U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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) Shannon Bird
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%
February 13, 2009 04:22 PM UTC
121 Comments
Now before any socialist starts spinning the Sirota TP’s … she is referring to helping herself by using her FICA and other taxes to buy a car, home, homeschool/privateschool the kids, take the family to D.C. for a summer trip or one of the many other ‘socially deviant’ activities that doesn’t involve collectivism and a 5 year state plan.
Heck, who knows maybe she’ll use her FICA tax exemption to throw a party at her house to celebrate her church’s: leadership, the children’s music effort or an anti-drug program for youth.
Do the majority of Americans cling to their religion, social clubs (angnostic speak that includes churches and mosques), guns and the all important paycheck that they earned … you bet we do. We see it as our money, not the governments.
Titled “It’s nice to fantasize” was supposed to be in response to LB’s first comment. I shouldn’t attempt complex motor skills (like clicking the mouse) before finishing my morning coffee.
Now put down Nancy’s glossy gaping mouth photo’s, wash your hands and get that coffee into the system.
Coffee, like spending and taxes for you … you perceive you can’t operate without them.
I bet you’ve tried masturbating to damned near everything.
As I recall from an earlier post, Libertad, your solution consisted of nothing but tax cuts.
My question then, unanswered, was whether it’s better to borrow from our kids (and grandkids) or to pay for at least some of this now?
And, if you’re of the mind to cut spending to pay for this, what do you cut?
Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Military?
You can’t achieve any real savings unless you cut these.
Or do not believe that we should do anything, that here really is no problem here?
Each department should lose 30% of its funding, the workers can keep their jobs or leave. All re-assingments should show up at the Obama designated non-profit minus their government car, credit card and laptop.
As to SS, Medcare/aid and Military … adjusting those programs is not a weekend exercise for Congress … its a two year effort.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here. We all approach these things from our own perspective. But we can’t ahve a realistic discussion until we agree on some basic facts.
So, if each social department loses 30% of its funding, then that’s 30% fewer food stamps, 30% less medicaid, What else? How much does that really save? What percentage of the total budget does this comprise?
What do you mean by “adjusting”? Is adjusting a euphemism for cutting? Which programs get cut and which ones don’t?
Here’s a couple of graphics with federal spending:
Please tell me what departments you wish to cut. So far we’ve got 30% of social spending – that saves about 3% of the federal budget.
What else?
Personally, I don’t think it’s easy to save much money until we start to go after the big 3: SS. Medicare/aid, Military.
Our military is incredibly bloated when compare to every other nation. In fact, we spend as much as all of them put together. The military budget consumes abut 60% of the discretionary budget.
Education: 24%
Health Care: 20%
Higher Ed: 15%
Human Services: 12%
Transportation: 6%
Corrections: 4%
Judicial: 2%
General Govt: 2%
All other: 15%
(All other departments, from Public Health and Environment, Local Affairs, Public Safety and Regulatory Agencies to Natural Resources, Labor & Employment, Revenue and Treasury)
Slash away!
Every one takes a 20% paycut via some unpaid time, especially those making over $100k.
Interior has 100,000 employees, whack some. Same at Transportation, HHS, Treasury, etc…
Cut out 50% of the ‘corporate staff’, put on a travel ban, ground the jets, make the employee buy their own coffee, whack all the ‘future’ policy positions (tea leaf readers), and last limit Congress to introducing only 100 bills per session.
Everyone takes a 20% pay cut and the best employees leave – happens in govt, happens in private industry.
Whack lots of employees at regulatory agencies and watch what happens – Peanut sales are down 30-40% because some idiots in GA sent out contaminated peanut butter.
We’re in a recession/depression and we’re going to do our best to put more people out of work. Well, at least you’ll feel ideologically pure.
Eight years of tax cuts and trickle down voodoo and no regulation combined with putting a completely unnecessary war on our tab so we can continue to fork it over to the richest .01% has worked so well so far. More of the same please. If we’d like to wind up living in caves.
that should really help the unemployed, who are, you know, suffering the most from this situation.
Increased UI benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, even some paltry COBRA boosts — but that’s not a bad way to get money fast to people who would spend it.
Yeah, we are going to have a society without taxes.
Come on, LB, you don’t really believe that, do you?
So let’s cut all payroll taxes and jack up the progression on the income tax to make up for it? Good?
Let’s disregard what empirical analyses have demonstrated with almost irrefutable force (that tax cuts have a smaller multiplier, and a slower impact on the economy, than targeted spending), and base our policies on completely discredited ideological assumptions. Go LB! Just what every thinking American should long for: A continuation of the Bush administration approach to governance. Disregard information, and discourage its production and presentation; base policies on personal inclinations rather than on reason and evidence; drive the country into a pit of despair and disrepute in every conceivable way.
OR, we can pursue the new direction we have, by a vast majority, selected, one which is based on the pursuit of intelligent and well-informed policy. You know, intelligent and well-informed policy might not work out, but, hey, let’s just give it a try for a change, what’d’ya say?
but the evidence indicates that tax cuts are merely economic masturbation. Very little chance of successful fertilization of the economy.
Of course, this assessment of mine assumes that some economists might be right some of the time (I have my doubts about this):
Testimony of Mark Zandi (Moody’s Economy.com) before the House Budget Committee on January 27, 2009. See Table 2.
That and the redistribution of wealth … now that’s the economic stimulus fantasy your masturbatin’ too.
The (lack of) stimulating effect of tax cuts as presented by Mark Zandi has been presented by many over the last few days.
In response, tax cut ideologues have responded with sputtering and taunts and stereotypes and jeers and ad hominem attacks and ideological sound bites.
But never any evidence.
Show us the beef!
(Or at least shut the door to the bathroom while you wank over your tax cut posters.)
Big spenders heads will explode by 2010 as Newt continues to lead the power curve to self responsibility, sound government operation and sustainable economic policies that lead to growth.
The stimulus (spending) bill hurts America’s small and medium sized businesses … not to mention you the taxpayer who will be on the hook for thousands in future tax obligations.
And there hasn’t been one building the last 8, 16, 32 years?
Besides, it’s not ME that will be on the hook. It’s our children and grandchildren. They are the irresponsible ones, running up all this debt that they don’t have the means to repay.
Shame on them.
no one ever claimed much that Bush was a fiscal conservative
You mean like the “voodoo economics” championed by St. Reagan?
It took Clinton 8 years to get that mess cleaned up and then it just got recycled (if, by “recycled” you mean “take that used plastic shopping bag and tie it over your head”).
It’s the economy, stupid!
I don’t think that tax hike lost him the election. I think Ross Perot and a recession on his watch had a lot more to do with it.
so few economists agree with you.
I honestly think that this particular bill is derided by most economists for one reason or another.
When both The Economist — that free-market lovin’ bastion of capitalism — and the “librul no-gooder Nobel Prize “Yaser Arafat Won it Too” winner Paul Krugman both empathetically support this stimulus bill, I think you have good substantial evidence that this action is supported across the economic spectrum.
Absolutely I agree both The Economist and Paul Krugman would make changes to the bill if they could, but something I think you miss a lot LB is that no stimulus bill of any kind, from anyone will ever be perfect. Ever. So I think the big-picture view of most economists is that, let’s pass the imperfect bill, and address the detail devils in other bills later.
The Economist is as free market as you get, I have some magazines and books for you to take a look at.
This bill is so far from perfect, was done behind closed doors, given to lobbyists before Congress and now is being pushed to be voted on before anyone has time to read the completed bill, and it’s the largest spending bill in the history of the world.
What’s not to like?
doesn’t make it a substantial warrant.
You’re not really grappling with the argument that vast spending when we’re in the shit-hole is a good thing. Until you give a clear argument there, and so long as you just hide behind complaints like “lobbyists were involved” or “there are earmarks,” my response is just going to be: big whoop. Grow some balls. If you don’t have to engage the argument, neither do I.
Also, on the Economist, no I agree it’s not as free market as you get, but I think it’s as free market-lovin’ as you get before you get lost in extremist ideology. Similar to Paul Krugman, there are a lot of way way more liberal economists out there than the him, but none of them have much credibility (unless you’re willing to have a massive discussion on economic structure and assumptions). So, I chose those as representatives of the wings of acceptable economic thought.
Just kidding. Only metaphorically…
“Spending” is in the eye of the beholder.
I think we could have spent more on infrastructure in this bill. How’s that?
Here’s my idea of stimulus (as related to legislature, anyway):
1. As immediate of an impact as possible.
2. Must be a temporary program – i.e. don’t set up new arms of government under the guise of stimulus.
Cutting the payroll tax, capital gains taxes, etc. is the same in terms of spending money we don’t have – we’ll have to borrow (or print) the money we don’t have.
So it’s a question of degrees – philosophically, I’d like to see much more in the way of tax cuts, and I understand that lefties don’t. Nobody’s “stupid” for having philosophical differences on how stimulus really works. Economics is really a silly science. Two brilliant people can believe fully in two opposite theories looking at the same data.
But the way Pelosi and Reid went about garnering support for this bill, it amazes me that they are surprised that every R worth a shit (all but three senators) and 8 Dems in the House don’t want to have anything to do with it.
AS better be taking lessons, you could have another good conservative poster if he wrote like this.
But you’re still wrong. 🙂
I stated something like this in an earlier post somewhere, but any spending (pretty much) is good spending. Contraceptives, roads, whatever, you’re putting different industries to work and buying up the glut in supply that exists in the status quo (since individual households ain’t buying shit for now). I agree that infrastructure is a nice way to spend because it’s actually something we need to do anyways, but in terms of stimulus, it’s all increases government expenditures, making up for the decrease in consumption, thus maintaining our level of output, and through output maintaining employment.
On 2) No, tax cuts aren’t the same as direct spending, mainly because they lack that word — direct. And, yes, economics is the silliest “science” ever, there is good theory and empirical evidence here. That is the table I tried to insert earlier from The Economist (actually from the CBO, but whatever). It illustrates the multiplier effect of different forms of stimulus. For each dollar of direct federal spending we spend, it multiplies the dollar increase in GDP by 1.0-2.5 dollars. For direct payments to individuals (unemployment insurance, health-care, etc.) the multiplier is .8-2.2 dollars per dollar spent. Tax cuts: .5-1.7 dollars created per dollar spent.
So true, tax cuts can have a stimulative effect, but it’s just not as significant as direct spending, which makes me wonder why anyone would ever consciously choose the less effective of two (or more) potential options for economic recovery?
Many Republicans would not.
Sadly, heavier inflation is in our future no matter what we do.
… maybe in a few years after the bottom drops out some more.
First off, remember this bill is a compromise between different factions, all of whom know that they’re right (just like all of us 😉
1. Immediacy. Some of this bill is, some isn’t. Like you say, it’s a lot of money – I’d like to think that some of these projects will require some planning before they begin, like the smart grid.
2. Infrastructure. As much as i like infrastructure and education (smells like investment), it can’t all be infrastructure – that takes time. See you point #1. Plus, there has to be more than infrastructure – the Japanese tried that and all they got was a bunch of new highways and bridges, and another decade of recession. Just look at the Nikkei for proof.
3. New arms of govt. That’s new to me. Where do you get that? [references?] Aren’t the existing arms of govt capable of handling this? (with some help with new auditors. a lesson we hopefully learned in Iraq).
4. Tax cuts – so 42% isn’t enough? You’re not happy with nearly one half? Must be a good compromise.
5. R’s against it. Standing on principle? What, they all went to bed one night and got bit by the virtue fairy? I think that’s all political triangulation. I think if this were happening in 2003, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, and the rest of the R leadership would have rammed this through without any discussion at all. (Remember those never-ending roll calls?). Nice try with that one, though. 🙂
Not even close. By 2010 the citizens will know who got compromised and they’ll vote. Hopefully the Democrats win b/c that will likely mean the economy didn’t crater too much from today.
Of course Rush wants Obama to fail … at turning America into a socialist state. So do I, but I trust Obama to uphold America’s democratic platforms and competitive spirit.
because that would be a purely ideological position, and The Economist is a smart magazine. Its editors and writers are aware of the robustness of the market, but also of the limits of being a hammer that only sees nails in a world that also includes screws, bolts, and way too many nuts.
McClatchy. One of the prime examples of a left-leaning MSM.
Doh!
Guess Kevin Hall isn’t going to get called on in any White House press conferences.
about the huge size of the “stimulus” bill and I admit I do not know whether it will work or not.
You are making assumptions that because I am skeptical about the utility of tax cuts that I therefore think that massive spending is good.
I am merely arguing that there is at least one piece of evidence (as presented in the Mark Zandi testimony linked to above) that suggests tax cuts are a net loss in terms of any economic stimulus.
I am very open to considering evidence that suggests otherwise. Please provide some. (and please omit mere postulates of trickle-on-me theory — I want analyses of the relative effects of tax cuts vs some other approach)
The 1982 recession. Surprisingly left out of Pelosi’s chart.
The bill is too small, at least on important spending that will leave a lasting impact on the US economy and infrastructure.
It’s like a homeowner with a cracked foundation who decides they can only “afford” to paint over the cracks. The house will still come tumbling down eventually. Did they really save any money by being cheap?
The Republicans are actually hoping this will fail and the country will suffer just so they can reap political gains. Putting party over country – exactly what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address.
You mean like many Dems and the Iraq war?
Actually I disagree. Stimulus and infrastructure are needed. This piece of shit that’s prophetically going to a vote on Friday the 13th (So Madame Pelosi can go to Europe and get dwarf-tossed by the Pope) has very little to do with either.
The bill reminds me, honestly, of the shopping contests where 20 (in this case, hundreds) of idiots have a short amount of time to sprint through the store and throw everything they can reach into their carts.
.
then he hands her a $1,000 gold medallion to commemorate the event.
.
It will be her last visit to the Holy See
If you fix the link, I can find evidence that all the other quoted economists are nutjobs, but here’s an easy one for Ed Yardeni. (I think Ed’s record of optimism is a recent development.)
Working fine.
Divided fractions with my 10-year-old last night. Had to look it up first. Thought of you.
is not the article you are quoting.
Did you check out my Yardeni link? I thought it was pretty funny. Maybe I should quote more of it.
I guess you don’t actually have to be right about things to be respected in the world of punditry or economics.
You’ll remember it all started in the fall of ’08 with certain banks being forced to take TARP funds, comply with the “go along get along orders” from the government to acquire certain failing businesses.
This corrupt motherfucker is more concerned about “big business” then the complex fabric of businesses that used to make up the backbone of America.
From Cafe Hayek:
For Dems, LB. No more having to bend over for a couple of Rs and Blue dogs. Your cynicism in voting for Obama and hoping for abject failure will be richly unrewarded.
That’s the difference, I never hope for failure. I don’t like this particular horrible spending bill that’s being shoved up all of our asses.
http://www.economist.com/world…
mainly where they discuss the high multiplier effect of spending and cash transfers versus tax cuts. (I tried but failed to figure out how to paste the box with the figures into my post directly. Apologies).
It would be even nicer to have a meltdown that returns Repub troglodytes to power. Of course you didn’t say “troglodytes”. You can’t have it both ways, LB. Since your basic assumptions about what creates a healthy economy for all have been proven so wrong for so long, don’t think you’ll get your wish. Think We Dems will get our wish in 2010 instead.
without using insults?
Never said it would be nicer.
How’s this – I think disaster was and is a near certainty with both guys (McCain and Obama). If Obama is truly a miracle worker, than I’m smart for voting for him. McCain is not a miracle worker. Palin is (heheheh), but not McCain.
If disaster happened under McCain, then I have to sit through being blamed as a Republican for disaster that happened under someone who I don’t feel shares many of the most important parts of what I want or believe in as a Republican.
Under Obama, a disaster will not only damage some of the far left things he wants to accomplish that I don’t want, but it will turn the public against the angry fringe surrounding him (The Pelosis, Reids, Olbermans, certain bloggers who shall remain nameless) and put them back into the obscurity they deserve in a balanced universe.
Electing Obama also enables people like me to rid my party of hateful racist old jackasses. To make it clear to the Christian right that anyone else’s marriage is not important to people who want less government intrusion in our lives.
I have friends who so hated Bush that they were giddy at IED’s taking our soldiers because it gave them a reason to shriek more loudly. It made me sad because I think at that point, they’d crossed the line into wanting bad things for your country under your opponent simply for political expedience.
I’m not in that camp. I don’t like this bill, but I’m still happy I voted for Obama. I’d love for him to lay down the law on Pelosi and Reid. He could.
I honestly think if you knew me this would make perfect sense to you.
There. That was with no insults.
Anything specific, or just dismissive?
for an answer to my question above. To quote:
“So true, tax cuts can have a stimulative effect, but it’s just not as significant as direct spending, which makes me wonder why anyone would ever consciously choose the less effective of two (or more) potential options for economic recovery?”
I’ll wait.
Perhaps you are just hopelessly conflicted rather than cynical.
I also think your statement about people who supposedly were “giddy” over seeing our soldiers get blown away so they could scream louder is highly suspect. If you think that’s how most of us who opposed this “preemptive” war feel, you don’t know what you’re talking about. But I won’t demand you back that up with anything specific. You can’t. Peace, LB.
I couldn’t imagine anyone on this board feeling that way, and it’s not the way the majority of Dems felt. But I did have a couple of friends that way, to my disappointment.
regardless of their nationality, is one of the strongest and most under-emphasized reasons for having opposed the war.
In general, those who consider military action a last resort rather than a first instinct, are those who are less prone to be “giddy,” or even nonchalant, about human suffering.
The left, the “bleeding heart left,” is the ideology based on the notion that social justice, including the mitigation of violent victimization large and small, is an important value to include in the formation of our social policies. It has always amazed me that this isn’t a universally held value among people of good will.
I’d say, though no doubt it will offend, that those on the left are far less prone to be “giddy” about death and destruction than those on the right. It certainly seems that way at a glance. And at a second glance. And after years of intense scrutiny.
A “letter to the editor” that doesn’t actually get published (as this surely wouldn’t, as it sounds like it was written by a frothing rabid moron, whatever his credentials) is actually a blog post.
.
Some papers keep them in a collection, available to anyone who stops by their offices.
.
As I read the McClatchey piece, I found the opinion to be fairly mixed.
One appeared to argue that spending alone won’t cure our ills – that bank rescue was called for, too.
Another said it wasn’t big enough.
One said that it was the wrong kind of spending – not enough money to consumers to buy big-ticket items.
One said that it was all govt expansion hiding under the label of stimulus.
I think they all had valid points, but also think that anyone who expects a perfect bill from the congressional sausage factory is delusional. And as they say, the sign of a good compromise is that nobody is happy.
Seriously.
Nobody was allowed to see the completed bill (unless you happen to work on K Street) until 11PM last night.
