All incumbent Republicans who voted for this phoney budget must be voted out in 2012.
B Obama Republicans vs. Hardline Democrats Posted by Anthony Gregory on April 14, 2011 It is always worth questioning the assumptions typical to American partisan politics. As I wrote last week <http://johndennisreport.com/uncategorized/blame-the-republicans> , we should blame the Republicans for any unconstitutional, destructive or anti-liberty federal spending, as they control the purse strings. Well, now it looks like Republican votes will be more crucial than I expected to pass the Obama-Boehner budget. Top Democrats are now planning to vote against the budget deal. Even Nancy Pelosi <http://www.businessinsider.com/pelosi-a-no-vote-on-budget-deal-2011-4> 's loyalty to her president is uncertain. It goes without saying that there is politics at play, that the fact that Republicans are taking credit for this plan to cut a nominal and measly $38 billion encourages some Democrats to buck their own president. I say "measly" because $38 billion amounts to the cost of a deluxe cheeseburger, fries and soda for each American man, woman and child. I say "nominal" because according to the <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/politics/15congress.html> New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/politics/15congress.html> , "[R]eviews of the proposal found that some significant cuts, including some involving health care, are not expected to produce real savings. This is because the money was not likely to be spent for years though it can be counted as a current reduction under budget rules. "According to a Congressional Budget Office <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congres sional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org> comparison, the bill would produce only $350 million in tangible savings this year, partly because cuts in domestic programs were offset by an increase of about $5 billion for Pentagon programs. "When projected emergency contingency spending overseas is figured in by the budget office, estimated outlays for this year actually increase by over $3 billion." What we are talking about is a budget that will not cut spending and that will probably pass amidst bipartisan support and, on the sidelines, lots of gnashing of teeth from politicians of both parties. The left complains about draconian spending cuts. The right complains that the cuts are not high enough, a grievance that would have more credibility if there were a real coalition of congressional Republicans proposing a solution to balance the budget some time in the next few years-rather than simply to reduce the deficit over a decade, by which time who knows which emergencies will emerge to justify more spending. Now, turning to the White House <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/14/usa-budget-idUSN1415791820110414> 's plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over twelve years, we can't help but laugh. This is $333 billion a year -- still a small fraction of the deficit. It furthermore will probably be counterproductive since it relies on sharp tax increases on "the rich," which means diminished market activity, less economic growth and therefore lower revenues. The cuts to defense are fine, despite what Republicans say, but for them to stick requires <http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/13/pentagon-slams-prospect-of-budget-cuts/> a reexamination of foreign policy. What's more, these defense cuts do not go nearly far enough-and to go far enough, we would need a real rethinking of foreign policy. The administration seems bent on perpetual wars and perpetual high spending on various outdated military commitments. Indeed, the Bush-Rumsfeld plan to pull two brigades from Europe -- you know, the U.S. troops who are stationed to ensure that should Hitler or Stalin come back to life, we will always be ready -- appears too bold for Obama <http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/08/obama-weakens-troop-cuts-in-europe-promi sed-by-bush-administration/> , whose administration appears poised to cut that planned reduction down to one brigade. Obama also wants to cut a bit from Medicare, but what we really need is a plan to get rid of federal meddling in health care altogether. Costs have skyrocketed alongside federal involvement, which has increased almost continuously since the 1960s, and yet commentators seem to ignore this correlation or dismiss it as mere coincidence. During the deliberation over Obamacare, Republicans complained that Obama was going to take an axe to Medicare. This is not so hypocritical, actually, given the Republicans' central help in passing Medicare B, Medicare C, and Medicare D -- the GOP has long been a bastion of socialized medicine. Let's call those Republicans who agree with Obama that this budget deal is a major breakthrough "Obama Republicans." Let's say the Democrats who refuse to go for these petty cuts are "hardline Democrats." Bipartisanship is usually a terrible deal for individual liberty, the free market, and the Constitution. We see it once again, as Obama Republicans will likely barely prevail over the hardline Democrats, while they all bicker over measly cuts and simultaneously all support huge commitments in welfare and warfare that guarantee either more borrowing, more inflation, higher taxes, or all of the above for the foreseeable future. http://johndennisreport.com/federal-budget/obama-republicans-vs-hardline-dem ocrats [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
