://www.eia.gov/energy..._home#tab2
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
I can only answer for myself, Jan, but I thought the point of my posts above was pretty clear: I love our democracy and everything I've stated is fueled by my desire to preserve and protect our democracy.

If that failed to come through, then I appreciate the opportunity to state it outright.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15405) 11 years ago
So what kind of government other than a democracy do all of you want ?,,,,,//korkyII//...


Personally, I want a responsible representative republic.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
Me too Richard...one that represents ALL THE PEOPLE not just the rich and corporations...Perhaps we should start by eliminating the salaries of our congress...bet a lot of them would quit...and then making political elections publically funded so a millionaire cannot buy an office...Just IMO...
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2735) 11 years ago
One problem there, Howdy. If you don't pay Congress, then the only people who will be able to afford to hold office will be millionaires who ran for office using public funds.... Oops!

Money will always be a corrupting influence on politics. There is no cure for that. I think we're making progress by requiring lobbyists to register, candidates to report their contributions, and prohibiting junkets and special gifts. Where we're falling short is in the poor regulation of PACs, allowing special access to lawmakers at their $10,000 per plate dinners, being more interested in news articles about a congress member's (npi) sex life than in his or her voting record, and a media/public that pays more attention to celebre-candidates who speak in sound bites than serious contenders who use their speeches to articulate policy positions rather than stir up controversy.

It really all comes back to each one of us as US citizens. When We the People figure out that politics is a serious business and not a circus sideshow, then we'll start getting statesmen back in office and leaders who can actually focus on solving public problems rather than serving their private interests, whether that be fattening their wallets or stroking their egos.
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+279) 11 years ago
It's obvious the ones we have in office can't do the job. Both sides of the fence. //korkyII//
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4947) 11 years ago
true Steve, never thought of that part about not paying...I am just so very sick of our politicians all being literally for sale...after an election, it seems they immediately start working on their "war chests" for the next one...
Top
Posted by Jan Cornutt (+279) 11 years ago
For once Howdy, I agree with you. Patrick Henry said, the constitution is not an instrument for the government to control the people, it's an instrument for the people to control the government. Our politicians need to keep that in mind....korkyII
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18345) 11 years ago
Former gubernatorial candidate Bob Brown wrote a good op-ed piece the other day:

http://helenair.com/news/...mode=story

Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, with progressive views for his era and a belief in the role of government to partner in economic development, was a true Republican at the time of Bull Run.

Would he still be a Republican today? Would Confederate President Jefferson Davis, advocate of state's rights, nullification and secession 150 years ago, still be a Democrat?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18345) 11 years ago
"Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar."

President Ronald Reagan, Sept. 26, 1987.

The Gipper sure the heck was a lot smarter than the likes of Boehner and Rehberg.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5098) 11 years ago
HEH HEH HEH

He said Boner

HEH HEH HEH
Top