If By "Budget" You Mean "Packet..."

Wow. I guess the Republicans felt they needed to get a handle on this whole "party of No" meme, the sense that all they did was complain and obstruct rather than offer constructive alternatives. So today, they unveiled their budget alternative, which actually wasn't a budget at all, if by budget you mean, ya know, numbers and stuff. But never again let it be said that Republicans don't know how to bind 18 pages together into a presentable packet.

Elana Schorr has more:

The lack of any statistical heft in their packet left the House GOP stumbling out of the gate as it worked to re-dub itself as the "party of yes," in the words of No. 3-ranked leader Mike Pence (R-IN). House Republicans unveiled an alternative plan for the foreclosure crisis yesterday, and they are continuing to tout their economic stimulus proposal (along with an erroneous claim that it creates more jobs than Obama's).

The GOP's "Road to Recovery" packet, divided into sections on spending limits, job creation/tax reduction, and debt control, is certainly replete with big promises. The plan commits Republicans "to ensur[ing] that the federal budget cannot grow faster than families' ability to pay the bill" ... though it doesn't explain what metric the party would use to measure the "average" family's debt burden.

Another section of the GOP budget packet describes "a new tax deduction that allows businesses with less than 500 employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income" ... though it doesn't explain how much the new tax change would cost, nor whether it would be offset to help avoid increasing the deficit.

After cutting away from the president's townhall this morning to cover the unveiling of the Republicans' packet, here is MSNBC's hilarious real time reaction (via e-mail):

Contessa Brewer: Mike Viqueira joins me now. I am very frustrated Mike because we've been waiting for this, we cut away from the President to hear the big build up: Republican have a plan, they have ideas, they're not the Party of No. And, all I heard in that news conference is what they don't like about the President's plan.

Mike Viqueira: Well Norah - Uh Contessa, not Norah, Contessa, I am going to pass that along. They did hold up this uh John Boehner hold up this budget book here and said now we have a plan here is our budget. What it is is, it is a plan in the broad sense of the term. It outlines what the President wants to do in the various policies areas like energy and healthcare  and entitlement reform and things of that nature and it talks about what Republicans want to do in very broad terms.  It does not have, in the sense of a traditional budget, numbers with estimates, an estimate for how much they would reduce the deficit things of that nature.

When asked about it at his daily press briefing this morning, Robert Gibbs quipped:

- Gibbs trashed the Republicans' budget proposal. "There is exactly one more picture of a windmill than there is of a chart of numbers...The party of no has become the party of no new ideas."

You gotta watch the awkwardness to believe it. Boehner is no showman and look how nervous Cantor looks. He knows they're about to bomb and bomb badly.

What's even sadder: they're actually touting that video over at Republicanleader.house.gov.

Update [2009-3-26 15:40:11 by Todd Beeton]:Sadder still: this diagram from their packet. Is this a joke?

Update [2009-3-26 15:47:57 by Todd Beeton]:Via Ben Smith, Politico has an interesting quote from Dick Durbin on the Republicans' catch-22 when it comes to proposing a budget:

“He went on to say, ‘The Republicans cannot produce a budget because to get to the spending levels that they’re talking about would involve cuts they could never support or increases in taxes that they could never support.’”

Update [2009-3-26 16:23:25 by Todd Beeton]:A-ha, no wonder Cantor looked so nervous:

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) objected to an abbreviated alternative budget "blueprint" released today -- but were told by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) they needed to back the plan, according to several Republican sources.

The argument, coming a week before the full House and Senate are scheduled to vote on the budget, underscores the minority party's woes in a mounting unified opposition to President Obama's $3.7 trillion FY2010 budget proposal.

Ryan, the ranking Republican on the budget committee, plans to introduce a detailed substitute amendment for the Democrats' spending plan next Tuesday or Wednesday -- and still intends to do so.

But he and Cantor were reportedly told by Boehner and Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) they needed to move more quickly to counter Democrats' charge they were becoming the "Party of No," according to House GOP staffers.

This has got to be good for Republicans.



Display:


Re: If By "Budget" You Mean (2.00 / 1)

I expected this thing of theirs to be full of gaffes (after their ridiculous stimulus alternative)... I didn't expect it to be this much of a gift for us...

Wow!  Really pathetic!

The Obama team knew it would be pathetic, too... That's why they goaded them into this...  

I can't believe how the Republicans, once the model of a strong, effective party, can be floundering this badly nowadays... Everything they touch turns to crap!


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:36:04 PM EST

Re: If By "Budget" (2.00 / 1)

Could they be any more clueless? I suppose they could, I'm just hard pressed to see how. The again the Republicans never cease to surprise.

Ben Franklin once said: "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." I'd like to thank John Boehner and his Republican colleagues for keeping their noses to the grind stone and really working hard.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:43:58 PM EST

Alright, some nice nasty in-fighting (2.00 / 1)

Personally, I think Boner is dead man walking, he is a complete moran.