Tax cuts alone will not do the trick. Especially when a tax break on your non-paycheck from your non-job is a non-issue.
But…
Most of the programs funded in the bill won’t create jobs either. And the protectionist elements could end up costing us many more.
If it were me?
$200 billion for infrastructure.
$100 Billion for States (except California – fuck California) for projects, and particularly sience and math education.
Two-year moratorium on capital gains taxes.
I can’t stand it. It dosen’t smell good. I wish they could just stick with needed infrastructure projects with about half of the cost, instead of this orgy of spending.
I hope it works, but I doubt it will.
More tax cuts obviously aren’t the answer either. It’s a mess that extends way beyond politics.
How in the world would you separate “needed infrastructure projects” from the “orgy of spending?”
The point of the stimulus package is to pour as ass-load of money (i.e. spending) into the economy to maintain somewhere close to our previous output level. I didn’t get understand people being upset over contraceptives, or earmarks, or anything with this — those are exactly the point! The stimulus bill and all of its “needed infrastructure projects” are essentially one massive earmark, and it doesn’t really matter so much what we spend it on, so long as different industries are finding buyers for their goods. Whether that means we buy condoms or bibles, it amounts to the same thing, alleviating supply guts is what Keynesian economics is all about.
Hence, orgy of spending = great! Hopefully though we won’t completely cut contraceptive funds before it starts though…
.
can I quote you on that ?
.
It’s all stimulative, no double entendre intended.
I think everything in this thread now has a double meaning, or even a triple meaning.
That’s two; I’m still working on a third. 🙂
The main thing I don’t like is the hastiness. We were go-go get it done now, worry about the details later in Iraq and in the bank bailout. We all know how the bank bailout went – POOF ! 350 billion gone.
There are consequences to this spending, as I know you know. We may be trading the promise (or hope) of good times soon ahead for less good times, or bad times, later on when we have to pay for it.
Much of this money will take years to finally get where it is supposed to go, so it isn’t a quick fix. Spreading it out over time and having it filter through federal and local government bureaucracies, lobbying groups, consultants, etc. will significantly dilute its impact.
Separating needed infrastructure projects with spending is an important point. Constituencies identified some worthy projects – I wish that the White House had examined each of those projects, cut the ones that looked bogus, overly expensive, or bridge-to-nowhere-esque, and gave out funds just for those worthy projects and left it just at that. With that, you have something tangible for your money.
When you just say you are giving 10 billion here for something vague like “IT development” you are asking for trouble. The same people that got us in this mess are going to find an angle to get at that money and a lot is going to be siphoned off, IMHO. A lot of the money won’t go where it is intended.
I hate the package. I really do. But just as well I hope I’m dead wrong.
If only there had been this much dissent when the run up to the Iraq War began. Can you imagine if the non-stop media coverage was about the anti-war message? There would never have been an invasion–or, had there still been one, it would have been enormously unpopular.
Still, there is a big difference between our current crisis and Iraq.
In 2002 and 2003, there was no clear and present danger with Iraq. Sure, there was a lot of tough talk, and we had Cheney telling us how Mohammed Atta and Saddam were the best of pals, but there wasn’t any hard evidence that we were actually being threatened. Republicans and Democrats may disagree on the scope, or the make-up of the stiumulus, but nobody is denying that we face a serious economic threat.
Thanks for sharing your opinion though. It’s an unpopular one among Democrats right now, so it’s really great that you share it with us even though we disagree.
You are a good Louisvillian !
Either way, I guess we’ve just passed our mountain of chips to the middle of the table and we’ve gone all in as a country on Keynesian economics.
It’s a bold plan. It’s decisive, and it is massive. I’ll give it that.
With a number so significantly high in the billions it should be fairly easy to determine failure or success.
Only time will tell.
For our sake, I hope you’re wrong too.
h/t This Modern World
This is one of those cunning plans which cannot possibly work. It’s such a terrible idea that it actually enters the realm of paradox.
If it ever gets popular enough that people start using it, then anyone who’s actually knowledgeable will immediately recognize the bluffing as coming from Newsweek, and anyone who tries to imitate Newsweek will sound like a raging idiot.
My family is from Silt and owns a business that relies on the energy industry.
Last year my whole family attended a meeting in grand Junction where over 2000 people joined together opposing the oil and gas rules.
Shortly after the meeting, Representative Curry was quoted in several major newspapers as saying that she (the legislature) was not going to “rubberstamp” rules that would negatively impact the industry. She was also quoted saying that she believed the rules went beyond the legislature’s intent.
Now she is going to the Denver Post saying that it would be historical to change the rules and that she isnt going to be flexible at all. Who doesnt she represent? Bill Ritter, or the people and economies of the Western Slope? I voted for her the first time around, and might in the future, but fear that her comments then (and actions now) are very inconsistent and warrent analysis in future campaigns. Please dont reply to this if you are not willing to take a few minutes and see for yourself how strongley she railed against the rules after the near riot on the west slope.
Uh oh, I replied without checking out to see if your concerns are valid.
Because I don’t ordinarily respond to trolls who register just 11 minutes before they post, except to say “welcome aboard.”
The concerns expressed are not valid.
The meeting in Grand Junction last year was a hearing on the draft rules. Curry’s comments were about the draft rules. The rules changed substantially as a result of the hearing process and now represent a significant compromise compared with the draft.
The bill to postpone the rules never came before her committee in the House as it was PI’d in the Senate. There are other bills this session; we’ll see where she stands when they hit her committee.
Not even the ones in Democratic-leaning districts, like Joseph Cao, who said they would.
Hey Republicans, you’ve really bought into the strategy of “Hope to God the economy stays fucked up” for 2010, eh? Good luck with that, I’m sure voters will reward your tenacity.
7 Democrats voted against it. None of them will be punished for that, since most Democrats voted for it. If a few Republicans had crossed over, they would have made ALL Republicans look a lot better. Now the party brand will be in the toilet for years.
The Republicans are taking an enormous gamble. They are betting the stimulus package coupled with the other package being fleshed out by Treasury and the Federal Reserve will all fail. If the economy stabilizes and begins to recover, even a little, by next year, the Republican Party will have cooked its goose for several election cycles. If that happens, even if the cause of any recovery is somehow attributable to something other than government action, the Republican Party can howl at the moon all night long for a year and it won’t do any good.
If the economy begins to recover, what are they going to say? “Oh the recovery would have been greater and at a faster pace if our plan would have been adopted.”
In 1933, when FDR and Congress enacted the first major programs of the New Deal, many Republicans in Congress voted for the WPA, the CCC and the TVA. In fact, Sen. Norris (R-Nebraska) was the prime sponsor of the TVA legislation that FDR signed into law in August 1933. In that situation, the Republicans could at least attempt to take credit for some of the attempted recovery package.
In 2010 election cycle, the Republicans won’t be able to take credit for any of these programs and, if the economy begins to recover, they will be painted as the political party that voted unanimously against the package (except for three senators). At this point, they have no choice but to hope and pray the stimulus package fails.
I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their position. If the voters determine (they haven’t done so yet) the Republican Party was either agaisnt doing anything to help the economy and preserving our American Way of Life or was stone walling for partisan political gain – God help them in the 2010 election.
Republicans similarly voted unanimously against Clinton’s budget in 1993 and were actually rewarded the next year electorally. Presumably they’re betting on that history to repeat itself.
Sad to say for them, weepy John Boehner is no Newt Gingrich.
Plus Clinton’s budget was fairly popular; it was the general Democratic infighting and inability to pass much legislation that led to Republicans winning elections. Considering how unified Democrats have been (very few defections on the stimulus package compared to the defections on health care in 1993), I doubt that will repeat itself.
But hey, good luck to Republicans hoping for the worst.
Seriously..
Opposing a bloated, very Dem-like stimulus bill has nothing to do with opposing the “American way of life”.
I know you’re really concerned about us and all, and you used to be Ronald Reagan, but I’d think that if you were so certain of the Republicans being at the heart of all that’s evil that you wouldn’t want anyone to mistakenly think you support us by confusing your moniker.
I’m only looking out for you. Because I care.
compared to the those who lead the party today are completely different kinds of political people. They simply don’t believe the same things and probably don’t belong in the same party. I believe we are seeing the splitting of the sheets so to speak by, for example, the tens of thousands of Colorado voters who previously voted Republican but are now in the Democratic column.
Lee Atwater?
What principles did you value most as a Republican?
How can you correct 8 years of abuse in 6 months?
That’s what the Repubs are betting on. If the Dems want to call bullshit on that, it’s going to take a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of media.
If a sense of confidence returns in the mind of voters, the Republicans will suffer another major defeat in 2010, even if the economy isn’t on the mend.
In March 1933 when FDR began the New Deal, the Democrats still scored major victories in the 1934 off year elections even though the country was still locked in the depths of the Depression because the voters sensed that FDR and the Democrats were attempting to help them through those terrible economic times. The same may be true next year if the voters have the same sense about President Obama and the Democratic Congress. It is too early to tell if that will be the case but, again, the Republicans are taking an enormous political gamble.
The Republicans all but unanimous opposition to the economic stimulus plan may really be aimed at undermining the public’s confidence in our leaders, our system of government and ultimately in our ability to rectify and solve our problems. If the public begins to sense the Republicans are on that track then God help the Republican Party in 2010.
But I think you’re totally full of shit, and I’m sure it goes both ways.
Americans don’t like a monopoly of power, and we’re going to have lots to work with in the next 18 months.
You know, really dumb stuff – like this:
Government does not have the ability to solve much of anything. Wars, sure. Moon landings? Ok.
Since you were such a prominent Republican in the 80’s, maybe this will ring a bell:
because it did a great job, as intended, of
So I’m not sure about the point you’re making.
My confidence in my leaders is based on the fact that they not ignore me, or think that they know better for me than I do for myself how to live, how to spend my money, what I want to listen to on the radio.
Government does almost everything in the world much worse than the private sector. THere are exceptions, but they are few.
I don’t want them coming up with problems they feel the need to solve so they can have jobs as problem solvers.
During the debate over Ref. “C” in 2005, former State Senate President John Andrews specifically admitted that if Ref. C didn’t pass we could not maintain our roads and tuition at our public universities would soar to the same as private universities like Stanford, Yale and others in five years. After admitting that was the case he said he didn’t care if that happened. Keep in mind that he had already signed a pledge on the website for a group known as the Alliance for the Separation of School and State that all public funding for education K through university should be temrinated immediately. I don’t recall Ronald Reagan, who Mr. Andrews claims to be an apostle of, ever advocating the complete termination of our educational system. Mr. Caldara at the Independence Institute, another so called bastion of Republicanism, went along with all of this. Terminating our educational system is not in the interest of preserving our American Way of Life.
Look at the FASTER bill in the General Assembly this year. Every Republican voted against it even though 27 of bridges that will be repaired are in St. Sen. Ken Kester’s district and 26 are in St. Rep. Cory Gardner’s district. The Republicans simply don’t want to govern.
About two months ago, I received a call from a Republican who ask me if I could provide him with some names of Republican state legislators who served in the General Assembly during the major recession of the 1980’s. I said sure. He wanted the former legislators to brief the Republicans in the state house and senate on how they handled the recession in the 1980’s. I told him you will be very disappointed because the legislators from the 1980’s actually raised taxes during the recession to insure that transportation and education and other programs were maintained. In other words, Republican legislators twenty years agao realized and understood that transportation, education and other government functions are part of our American Way of Life and, in fact, have been part of the reason we are a great nation both economically and in many other ways.
At this point, it needs to be noted that President Ronald Reagan did exactly the same thing in 1986. The deficits were so great that he had to raise taxes to get them under control because the 1981 tax cuts that have been enshrined in Republican lore simply did not generate enough additional economic activity to make up the gap created by a 25% across the board cut in corporate and personal income tax enacted in 1981 coupled with the massive 10% increase in the defense budget also enacted in 1981. President Reagan understood this and was willing to make adjustments. Contrary to what Republicans say today, President Reagan was principled but not stupid enough to believe that his principles should be equated as ironclad ideology that worked in all factual settings every time.
However, the Republican Party today is landlocked in a mentality that does not allow any deviation from the so called principle of tax cuts solve all problems and there isn’t any government program that is worth maintaining, plus everyone must be pro-life and meet the litmus test on other social issues. The belief that tax cuts are always the solution coupled with the fact recent Republican leaders have advocated terminating the education system and support for transportation leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Party isn’t interested in governing. That being the case, it isn’t interested in supporting our American Way of Life which includes government. It is one thing to argue and fight with the Democrats over what government should do or how much it should undertake but it is quite another thing to argue there should be no government.
A common thread runs through the so called Republican ideology that is prevalent today. Everything is aimed at weakening the government whether through tax cuts or other means and then when weakened, blaming government for being ineffective. that is now way to run a government or preserve our American Way of Life. It in fact undermines it. TABOR is the perfect example. Its aim is to undermine representative government which was the foundation of the political institutions our founding Fathers established in this country and in Colorado.
The great English thinker and member of Parliment Edmund Burke gave us the classical definition of conservatism. He also supported our Revolution against the British government. He said that conservatism means one preserves the instiuttions of society while allowing for change and reform when facts changed circumstances dictate it. He made this point emphatically in his Reflections on the French Revolution by condemning those British citizens who believed the French Revolution was a mirror image of the Glorious Revolution in Britain in 1688. He proved conclusively that in Britain the existing institutions were reformed in 1688, including the monarchy, not destroyed as was happening in France. The same occurred during our Revolution. Except for the monarchy, we preserved our institutions.
The Republican Party today is more reflective of the French Revolution, a destructive force that is intent on dismantling our institutions without reforming them or replacing them with ones that will serve the needs of society. I cannot believe or accept this as either Republican or conservative.
I am leaving to go to my second and third jobs, and I will respond in full tomorrow.
Thanks for taking so much time.
having so much of what they saw as good, stimulative spending cut out. The opposite of the R position. You can bet they felt free to register their displeasure because they knew it was going to have no trouble passing in the House.
Off subject but pretty silly how Rs are reduced to carrying on about money for mice when asked to detail the pork they are all complaining about. It’s actually funding for wetlands (ask the people of New Orleans how useless healthy wetlands are) that happen to be home to marsh mice or rats, depending on which R is doing the silly ranting.
Others, when pressed for details, just say its pork because it’s too much spending. Or because they just know it will be misspent even though there are no earmarks. Mainly, they’ve got nothing. Nothing but imaginary San Francisco rat funding.
No one is sure what will work so they are trying a bunch of different things to see which will work. I think it’s a good package of things to try.
And like everyone, I wish it was balanced a bit differently – but that doesn’t mean my preference would be better.
Because their bosses told them to.
The Republicans voted against the stimulus bill because the economy is FINE in their districts! There are no needs there. Everyone is fine! There are no foreclosures, no one has lost their jobs and the banks are lending like crazy in Republican districts. Why did it take us libruls so long to figure this out?!!
They held the vote open for hours, because Kennedy is too sick to vote (dude, resign already, we need that vote) and Sherrod Brown was attending his mother’s funeral.
Instead of a single Republican changing his vote for the package (what about fellow Ohioan Voinovich?), they continued to filibuster and forced Brown to fly back to Washington to be the 60th vote, only to fly back the next day for the wake.
Tomorrow they’ll complain that he wasted fuel. This is why it’s hard to be civil to Republicans.
something that takes 60 votes to pass regardless?
Anyway, Voinovich definitely should have just voted for the package…he’s not running for reelection and I can’t imagine he’s that concerned about protecting his conservative street cred. The guy has already literally cried on the floor of the senate for christ’s sake…
There are certainly instances of the senate passing things by less than 60 votes. Mukasey, for example, was approved by something like 54%. Not challenging your statement at all. You obviously are well versed in all these rules. Just asking.
When do you need 60% and when will less do with threat of filibuster not entering into the equation? I’ve tried to look it up but always get referred to cloture in relation to a 60 vote requirement.
which now only requires stating the intent to fillibuster in order to fillibuster, effectively eliminated the fillibuster, and replaced it with the need for a 60-40 majority to pass legislation in the US Senate.
I thought the 60 votes rule had to do with ending discussion. If no one cares about ending discussion, couldn’t it go straight to a floor vote? 51-49 or 51-50 if the VP gets his vote.
but if a bill were going to pass with less than 60 votes, then its opponents only need to vote against ending discussion indefinately in order to block its passage, thus creating a reality in which 60 votes are needed to pass a bill.
At least that’s my understanding.
and isn’t that the definition of filibuster and couldn’t the Dems say, go ahead? Discuss all you want. Besides, Dabee’s comment didn’t seem to convey that with the new rule NOTHING requires an actual filibuster. I’d love to see how long these soft pols would last having to actually go through with it.
that, according to current senate rules, if 41 members vote that they intend to fillibuster, no actual debate is required: the vote is simply delayed until 61 members vote to invoke cloture, thus effectively changing the requirement to pass legislation in the senate from a simple majority to a three fifths majority.
I’m no expert on this topic, and may be wrong. If so, please correct me.
http://www.congressmatters.com…
Does that mean that all bills that require deficit spending effectively require a 3/5 majority? And is it always clear which bills individually require deficit spending? Just curious.
Thanks, sxp. Dabee’s remark surely must have been referring to this specific. It’s so tedious to plow through all the rules and find all of these things. Wish someone would compose an easy to use Senate Rules for Dummies.
just started and is helpful for that sort of thing. It’s run by the Poster Formerly Known As Kagro X from Daily Kos.
Here’s a link.
And looking forward to your next quote.
60 (in this case) had nothing to do with cloture, just waiving the point of order in the Budget Act necessary to bass the bill.
Referring to what you and Steve are talking about, there’s no real need to actively filibuster something with less than 60 votes in support. If the majority can’t invoke cloture, they can’t move to final passage of the motion. You can make the minority actually filibuster, holding the floor for hours on end, but that monopolizes what is happening on the Senate floor, stopping you from doing other work. In practice, if you don’t have 60 votes to close debate, you just move on to something else until you can wrangle the 60 you need on whatever it is that’s being “filibustered.”
it might be advantageous to force the minority to actually go through with the filibuster, making sure the public knows that because the stubborn minority won’t allow a vote the business of the nation can’t proceed.
Most don’t know all the ins and outs of the rules (as demonstrated on this thread) but do feel that democracy means the majority wins. Forcing the minority to very publicly obstruct makes them look like sore losers. The Rs understood this and constantly called Dems obstructionist and appealed for straight up or down votes as the American way when they were in the majority.
I didn’t read your 11:58 post until after responding to sxp above. Most of you guys (and gals) are far more knowledgeable than I am on the machinery of our political system: I am more of a social theorist, really. So I enjoy (and appreciate) the education I get from reading your posts.
is the LBJ of Colorado Pols.