The Unspeakable Recklessness of Rick Santorum

It's hard to say whether more I'm shocked by former Senator Rick Santorum's sheer stupidity or outraged by the flippant callousness of his remarks. I suspect the former since the latter should not surprise even as the inhumanity remains ever so striking. For the nation to invest in the health and well being of its citizens is not now, nor is it likely to ever be in the foreseeable future, a priority for the GOP, but for a likely Presidential candidate to under any condition to advocate for a debt default simply speaks of an outrageous ignorance of economics and unspeakable recklessness.

Via Think Progress:

As the U.S. steps closer to the economic ledge, a litany of Republican lawmakers are holding the debt ceiling hostage over unpopular priorities like lowering the corporate tax rate cutting entitlement programs. Likely GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum made his own ransom demand today on Fox News Sunday, telling host Chris Wallace that defunding the health care law is “the price” he demands for the debt ceiling and that he’d “absolutely” let the country go into default over it:

SANTORUM: [The health care law] is a program that if the president wants to defend, he should stand up and say the 2012 election is about Obamacare. We’ll put this on hold, and make it a referendum on Obamacare.

WALLACE: Well ok that’s 2012, but you’re saying you’d let the country go into default on this issue.

SANTORUM: No I think the president would let this country go into default on this issue.

WALLACE: But you would make that the condition — you’d make that the price? 


SANTORUM: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Over at Capital Gains and Games, Bruce Barlett, a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, bemoans that Wall Street, and the nation for that matter, should have known better then to send "a bunch of not-too-bright, ignorant Tea Party members to Congress." Imagine putting one in the White House.

Lawmakers Consider Alternative Plan to Break Budget Impasse

Washington – Details of a secret Congressional plan to break the long-standing deadlock in budget negotiations leaked out Thursday. US lawmakers are considering the use of an unorthodox method favored by the Kyrgyzstani Parliament – sacrificial sheep.

Although Kyrgyzstanis use it for banishing the twin devils of ethnic strife and revolution, Kyrgyzstani oil lobbyist Zhogorku Kenesh said the ritual could be redesigned for US budget purposes for as little as KGS 7 billion Kyrgyzstani som and an arranged lesbian marriage of President Obama’s eldest daughter Malia Ann Obama to Kyrgyz President Roza Otunbayeva.

The initial proposal, offered by Republicans, called for 6 sheep to be slaughtered and placed on a huge altar recently dedicated at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, CA. However, the proposal immediately met resistance from members of the Republican’s own Christian conservative wing.

“We’re not so bothered by the pagan ritual – after all, it’s for debt reduction and tax incentives for conservative Christian churches – but slaughtering 6 sheep is totally unacceptable,” said Bryan Fischer, Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association.

666, The Mark of The Beast
“The number 6 is an important, symbolic number for Christians. It constitutes one-third of the dangerous mark of the beast, 666. By allowing this number of the Muslim devils in this most unholiest of ways, we are inviting doom and total annihilation by one-third of the Islamic radical empire,” Fischer said.

In order to save the fledgling compromise, Sen. Harry Reed (D-Asslandia) stepped forward with a proposal to raise the number of sheep to be slaugtered to 7. However, Tea Party activists in the Republican caucus killed the idea.

The Partiers insist on cutting the sheep budget by 99% and the abolishment of President Obama’s signature health care bill. According to the Republican Institute of Financial Analysis, the sheep cut alone would erase the Federal deficit within 90 days. Republican officials described the Institute’s findings as, “very insightful”.

“We have to watch out for this sort of insidious attack on our freedoms,” said Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Moronohoma). “First we’ll be required to sacrifice sheep every evening before dinner and once lulled by the aroma of the devilish flesh, carted off to concentration camps operated by the socialist Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

Liberals were equally disappointed with the plan. Broadcaster Rachel Maddow, speaking on condition of anonymity on her news show, floated the idea that all sheep be supplied by local, humane farms that do not use hormones on their animals.

Maddow Touts Sacrificial Celery
“I’m vegetarian, so I’d prefer they sacrifice stalks of celery myself. However, I advocate bipartisanship with those asswipes over at the RNC,” she added. “Anything to make those skeevy bastards look bad.”

Further problems are expected from a Republican-sponsored rider to the bill. Called the “Rich People Are Better Than You Act”, it requires most of the leftover carcasses be distributed to the Top 0.999% of wage earners, along with a $356,000 tax credit just because.

Democrats object to the best meat going to the wealthy, wool-clad elite while only the offal, eyes, and tail are promised to the bottom taxpayers.