Cantor and Ryan, while crazed ideologues, are not clueless buffoons, and will not follow Boner off the cliff too much longer.

But, I love the comment. They CAN'T fill in the blanks, because the things they want make the public believe, they can't do without blasting their sacred totems like military spending, or the heresey of hereseys, raising taxes.

The part of No.

No plan.

No ideas.

No clue.

No future.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:59:46 PM EST

Talking points (2.00 / 1)

This "report" is so incredibly sad. An alternative budget? No, a booklet filled with talking points, assertions, and criticisms of Obama's budget. It reads like the 2008 Republican platform. There are no budget numbers and no references that back up any of their assertions. There are no tables, no graphs, no indication of how much their plan would cost, what it would provide, or what it would cut (except "waste, fraud, and abuse" in non-defense spending).

They assert that they can provide universal access to affordable health care coverage and cut taxes, yet still manage to reduce the deficit. How? Apparently by harnessing the magic of Republican rhetoric. But just look at our current economy to see how well that works.


by RandomNonviolence on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:04:07 PM EST

I need a copy of that chart (2.00 / 2)

This is pretty obvious, but Obama doesn't need to worry about the House GOP clown show.  He needs to worry about the Nelson/Bayh/Collins/Snowe/Specter group.


by JJE on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:17:31 PM EST

Yup (2.00 / 1)

The Conserva-Dems and the Modera-pubs!

(Kind of like the Octa-mom, you need a good contraction these days to brand your posse!)


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When I saw Bobby Jindal crash and burn... (2.00 / 1)

I figured he was the outlier, the weak link in the chain.

But, they are ALL stumbling around in the dark without a clue.

It's very telling. They all are following Rush's lead, being this bombastic tellers of the great appocolypse that awaits us if we follow Obama.

That works great, if you're a radio shock jock, or Sarah Palin at a rally of the crazies.

But, Newt Ginrich at least always had numbers and SOME kind of info to back himself of.

These guys think they are giving a stump speech 100% of the time.

Funny thing is, they are seeming to be getting weaker, that they could barely rule when they were in power, and their skills were so weak, that now OUT of power, they have lost the ability all together.

I can't see how this goes well for them in the near future.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:18:20 PM EST

Re: If By "Budget" You Mean (2.00 / 1)

Um, where's the rest of the diagram?  I don't understand.  There's three random circles, and then a rectangle that appears to be blocking the circles from one another.

Sorta reminds me of McCain putting up the Walter Reed Middle School picture during the Republican Convention.  


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:54:16 PM EST

First time I saw the diagram (2.00 / 1)

I thought it was a criticism of the Republican budget.


Keep Yelling, Nobody's Listening -SallyCat
by DTOzone on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 05:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pretty Pathetic (2.00 / 1)

When you start remember Ross Perot's charts in a favorable light after seeing this, you know you yhey are in BIG trouble.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is just drilling them anyway.... (2.00 / 1)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_o n_go_pr_wh/obama_online_town_hall

The pundits keep trying to make it close, like this BS about Ed Henry and the comment about "I like to know what I am talking about.."

The media tried make Obama look like he lost on that exchange.

Everyone I talked to was like "about time someone smacked those punks from the press in the puss!"

I think, from out in the field, outside of the beltway opium of self-intoxication, the Republicans know Obama is eating their lunch.

Axelrod is keeping him front and center, and the more he talks to Americans, the more they trust him and the more they know he is trying his best, while the Republicans are flailing around, trying to derail the train.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:17:29 PM EST

Hiding From The Camera! (2.00 / 1)

Who was that hiding out from the camera behind Boehner - David Dreier?


by TJ1 on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:56:24 PM EST

Really, thinking about it (none / 0)

they probably were still wasting paper.

After all, you can write "tax cuts" on a fortune cookie insert and STILL have room left over.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:32:49 PM EST

This is (2.00 / 2)

a Palinesque level of self-parody. Stunning. It's already spawned an internet meme:

Photobucket

Ouch


by Neef on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:58:02 PM EST

Re: This is (2.00 / 1)

"This are serious budget" Ha! That's flippin hilarious.  

I've noticed lately that I hear nothing but crickets from many (nay, all) of my republican work colleagues.  Also, I am pleasantly surprised the media is actually reacting with an appropriate amount of hair pulling - when that happens, yikes GOP, pull up your damn pants, you're making a fool of yourself


by KLRinLA on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 09:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If By "Budget" (none / 0)

OMG!! this is hysterical....it's as one of their kids put this together....I really hope the DEMS run with this over and over and over and over....they could get ALOT of mileage out of this.


by nikkid on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:59:06 PM EST

That image (none / 0)

Is that a molecule?

Wow, I thought Michelle Bachmann was the train wreck. This give a whole new meaning to the term train wreck.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:47:16 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.