By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
While the RP has recently been stirring the pot with pieces on highly controversial issues such as legalizing marijuana, expanded gaming, and Tim Tebow, he now addresses an idea that should have nearly-universal support: Cutting Congressional pay when they fail to pass a budget. Read this except from his piece today in The Huffington Post:
A thousand days.
In our gazelle-paced, über-networked society, so many remarkable, epochal events have taken place during the last thousand days:
Both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street emerged as powerful rebuttals to the status quo in American politics…
The Arab Spring ushered in a domino effect that toppled vicious dictators across the Middle East…
A handful of European democracies teetered on the brink of collapse, while world powers rushed to preserve the global economy…
And most significant of all…Two Kardahsian weddings were followed by one Kardashian divorce.
But one critical thing has not occured:
It’s been more than one thousand days since the U.S. Congress passed a budget resolution.
And in the meantime, the congressional appropriations process – the means by which all federal spending is authorized and allocated – has simply broken down. During the current fiscal year, only 3 of the 12 regular appropriations bills have been passed.
Sound like a lot of inside the Beltway jargon?
Here’s what it means:
When Congress acts without a budget, it essentially is spending taxpayer money without first evaluating and prioritizing its services. A budget, in essence, is a blueprint that allows us as a nation to make deliberate decisions on how to allocate our scarce resources. Without one, taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab for the waste and inefficiencies.
When Congress fails to pass spending bills on time, it relies instead on temporary spending measures. In the past fiscal year, there were eight such temporary “continuing resolutions.” This start-and-stop spending process causes havoc for federal agencies that provide for our national defense, transportation financing, education support, environmental protection, and product and food safety. Government is forced to operate in a fog of financial uncertainty, resulting sometimes in delays of critical national services.
But guess who’s been paid right on time, like a Swiss clock, during this entire thousand day period?
No need for a spoiler alert: It’s just too delicious an irony…the U.S. Congress.
Click here to read the entire piece, “No Budget? No Pay!” at The Huffington Post.
So obviously a lot can happen between now and November.
War with Iran, European collapse, cat breading craze leads to chronic bread shortages, etc etc.
But first of all, what’s the fun of talking about politics if you aren’t willing to make wild predictions based on insufficient data?
Second, I thought about citing swing state data showing the President in a stronger position and talking about the many paths he has to victory but really, just consider the choice between this guy and this guy. There’s really no comparison.
A few reactions to the many good insights on this thread:
Because the participants on this thread are all people who love the lore of politics, and are embarrasingly steeped in its historical trivia, we all tend too much toward analogy: so all of us, myself included, strain to determine whether this year is 1980 (enough political instability that Reagan’s liabilities, much greater than they seem now, didn’t matter) or 1972 or 1984 (vulnerable incumbent ends up winning big because of internecine strife in the other camp, and because big events (Vietnam winds down, Nixon goes to China in 72,) (a roaring economic recovery in 84) changed the equation. I’ll venture one way, though, in which this cycle has no comparison: for the first time in memory, the country seems polarized and split so closely that for two years and seven months, an incumbent president’s approval ratings have essentially stayed static, no matter what good or bad news is cluttering his in-box.
This is my first post, and first contribution to The Recovering Politician. I believe having run for office and taking the time to step back and examine our experiences, gives us a unique and significant insight into how politics really works. Thank you for allowing me to be part of this with all of you.
On to the debate!
As a Democrat, I can’t say I would mind if a drawn-out primary helped our party in the general election. Yet objectively, I do see potential advantages for the GOP. The Obama campaign might be happy about this right now, but they would be committing political malpractice if they don’t anticipate possible advantages for the GOP, and prepare for them. So here are some points to consider:
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the GOP Mudfest: Jimmy Dahroug Rebuts
Ron Granieri is correct that I’m a passionate Marxist, but he’s got the wrong Marx brother. I prefer Groucho. (Karl’s the mute with the curly hair, right?)
Speaking of farcical comedy, with his shocking Romney endorsement, have we seen the last of Donald Trump’s involvement in Campaign 2012? OK, just kidding.
But seriously folks…I hesitate to respond to Ron Granieri’s latest piece because frankly I don’t understand his big words, French references and elite, ivory-tower sophistry. (or is it sapphistry?) I am, after all, just an ordinary, unfrozen caveman lawyer.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the GOP Mudfest: The RP Responds
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
The difference between liberals and conservatives….
My son found out recently that Sony Bono was a Republican member of Congress and wanted to to know more about him and his prior career.
I’m showing him the clip at the bottom of this post which I think demonstrates beautifully the core distinction between conservatives and liberals—a national obsession that, to me, seems blown out of proportion and even arbitrary.
Basically, if you boil down all the differences between to the two political types, liberals are slightly superior in the areas of fashion sense and rhythm (see Cher).
Conservatives, by contrast, are slightly more task oriented and better at getting elected to Congress. (See Sonny).
That’s really about it.
Oh, and liberals and conservatives tend to marry each other.
And when the try, can even make a pretty catchy duet.
Listening to liberals the past few weeks is so fun.
They are all giddy with how “nasty” the Republican primary has become and have convinced themselves that the “weakened” Republican nominee won’t stand a chance against President Obama.
Krystal made these points in her post, but those predictors are not very objective. They point out that the tea party base will nominate an extremist who can’t beat Obama. They seem happy to take on Romney even though he is considered to be the moderate Republican.
This election is not like 1968, or 1972. It’s a bit like 1980 and a lot like 2008. Artur Davis pointed out reality in his post, and those facts about the key states Obama has to win are real.
I’m sure the polling and focus groups show the Bain Capital attack to be effective. That is why Newt and every Democrat talking head repeat it every chance they can. I also think it will be more effective on general election voters, but Romney has a chance to turn those attacks into a positive if he plays it right.