The Republican plan calls for middle-income families to pay a 37% tax on all orders of lamb chops or rack of lamb served at the haute Chez Panisse in Berkeley, CA. Democrats also expect Republicans to cut the entitlement after its passage and repossess the sheep parts when low-income families default on their orvis aries windfall. The low-income families will likely be taxed an Offal Abatement Fee of about 69% to cover the costs of removing the left over pig.

With the new proposal already on bumpy footing, Republican lawmakers have called for Newt Gingrich to mediate the ongoing disputes.

“Newt’s the perfect man for the job. Very fair. A very learned man. And, he’s a hell of a Republican,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Sheep Sexingville, VA).

“Not partial in what so any way, except in his strong American belief in the truth,” Cantor added.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

Progressives Must Stand up to the President

These budget negotiations were a giant win for the Republican Party. President Obama initially cut $40 billion from his own budget proposal -- and he got absolutely no credit for that. It was a very typical preemptive concession by the president. It was so typical, you wonder if he recognizes what an indisputably terrible strategy it is or if he has a different agenda.

So, after getting no credit for his original $40 billion concession, then the negotiations began at square one. The Republicans claimed in February that they wanted $32 billion in cuts from that point on. About a week ago, the president came out an announced that they had given the Republicans another $33 billion in cuts -- a billion more than they originally asked for. And still the Republicans wanted more.

Why not? They're dealing with the world's worst negotiator, why not ask for more? After February they came up with a brilliant good cop-bad cop strategy with the Tea Party, where they had the Tea Party force them to go to $61 billion in demands. Which pushed the spectrum out further to the right. They know President Obama will go to the middle of any spectrum, no matter how radical. And then once they had baited Obama out to the $33 billion number, which was past their original goal, they baited him out even further. Finally, they got him to $38.5 billion in cuts an hour before the deadline.

So, in the end, he got no credit for the original giant cuts, he got no credit for going a billion past the Republican's wildest dreams and he had to give them an extra $5.5 billion to get a deal. But what he doesn't realize is that the shutdown would have been a disaster for the Republicans -- they never wanted that. They were playing him the whole time. When Boehner came back with the deal, he got a rousing ovation from his side, including the Tea Party faction.

It was a put on. The whole time when the Tea Party was demanding the whole $61 billion, they were just playing their part in the game. They were the bad cop to make sure Obama made the deal with Boehner, the good cop. They must had a good laugh at the end.

First, I want to make clear I am not a Monday morning quarterback. Anyone who watches me on The Young Turks or on MSNBC knows that I have been saying all along that Obama was going to fall for this trick and that he was going to go way past $33 billion. It's just who he is. He hates conflict. There almost isn't any deal you can't get him to sign off on. And that's my whole point for writing this -- we can not have him do this next time!

Next time, the negotiations are over trillions, not billions. If he meets them more than halfway -- as he has done every single time now -- it will be a colossal disaster. Whenever Republican presidents try to cut Social Security or Medicare, they run into a brick wall. If the Republicans use President Obama to help them do that instead, then he will have done more damage than a Republican president can.

I hear from Democrats every single time that they'll fight the next time. And it's never the next time. Well, this time we've hit the wall. The next negotiations will be inarguably the most important. If the president obamas this (yes, I used it as a verb), it will be catastrophic.

Now, I want to ask even the most ardent Obama supporters -- do you really believe the president is going to hold strong the next time around? Even you don't believe that, right? It's not who he is. He will look to get past partisan politics. What's the only way to do that when one side is being obstinate? To give in to them. How many times have we seen this movie?

I didn't write this to rub it in the face of the feckless Democrats who always wind up playing the role of the Washington Generals to the Republican Globetrotters (remember the Democrats have the White House and the Senate -- but they let the GOP run the place like they are totally in charge). I wrote it to tell you how incredibly important it is that you put real pressure on the president from the left. He will move to the middle of any spectrum!

If you don't help push the spectrum to the left, the Republicans will move it massively to the right -- and the president will fall for it.

The whole point of the insane, draconian, ridiculous Paul Ryan budget proposal for next year was to move the spectrum all the way to the radical right, so that they can lure Democrats to a false middle, that is in reality the far right.

It's time to stop playing nice with Democrats. Good cop-good cop doesn't work. We need a bad cop. We need a strong progressive wing to keep shouting "no deal!" every time the White House wants to concede (which will be every time).

You can ignore this, blame me and go hug the president one more time, but you won't be doing your side any favors. If you actually care about policy and progressive priorities, you must get tough with the president right now. There is no next time.

Click Here to "Like" The Young Turks on Facebook

Watch The Young Turks

 

 

N.H. Republicans Don’t Think Young People Should Vote

Young people "lack life experience," are "foolish," vote "as a liberal," and "just vote their feelings," apparently, all reasons to shut down or limit their access to democratic participation. At least, that's what New Hampshire state House Speaker William O'Brien seems to think, causing partisans like him to take matters to the Legislature.

Yesterday, Washington Post writer Peter Wallsten wrote on Speaker O'Brien's YouTubed speech to a N.H. tea party group, linking his views to the state Republicans' assault on young people's access to the ballot. Among the measures under consideration are HB 176, a bill to "permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there," and HB 223, a bill to end the state's Election Day Registration policy, a policy that is known to increase overall voter turnout, especially among young people.

The House Election Law committee is scheduled to hear both bills today.

New Hampshire is not the only state to challenge voters' access to the ballot. More states are introducing and advancing anti-EDR, voter ID, and proof-of-citizenship bills. All are based around alarmist notions of election problems, particularly the unsubstantiated threat of voter fraud.

So, why are voters being punished with more red tape when there’s no actual proof that the “problem” with elections lies with the voter?

"It's true that without the participation of many, power will consolidate into the hands of the few," writes Rock the Vote executive director, Heather Smith at the Huffington Post yesterday. "The inverse is also true: When many participate, it threatens those in power."

Doug Chapin of the Pew Center on the States tells Wallsten that "Election policy debates like photo ID and same-day registration have become so fierce around the country because they are founded more on passionate belief than proven fact. One side is convinced fraud is rampant; the other believes that disenfranchisement is widespread,” he says.

Precious time and resources are being wasted over partisan-slanted perceptions of what is wrong with the administration of elections. The real offense is that only 71 percent of eligible citizens are actually registered to vote, and therefore able to cast a ballot. Adding more restrictions, or further limiting access to the franchise by enacting these partisan-driven policies only hurts democracy.

"Every four years when our country is focused on a Presidential election, there are obligatory stories written expressing outrage about flaws in our voting system," Smith writes. "Why aren't we automatically registered? Why is it so hard to register and why can't we use new technologies to make it easier? Why are certain groups of people being intimidated at the polls? Who is really cheating? What in the world is a hanging chad?"

Learn more about positive election reforms by downloading our advocacy toolkits here.

Monitor election legislation in all 50 states by signing up for a weekly email here.

N.H. Republicans Don’t Think Young People Should Vote

Young people "lack life experience," are "foolish," vote "as a liberal," and "just vote their feelings," apparently, all reasons to shut down or limit their access to democratic participation. At least, that's what New Hampshire state House Speaker William O'Brien seems to think, causing partisans like him to take matters to the Legislature.

Yesterday, Washington Post writer Peter Wallsten wrote on Speaker O'Brien's YouTubed speech to a N.H. tea party group, linking his views to the state Republicans' assault on young people's access to the ballot. Among the measures under consideration are HB 176, a bill to "permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there," and HB 223, a bill to end the state's Election Day Registration policy, a policy that is known to increase overall voter turnout, especially among young people.

The House Election Law committee is scheduled to hear both bills today.

New Hampshire is not the only state to challenge voters' access to the ballot. More states are introducing and advancing anti-EDR, voter ID, and proof-of-citizenship bills. All are based around alarmist notions of election problems, particularly the unsubstantiated threat of voter fraud.

So, why are voters being punished with more red tape when there’s no actual proof that the “problem” with elections lies with the voter?

"It's true that without the participation of many, power will consolidate into the hands of the few," writes Rock the Vote executive director, Heather Smith at the Huffington Post yesterday. "The inverse is also true: When many participate, it threatens those in power."

Doug Chapin of the Pew Center on the States tells Wallsten that "Election policy debates like photo ID and same-day registration have become so fierce around the country because they are founded more on passionate belief than proven fact. One side is convinced fraud is rampant; the other believes that disenfranchisement is widespread,” he says.

Precious time and resources are being wasted over partisan-slanted perceptions of what is wrong with the administration of elections. The real offense is that only 71 percent of eligible citizens are actually registered to vote, and therefore able to cast a ballot. Adding more restrictions, or further limiting access to the franchise by enacting these partisan-driven policies only hurts democracy.

"Every four years when our country is focused on a Presidential election, there are obligatory stories written expressing outrage about flaws in our voting system," Smith writes. "Why aren't we automatically registered? Why is it so hard to register and why can't we use new technologies to make it easier? Why are certain groups of people being intimidated at the polls? Who is really cheating? What in the world is a hanging chad?"

Learn more about positive election reforms by downloading our advocacy toolkits here.

Monitor election legislation in all 50 states by signing up for a weekly email here.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads