The REAL CBO Report

According to Think Progress, this much ballyhooed Congressional Budget Office report that was used to criticize the Obama Recovery Bill by Republicans was cited 81 times in the last six days by the talking heads on television and in print; they criticized that spending was initally slow and that only 35% of the package would be spent by 2011.

There's just one problem with that: the CBO report they were citing doesn't exist. Rather, the media and Republican opposition to the bill were citing a partial report that didn't include the planned tax cuts, unemployment benefit extensions and numerous other factors. Even after Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained that everyone was citing an incomplete report in his press conference on Friday, inaccurate reporting continued on the news.

New Meet The Press host David Gregory used the CBO report in criticism on Sunday morning and I personally witnessed Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC ask about the partial report when questioning Congressman Chris Van Hollen late Monday afternoon! But I suppose if it isn't scandalous it doesn't sell, so why bother with accuracy?

Well guess what? The CBO actually released a complete report Monday evening which shows that, just as the Obama administration has been saying, about ¾ of the stimulus package would be injected into the economy within the first 18 months.

From the CBO report (emphasis mine):

This is the first cost estimate that CBO has prepared for H.R. 1 in its entirety. A previous preliminary estimate that has been widely cited addressed only the budgetary impacts of an earlier version of the provisions contained in Division A, at the request of the House Committee on Appropriations.

CBO has since made small changes to our estimates of the portion of the bill that was included in that preliminary estimate, mostly to reflect amendments to the legislation since we prepared the last estimate. Based on information provided by the committee and discussions with numerous state officials, we also made small technical changes to that earlier estimate.

I wonder how quickly the very serious mainstream media will report on this, and if they'll mention it 81 times in six days? I'm also sure the GOP will ignore it while tending to their fudge, since it doesn't fit into their agenda.

I mean, think about it. All we've heard the latest cheap Republican talking point is the expenditure of $200 million for Medicaid to be used for contraception and all the hysteria from the right asking how something like that can stimulate the economy. They are completely ignoring the fact that education, prevention of STDs and unwanted pregnancies can help in reducing governmental financial responsibilities later on. But the word "contraception" is a touchstone for their religious right base, even though the money planned for this program is only 0.00024% of the total package.

What's the GOP solution? More tax cuts. You know, because it's worked so well before.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Troll Hunting

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. For those unfamiliar with the phrase "troll" when it comes to the blogotubes, here is an Urban Dictionary definition:

troll - One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark up such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

That's the thing with wingnuts that regurgitate Rush Limbaugh, right wing talking points. They really can't think for themselves and refuse to let facts get in the way of their belief system, like corporate tax cuts stimulate the economy or that President Obama cannot be the Commander-in-Chief because he isn't an American citizen.

Over at Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! GO! , trolling was relatively quiet, but with the growing success and popularity of his blog, the publishing of his book and his weekly contributions at The Huffington Post, Bob's blog has seen a rise of trolls as they rear their ugly heads from beneath their bridges (and by "bridges" I mean stomping on their Cheeto's stained keyboards in their parents' basement).

Now, normally the tactic taken is to ignore the troll. If you feed them, they only spew more of their neocon vomit. But what I've found at Bob's place unfortunately, is that their modus operandi is to return to a comment thread after the hullabaloo has died down, sometimes in the middle of the night or the next day, to try make an asinine point in the feeble minded thought that if they are not responded to, then they must have won the debate. They also sign in with multiple names to make you think there is more than one idiot guarding the bridge. So what if no one is paying attention anymore? Well, feeding trolls or not, I will not abide by that.

Here are a series of typical troll comments that I found this morning. At this point in a tax cut/recovery bill debate, the troll, "Booogie-Mann" is quoting other commenters and trying to rebut their position. These were posted between 3:45 and 4am:

"Tax cuts are far less stimulative than spending, hence there should be more spending and fewer tax cuts in the recovery bill."

... whenever the tax rate is above the optimal rate for revenue, there should be tax cuts. I pay almost 40% of my income in taxes, is that fair, isn't this too much, isn't this theft??

Bob reads one CBO report from a Democrat controlled congress and thinks this bolsters his spending works better than tax cuts argument. How silly. I agree that some spending on projects like windmills or energy would be helpful, but overall this huge Lobster Bill with butter and lemons just gives money away. States will use it to fill their budget gaps.

AdyLeigh: bless your feeble little brain, but years of overspending and huge deficits by the states have put them in a situation where spending increases will need to stop. You imply that we need to pay more taxes, otherwise all these elderly, poor, education will suffer or whatever. Do you understand where this money comes from?? Somebody else's pocket, who will suffer from having it confiscated. Who are you to judge where my money should be spent?? Why should I fund someone's College Edu-k-shuh ... take out a loan for Chrissake...

If anything, you should be mad at State Government Officials who never passed a reasonable budget, nor saved a penny for a rainy day (today). During the economic boom of the past 6+years State Governments have just raked in $$ and spent it on crap. Look at how spending has increased in your state since 2000, go look it up and ask yourself if wages in the state or population increases justify this amount. I doubt it.

Posted by: Booogie-Mann at February 9, 2009 3:49 AM

*************

Social Security ... anyone who wants more taxes and government to pay for things, just ask any senior how they like Social Security. How's that program working for ya huh?? What happened to the "Lock Box" of money Al Gore talked about. Yea, right.

South Carolina: I wonder if any of these folks working for SC Government, making over 100k, would be willing to take a small pay cut to fund the poor:

http://salaries.thestateonline.com/index.php?salary=100000

Posted by: Booogie-Mann at February 9, 2009 3:57 AM

*************

AdyLeigh: 7% cut across the board?? How smart, I wonder how many Unemployed people would have taked a mere 7% cut in pay to keep their jobs!!

-7% means putting SC back to 2006 levels, wahhhhh, big deal, be patriotic and get over it, we don't have the money.

Posted by: Booogie-Mann at February 9, 2009 4:00 AM

Pretty smart guy, huh? Now at this point, I'd had it with this moron. For three straight days, he whined and moaned about the recovery bill, but had no ideas other than the usual Republican tax cuts talking point that has been proven a failure for the last 30 years. So here is my (harsh) response:

Booger-Man/CS/StupidChris/CnnNews/whoever the fuck you are, you've got to be the stupidest asshole on the planet. Let's take your stupidity point by point.

CBO - You sons of bitches whined for days about how a CBO report touted by Republicans showed that the recovery bill would not inject enough stimulus into the economy fast enough. Every douchebag Republican was hiding behind that CBO report - WHICH DIDN'T EXIST - and now that a full report is out from the same group, you cry that it's a partisan report. FUCK YOU.

Enough with the "lobster bill with butter and lemons." You've been saying that for days. It wasn't funny the first time, and it's not funny now. FUCK YOU.

"States will use it to fill their gaps."

That's the point, you fucking moron. States get relief from the federal government and can continue unemployment benefits for the millions that have lost their jobs (who have been paying into the system, by the way), relieve the burden of having to lay off law enforcement, firefighters, school budget cuts or closing schools all together, etc. Shovel ready projects get funded and put people back to work. FUCK YOU.

"I pay almost 40% of my income in taxes, is that fair, isn't this too much, isn't this theft?"

Answer: No, dipshit. It's the price we pay for living in this country.

I pay almost 40% too, so quit your bitching. You know what the real theft is? Corporations that don't pay 40%. Schlubs like you and me pay 40% while billionaires like Warren Buffet pay 17%. How is that fair? How can you be so ridiculously contradictory when someone mentions that there have been 7% cuts across the board in SC, yet you cry like a fucking baby about your tax rate?! Big deal. Be patriotic and get over it, fuck-o.

By the way, seniors LOVE Social Security. They get their check every month. No delays. No hassles. It was a forced savings account started by a Democrat 70 fucking years ago and it still works. They only reason you bitches are crying foul is because you keep using it to pay off other shit. Al Gore and his "lock box" idea was awesome. Too bad it wasn't implemented by your Chimp after he stole the 2000 election. Ask your grandparents about Social Security. I'm sure they're glad that Bush didn't break that system too and rolled it over into private accounts. Where would that money be now if that had happened? Swallowed up like the rest of the DOW and whatever was leftover would be your "finance fee" to the fund operator.

And you can shove that SC $100K chart up your ass. Are you saying that educators, professors, deans, doctors and nurses don't deserve to make money? If you're going to ask them to take a 7% cut, great. Then the person that makes $100K can pay his/her almost 40% in taxes and the person/corporation who makes billions can pay their 40% as well.

And you're right, Fuck it. Why should we fund ANY "Edu-k-shuh."? You never went to school, right? You didn't go to grammar school, or high school or college. We don't need any fancy book learnin' Americans to run our country. Let's just import them from other countries that fund their education. They'll do it for less money too and Americans can just do ALL the manual labor of America. Hell, that takes care of the immigration problem too. See you on the lettuce fields, asshole.

And I love this one: "...Government Officials who never passed a reasonable budget, nor saved a penny for a rainy day (today). "

What do you mean, Boogie Nights? Saving money?! Why should they keep our hard earned cash? They should just give us TAX BREAKS, they shouldn't keep the money for a rainy day. According to you, that's thievery! Gee, I don't know why we find ourselves in this mess after Bush's initial $1.3 TRILLION tax break, not to mention more tax cuts during "war" time, something NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE.

So keep thinking that the same policies that have ruined us financially over the last 30 years are the answer to everything.

Oh yeah, one more thing. FUCK YOU.

Posted by: Broadway Carl at February 9, 2009 8:55 AM

Surprisingly, I have yet to receive a response. So in conclusion, don't be afraid to feed a troll. They may be a nuisance, but they'll help sharpen your debate skills for actual debate with intelligent people and keep all those facts fresh in your head.

President Obama on Health Care Progress

When the latest CBO report came out stating that the healthcare reform would cost more than save in the long term I knew it would be the perfect fodder for those opposed to the public option. I also have a feeling that this initial report will be followed up by secondary report amending their first overstated report, as the CBO is accustomed to doing. I thought if President Obama, or someone speaking for the White House didn't come out in opposition to the report, we'd be in a little more trouble when it comes to passing health care reform with a strong public option. Then you have dolts like Lieberman and Landrieu saying we should slow the whole thing down and protecting their health care lobbyist moolah.

Enter President Obama:

The CBO's Sky Is Falling... Again.

Last week the GOP's collective hair was on fire when the always reliable CBO said that the health care reform being worked out in Congress would add to the deficit, not reduce it. I also predicted that within days, the CBO would come out with another statement amending the Chicken Little assessment.

Bingo.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window - and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.

That was Friday. Yet, no one is talking about these CBO numbers, just as everyone ran for their bomb shelters to count their canned peaches stock the last time this happened, based on an incomplete or non-existant CBO report on the Obama administration's Recovery Plan.

I see a pattern developing.

Recovery Bill Passes Without Obstructionists

Well, we all now know what the new, little game is for the leaderless Greasy Obstructionist Party. And it's pretty much the same, old game that they've played because... well, they can't think of anything new.

President Obama's Economic Recovery Bill (H.R.1) wasn't good enough for the Republicans. They cited it didn't spend enough soon enough to jump start the economy according to their non-existent CBO report, although the actual CBO report showed something different. What was the answer? Tax cuts. So Obama obliged in the interest of bipartisanship.

Then there was this nasty little business of $200 million in family planning. How in the hell was that going to stimulate the economy? Contraceptives? Phooey! So, ignoring the fact that preventing sexually transmitted diseases saves the economy tens of billions of dollars yearly, President Obama asked the Democrats to remove the family planning provision and save it for a later date, and they obliged in the the interest of bipartisanship.

What about grass? Yes, at this point I'd like to get high too, but I'm talking about resodding the National Mall at a cost of $21 million. Could create some jobs, right? Perhaps the Parks Department could hire a lot of extra help, or maybe they could contract it out and employ who knows how many people (1,000? 3,000? 5,000?) to give a much needed facelift to our capital; to the place where 16 million tourists come from all over the world to enjoy our monuments and museums; to the space we use to honor our national heroes. But the myopic GOP thinks that it's wasteful spending. So Obama obliged in the interest of bipartisanship.

President Obama met with leaders of the Republican Party three times in the last week in an effort to get votes from the other side of the aisle - three times. The same number of times that George W. Bush met with Democratic leaders over his entire eight years. All this was in an effort of post partisanship. So how did the Republicans in the House thank President Obama for including them in the process? Not one Republican voted for H.R. 1. Not. One. Vote.

Ultimately, the thanks the GOP gave to the President was to water down the bill with more tax cuts and less stimulus spending - now if the whole thing shits the bed, Republicans can say they were against it all along, when in fact they contributed to weakening it while making believe they were honoring the spirit of bipartisanship. And then they went to the White House and drank Obama's liquor anyway.

At this point, the partisan in me wants the President to shut down the bill and start again with the bill he wanted, including the family planning money, including the National Mall money, including everything he compromised away and to reduce the tax cuts that the Republicans insisted he add. If he's not going to get any Republican votes, then fuck 'em, right? Why should they get any say if they're going to reject it out of hand anyway? And has anyone heard any idea on the Republican side of the aisle, just one idea, that would help the stimulus package besides tax cuts? Anyone?

According to Moody's Economy.com (featured on Rachel Maddow's show last night) for every government dollar spent on Food Stamps, it generates $1.73 in stimulative spending. Infrastructure? $1 in spending crates $1.59 in stimulus. As opposed to tax cuts, $1 will get you a $1.03 return and the lovely corporate tax cut? $1 in corporate tax cuts will get you $0.30 on the dollar - negative territory. But tax cuts is all the GOP will say when you pull the string on their back. Mortgage crisis? Tax cuts. Unemployment up? Tax cuts. Economy going in the shitter after eight years of tax cuts? ... Tax cuts.

Rachel Maddow and Don Manzullo

Here's the Maddow clip from last night in which she interviews Representative Don Manzullo (R-IL) who voted against the bill. See if you can make any sense out of what he's saying when it came to the auto industry and car vouchers.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I want to get this right. Here is Manzullo's quote:

"How do you 'prime the pump' to restart, for example, manufacturing? I've got a Chrysler facility in my district. The big problem is lack of orders. So here's what you do, it's something very, very simple. You take a $5,000 voucher, you go to your Chrysler dealer or dealer of your choice, you buy the car. You knock 25% off that car and you can buy a nice Jeep Patriot for less than $300 a month. We have to restart the channels of the supply line and manufacturing..."

Huh? So, you're going to send a family of four who makes $30,000 a year, or better yet, someone who's just lost their job a $5,000 voucher to go out and buy a car and their incentive is that they only pay less than $300 a month on a car they can't afford in the first place?

"... You don't make jobs when jobs already exist save for the lack of orders. There are enough people in this country today that would like to buy a new car. We went from 17 million new cars down to 10 million new cars. If we could get up to 15 million new cars, that's $75 billion in vouchers, that would (triggle? trickle?) over a trillion dollars, and that way people go back to work. There is nothing in this bill that puts people back to work."

Congressman Manzullo seems like a nice guy, but is it me or does he have no idea what the fuck he is talking about? He wants people to drive their new Jeep Patriot to a job that doesn't exist? Did I get that right?! He's looking at this completely backwards because he's worried about the manufacturing jobs in his district due to lack of demand for the product. The reason there is lack of demand is the lack of jobs generating the money for those people to then buy the cars and increase the demand, thereby putting those manufacturing jobs back on the clock.

He thinks there's enough people out there who can still buy a car with a little push. He forgets that unemployment is currently at 7.5% and 8.2% in his home state, and it'll probably get worse before it gets better. He's forgotten that 2.6 million people lost their jobs just in 2008 alone. But there should still be enough people out there who still want to buy a car, right? And a gas guzzler at that. As long as those jobs come back to his district, it's all good.

Using his analogy of "priming the pump," Manzullo wants to pour stimulus into the carburetor to get the engine running instead of pouring it into the gas tank to keep the engine running for a much longer period of time. And this is what Maddow argues in my favorite part of the exchange as she's getting under the good Congressman's skin in the nicest way possible.

Maddow: "The idea that family planning programs, putting down grass on the National Mall, all of these things that you guys have demonized, are in fact things that would put people back to work. That's the problem here."

Manzullo: "Wait a second, I am not demonizing putting grass back to work. (Maddow smiles) Items should be budgeted and then you should have items that are stimulus that go... in, in, in... the spending for stimulus is off budget, it goes directly to the deficit. Based upon your definition, I don't mean to argue with you but I'm having fun with you, every, every item of spending can be stimulus, that means you don't worry about paying for it, that means you don't worry about budget, that means then $11 trillion in debt. This stimulus package will add $365 billion in interest over the next 10 years bringing it up to $1.16 trillion."

Asked whether he would ever vote for a stimulus bill, Manzullo responds, "You bet, if it was modest..." to which Rachel replies, "We don't have a modest problem, sir."

Big problems demand big solutions. Hopefully this stimulus package will be "fixed" and large enough despite the Republican tinkering to get us moving in the right direction after initially taking it to the wrong mechanics. Then we can wave goodbye to the Republican Party though the rear view mirror.

They Really Do Try, Don't They?

I never cease to be amazed at the unadulterated spin from conservative pundits and columnists who look for any opportunity to blame President Obama for pretty much anything. It's almost as if they think they're speaking to or writing for a Fox News audience with no worry about being called to account for the obvious disingenuousness they spew. Markets down? Obama's fault. Greece in financial disarray? ...Damn that Obama. Scrapping the balloons at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade this year due to high winds? ...OBAMAAAAAA!

The latest example of this comes from Washington Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson. Mr. Gerson has absolutely no problem blaming the failed Supercommittee debacle on the President. Titled "Obama Let the Supercommittee Fail," Gerson blames indifference on the part of the President for a group of twelve grown adults (yes, I'll include the Republicans on the committee as "grown-up") not coming to an agreement with a looming $1.2 trillion in cuts across the board. But amazingly, Gerson believes, or would have his readers believe, that the "supercommittee failed primarily because President Obama gave a shrug."

So what if Republicans wouldn't budge on actual revenue increases in a balanced combination with spending cuts? So what if their ultimate $300 billion tax increase offer was connected to a basic repeal of the Affordable Care Act which took over a year to pass and a privatization of Medicare? The real problem was that "these were the ingredients for a deal. But only a president can mix them and apply the heat." Yep, Obama is the cook that stirs the pot and self-motivation for 12 of an elite 100 members of our political system is of no consequence. ...Damn Obama!

The disconnect is the fact that Gerson knows that Republicans would have never agreed to anything, as witnessed by the moving of the goalposts farther and farther to the right. Ezra Klein analyzes:

If by "at fault" we mean "unwilling to compromise," we can do better than listen to the self-serving remarks of the players. We can look hard at the movement in the actual plans...

The final Boehner [/Obama] plan envisioned tax reform that would generate $800 billion in new revenues and bring the top rate down to 35 percent. In the supercommittee, the highest Republicans ever got on taxes was the Toomey plan's $300 billion, with envisioned a top rate of 28 percent. So on taxes, it's fairly clear: The supercommittee Republicans were far to the right of Boehner.

On the Democratic side, Obama eventually insisted on somewhere near $1.2 trillion in tax reform or, if the revenues were to move lower, on much less in entitlement cuts. In the supercommittee, the Democrats offered a plan with less than a trillion dollars in tax reform -- and more entitlement reforms than Obama was willing to agree to.

Boehner had about $150 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts in his opening bid in the negotiations with the president, and he went down from there. In the supercommittee, Baucus offered $200 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts...

These steps toward compromise by the Democrats, who swallowed hard in a serious effort to get something done, were far more than anything Republicans offered. Does it surprise anyone that Republicans would take a step further to the right in an effort to sink any deal and let the usual Republican "Obama can't get anything done" talking points continue? This has been their strategy from the start. And Gerson knows this. But why point the blame at a deadlocked "supercommittee" when you can just blame the President?

I won't bore you with anymore detail in Gerson's column (you can read it for yourself to get the full frontal asshattery) except for one line. Gerson asserts that the President "is simply in over his head." This was the same accusation hurled at President Obama on the supposed failed stimulus to stop our economy from hurdling over a cliff. Sorry for the bad timing, Mike, but maybe you should read the latest CBO report:

The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office...

...The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

Yep, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted by this "in over his head" President is still stimulating the economy a year after its "end." We now know the recession we found ourselves in was much deeper and dire than anyone had estimated and had the stimulus been even larger, we might be in even better shape today. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good villain story, right Mr. Gerson?

Fact Check: Enough of the GOP Medicare BS

The new lie from the Romney camp and its hatchet men is that the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare. Mitt Romney himself says that President Obama "stole $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare" and that current seniors are seeing a reduction in their benefits and their service. All of it is absolute horse shit.

And thank you, Soledad O'Brien for giving us a concise look at the facts.

 


This has to be shouted from the mountaintops. I don't give a shit that Paul Ryan's plan which Mitt Romney embraces, cuts the same amount of money out of the Medicare program. This is a bad argument for the mere fact that it'll get convoluted in a "both sides are the same" meme.

The argument is that ACA reduces Medicare increases by $716 billion over 10 years by reducing payments and streamlining the system and pumps that savings back into the healthcare system. Romney and Ryan would have that $716 billion come from the pockets of those who can least afford it, namely seniors on a fixed income, by restructuring Medicare into a voucher system that will never keep up with the rising cost of healthcare, especially if they plan on "repealing ALL of Obamacare" as Romney continues to threat.

And here's a great catch from Bob Cesca on the latest Romney ad flat out lying about the CBO report that I didn't catch the first time I saw it:

...the CBO’s director Doug Elmendorf wrote that if the House Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, the repeal would increase federal spending on Medicare by $716 billion. There’s nothing about cutting Medicare in there. NOTHING. Romney and his campaign are lying. Again. And they’ll keep on doing it.

(Cross-posted on ABLC)

Who Runs The NRCC Website?

This is seriously pathetic - The National Republican Congressional Committee's website which sports an angry Nancy Pelosi photo on their home page wants to "Take Back The Majority!"

As you click around and look at outdated talking points, like the Congressional Budget Office report that poo-poos the Recovery Bill currently being debated, even though it's been announced by the CBO that the report in question doesn't exist, you'll eventually come across this on their "Issues Page":

Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.

Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy, yet there is still more to do so that every American who wants a job can find one.

Seriously? These jamokes are asking for donations on this website and they can't bother to update their webpages? Well, let me correct myself. As soon as the NRCC realized their, for lack of a better word I'll call it a "gaffe," and found out everyone else knew about it, they removed this statement from their Economy section under the Issues Page. Actually, they removed EVERYTHING from their Issues Page. That was their update. I suppose they're completely happy and don't have any issues. But if you use their Search function and type in "Economy," it'll show up as the fifth choice and TA-DA! There it is! Here's a screen capture (in case they try removing it again):

(Click for full size)

This party is in complete disarray. What else would you call it when Eric Cantor is the Number Two man for the GOP in the House of Representatives? Can anyone in the Republican Party, for once, think of something that would actually help the economy, or the mortgage crisis, or the thinned military situation, anything, without using the words "tax cuts"? Can they come up with anything? The answer is "No."

According to Greg Sargent, NRCC spokesman Ken Spain issued a response to the intertube laughter when clicking on their site:

“The site is currently under construction. We are looking forward to relaunching the site and fostering a discussion on how Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues’ proposal to spend their way out of this recession is absurd at best and financially ruinous at worst.”

Their answer to the Recovery Bill is not to come up with ideas other than "tax cuts," because that's worked so well these past eight years, but to issue a negative statement criticizing Pelosi and the "New New Deal" that the Congress is still working on and trying to include the GOP at the grown up's table in the process.

Oh, Republicans, is there nothing you can't screw up?

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Bush and Balanced Budget in the Same Sentence?!

Picture: George Bush and his Hole in the Head Gang

Bush: “One area where we must work together is that we’ve got to make sure we spend the people’s money wisely."

That dirty son-of-a-bitch.

The Washington Post reports that the Chimp-man "today pledged to submit a five-year budget proposal next month that would balance the federal budget by 2012, and he called on the new Congress to adopt key reforms, including the curtailment of lawmakers' pork barrel projects in spending legislation and committee reports."

I am really disgusted by this guy. The GOP goes spending willy-nilly for the last SIX YEARS and now that they've lost their power, they are already attempting to make the Dems look like the bad guys... before they've unpacked their bags. Where was this sense of bipartisanship for the last six years? I remember the moron saying he had "political capital" after the 2004 election and intended to spend it. And now he has the audacity to say "Congress needs to adopt real reform that requires full disclosure of the sponsors, the costs, the recipients and the justifications for every earmark. Congress needs to stop the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language. And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year by at least half."

Do you actually think these words would have come out of his mouth if the 2006 election had a different outcome? I tend to think no freakin' way!

Don't get me wrong, I think that balancing the budget, cutting pork, and heavy oversight on earmarks are a good thing. But why hasn't this been the case from Day One? And let's be honest (although I know that's impossible for these chumps). Bush "went on to tout his economic policies, which he said have 'allowed us to meet our goal of cutting the budget deficit in half three years ahead of schedule.'"

WHAT?! Well if you're going to use magical numbers from Fairyland, why not just say we're in a surplus? Because the real deal is that "after reaching a record $413 billion in 2004, the budget deficit dropped to $248 billion in the 2006 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, thanks largely to higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals.

The claim that the federal budget deficit has been cut in half stems from the administration's original projection of a $512 billion deficit for 2004, a number that critics have said was inflated, especially since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was forecasting $477 billion at the time."

Don't forget that these bastards took control of a $237 billion surplus in 2000.

So Bushie wants to balance the budget while all the time making his tax cuts permanent, which by the way, will cost the Treasury approximately $3.3 TRILLION by 2016.

If you really want to be fiscally responsible, Georgie, then the tax cuts that you think are stimulating the economy, but in actuality are costing "the Treasury more in lost revenue than has been gained from their economic stimulus effect", should be first on the list to be rolled back.


UPDATE: Read That Wacky George W. Bush Cracks Me Up by Bob Geiger.