U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%↑

30%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 04, 2014 12:06 PM UTC

The faux-outrage of deficit reduction and spending.

  • 1 Comments
  • by: Urban Snowshoer

Question: what does deficit reduction have in common with local control ( and free-markets to some degree)?

Answer: Most people only support it when it benefits them.

 

All too often deficit reduction is what the party out of power uses to attack the party in power, rather than to have a constructive dialog about balancing the budget: e.g. Democrats citing the deficit to oppose the Iraq War, Republicans citing the deficit to oppose the Affordable Care Act, etc.

When the Republicans are ready to accept the reality that defense spending needs to come down and more revenue needs to come in (along with entitlement reforms of course), I’ll take their calls to reduce the deficit and outrage of spending seriously. The same goes for the Democrats: you’re going to have swallow the bitter pill of entitlement reforms—reductions in defense spending and more revenue won’t balance the budget alone.

 

Both parties have a credibility problem on the deficit. Anyone expressing outrage over spending, who is unwilling or unable to come clean about what really needs to be done (i.e. reductions in both entitlement and defense spending, along with bringing in more revenue, is nothing more than a cheap hustler looking for a backdoor way to cut or eliminate programs they oppose, rather than having an honest conversation about balancing the budget.    
 

Comments

One thought on “The faux-outrage of deficit reduction and spending.

  1. Didn't we have a Bowles-Simpson bipartison plan to cut entitlements, defense and raise revenue. What the hell happened. Everybody's pet program's have to take a hit and we need more revenue. That is why we have a deficit. We are spending to much on everythin and not collecting enough taxes. A tax cut and spend economic plan is fiscally irresponsible. To start with cut defense, how much Social Security you collect will be determined by your wealth, and all income will be taxed. Also, all elected officials at the federal level will rely solely on Medicaid for their health insurance until they leave office.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols