Rule By Extortion
Congress is more or less in recess. One might think this could give a short respite to the strong-arm tactics we’ve been seeing from Republicans. But no, the Republicans are holding occasional pro-forma sessions during the recess, simply to prevent President Obama from making any recess appointments to fill the positions in the Executive branch that Republicans have been filibustering for the last two years.
This is of a type for what the Disloyal Opposition has been doing since the election of President Obama. We saw the Luntz reactions to health care reform even before there were any proposals to react to (a government official between you and your doctor, government takeover of health care, and so on). During the debate, there was obstruction, filibuster, and outright lies (see: “death panels”).
Similar tactics were employed in the debate over a stimulus bill, and a financial regulations reform bill. It became clear that the Republican Party would not negotiate honestly, but would simply engage in brick-wall obstructionism. Despite this, the 111th Congress managed to enact these and other major pieces of legislation, watered down though they were.
But with the 112th Congress and the injection of more Tea Party members, Republican tactics have taken a new and dramatic leap. Not content merely to obstruct and impede, the new crop wants to force through its own agenda, despite having a smaller majority in the House than the Democrats did in the last Congress, and still a minority in the Senate.
The way they’re going about it is government through extortion, government through hostage taking, government by threat.
Republicans of the 111th Congress tried this tactic, but didn’t quite have the knack of it. In the lame-duck session of December, 2010, the biggest question to be decided was what to do about the expiring Bush-era tax cuts. Everyone agreed the cuts for the middle class and the working poor had to continue. The challenge faced by Republicans was finding a way to insure the people at the top got their cuts reinstated as well. They tried the threat tactic –– We won’t vote on anything else, they said, unless we get this first.
President Obama managed to outmaneuver them, by agreeing to their desired extension for millionaires and billionaires –- but only if they made concessions too, in the form of allowing a series of votes on other matters. Thus, START was ratified, DADT was repealed, unemployment benefits were extended, the middle class got a 2% temporary FICA tax holiday, and a major piece of civil rights law was enacted. Big victories for the Obama Administration.
The incoming class of Republicans learned this lesson –- take hostages, make threats, yes. But never negotiate, because President Obama will take you to the cleaners. Instead, simply make demands, and don’t back down. And make the consequences so awful that the enemy –- that is, the Democrats –- will be forced to give in.
We saw this approach in debate over the budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Republicans threatened to simply shut down the government unless they got their way, and made it plain they’d try to blame the President and Senate Democrats for the shutdown. It was, after all, the Democrats’ own fault for not paying the ransom.
This worked so well, they tried it again a few months later, over whether to raise the debt ceiling. Having agreed on the targets of Federal spending in the 2011 budget, they now refused to allow that money to be spent unless further demands were met. Threatening the first-ever American default, and preparing once again to blame the Democrats for it, they held the nation hostage for months. Republicans invented a crisis, to force cuts in spending.
In smaller matters as well, Republicans have used this technique of making outrageous demands, backed by even more outrageous threats. This year, the National Mediation Board released new regulations that would make it easier for airline employees to unionize. In response, congressional Republican demanded the regulations be decertified and subjected to judicial review. Democrats refused. Republicans took a new hostage.
The House declined to reauthorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, forcing temporary layoffs of 75,000 workers and contractors early in August. Republicans did offer a short-term extension of the then-current funding, but the bill would have eliminated a number of small airports in rural districts with Democratic representatives.
There was enough of an uproar among the victims of these Republican layoffs that a short-term extension without the job-killing airport shutdown provisions was enacted. Or rather, a bill that allowed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to authorize a waiver keeping those airports open. But temporary funding expires on September 16. Republicans will have another shot at their union-busting hostage taking.
The cruelty, pettiness, and downright intransigence of elected Republicans seems to know no bounds. No threat is too large or too small, no demand too outrageous, no tactic too ugly to use in pushing forward their extremist agenda.
We can expect to see more of these strong-arm tactics when the 112th comes back from its August vacation. Expect the debt ceiling supercommittee to demand restructure –- or outright dismantling –- of Medicare, maybe even Social Security, with refusal even to consider revenue increases. Expect another threatened Federal shutdown over the 2011 Fiscal Year budget. Expect Congress to take up the question of extending the Bush tax cuts permanently, perhaps as part of one of these other fiscal matters, rather than allowing the cuts to expire as scheduled at the end of 2012.
In what other matters might the Tea Party Gang use their extortion tactics to demand further ransom? Perhaps requiring a repeal of Health Care Reform in exchange for continuing to fund the Pentagon? Maybe demand elimination of all capital gains taxes, as the price for allowing FEMA funds to cover recovery from Hurricane Irene?
Lock up anything that can be held hostage. The Republicans are coming back from vacation.
Related articles
- The Republicans Should Take More Hostages (fdlaction.firedoglake.com)
- Congress reaches deal to end FAA shutdown (cbsnews.com)
- Do Democrats Have a Plan for the Next Hostage Crisis? [Politics] (gawker.com)
- Jonathan Weiler: The Hostage-Taking Metaphor Paints Democrats as Weak (huffingtonpost.com)
- Republicans Have Already Taken Their Hostages For “Super Congress” Negotiations (alan.com)
- Republicans Hold FAA Authorization Vote Hostage To Extort Anti-Union Deal (crooksandliars.com)
- Why Does Congress Permit Blackmail in Politics? (goodolewoody.wordpress.com)
- Editorial: To Escape Chaos, a Terrible Deal (nytimes.com)
- How S&P made it more likely the GOP will hold the debt ceiling hostage again (americablog.com)
- Next FAA shutdown deadline is Sept. 16 and John Mica wants the upper hand (dailykos.com)

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on August 31, 2011 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
” but the bill would have eliminated a number of small airports in rural districts with Democratic representatives.”
Yeah, but you need to tell the whole story here. The intent was to drastically scale back if not outright eliminate the Essential Air Service Act, which is the only reason some of those airports are in operation. The EAS program is one of the most wasteful that the US government spends money on(http://heartland.org/newspaper-submission/eas-program-complete-taxpayer-waste) and it literally spends millions of dollars on empty flights each year.
I’m sorry, dc, but this is a dishonest presentation on this specific point.
-
Mule, simply because one columnist doesn’t like the program, that doesn’t mean that program is “one of the most wasteful that the US government spends money on.” That’s the opinion of the columnist. I trust you’ll allow others to have different opinions. Certainly a lot of the people who are served by those rural airports appreciate their existence. And the program is incredibly cheap for what it accomplishes.
The fact that the Republican bill only eliminated airports in districts with Democratic representatives tells us quite a lot. It was a political move, an element of the larger extortion strategy, not an attempt to save taxpayer money.
-
There are certainly a significant number of EAS destinations that could be eliminated with minimal societal impact. And I agree that a state with enough money that they can afford to pay residents every year to live there can afford to run their own EAS. But I find it hard to conclude that the entire program needs to be scrapped. In the Interior West in particular, where there are large distances between airports with scheduled service, and few transportation options, EAS is more Essential.
But there are a couple of cities I’d cut without hesitation:
- Visalia, CA
- Decatur, IL
For what it’s worth, CA21 (Visalia) is PVI R+13, represented by Devin Nunes (R-Tulare). IL17 (Decatur) is PVI D+3, represented by Bobby Schilling (R-Colona).
-
Thanks for that, shortchain. It explains the excessive hyperbole in the article that Mule linked. I particularly liked the summation:
Cutting EAS, of course, won’t solve the federal budget problem. Its total elimination is trivial in the context of a budget that tops $4 trillion. But if Congress wants to show it’s serious about cutting waste, the Essential Air Service Program has got to go as soon as Congress gets back into town.
Why is it that conservatives so often insist the way for Congress to “show it’s serious about cutting waste” is to eliminate tiny programs whose cost is inconsequential, but which make life easier for millions of people?
Why does it show “Congress is serious about cutting waste” to make a not even a tiny meaningless dent in the budget, while putting thousands (or tens of thousands) of people out of work?
Why is “waste” defined as “things that help people”?
-
#7 written by mclever 1 year ago
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t a third of the EAS airports in Alaska? (~50 out of ~150 or so.) That pretty much fits the definition of essential yet unprofitable air service. Without those flights, there’d be no way to reach some of the remote areas except by sled dog. Seems it’s in the collective public interest to ensure those areas (such as places along the Alaska pipeline) are reachable.
The airport nearest me doesn’t quite qualify for EAS, but I have family living near one that does. Knowing how difficult it would be to find reasonable travel to their area without that airport, I certainly don’t count the EAS as “one of the most wasteful.” I will concede that there could be improvements (couldn’t there always be?), but my feeling is that those small-service airports serve a vital function in keeping some of the more remote parts of our country connected with the larger economy by easing the flow of people and goods. It’s one more float on the raft that helps keep small, independent farmers from sinking into oblivion.
-
#8 written by mclever 1 year ago
Having read Michael’s comment, he makes a good point that a state that can afford to pay its people to live there could probably afford to subsidize its own EAS program… Though I will grant that Alaska seems to be making the most of its federal subsidies.
The total EAS budget is about $183 million, of which Alaska gets a whopping $13 million (<7%) which it uses to support 30% of the total subsidized airports. I double-checked my numbers: 45 out of 152 airports on the EAS program are in Alaska. Many of those Alaska airports get by with a mere $13K to keep themselves going, and only three Alaska airports get over $1 million.
In contrast, the budget for the contiguous United States is $170 million for 107 airports, with most getting around $2 million apiece to stay open. While I stand by my point that many of those airports serve a vital purpose in keeping rural communities connected to our broader economy, I will concede that the subsidies for some place like Decatur, IL (which tops the list at $3 million) would be worth revisiting…
-
#9 written by Mainer 1 year ago
EAS does perform functions for rural areas and we would qualify for that. In Maine we have 6 airports with any level of commercial service and 4 of them are under EAS. Oddly our states capitol is one of them.
For about 7.5 mil we actually do still have a feeder system in the state. I have no idea the value but I know the effect of the Bar Harbor air port and the Rockland one is pretty large. I would feel better if this was being done for good reason other than political pettiness.
But EAS is small pickings. Next up Republican teaper efforts to fxxxxup the gas tax. I am about to the point where if I hear let the states handle it one more freaking time from a elected federal representative to expect no demand that some one ask them why in hell they are a member of the US congress if all they want to do is dismantle that same union.
-
#10 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“Mule, simply because one columnist doesn’t like the program, that doesn’t mean that program is “one of the most wasteful that the US government spends money on.” That’s the opinion of the columnist.”
That’s dishonest.…it isn’t the opinion of “one columnist.” It’s the opinion of many, many people. Do a simple Google search of “Essential Air Service” and “taxpayer waste” or “waste of tax dollars” and you’ll find numerous similar opinions as well as — get this — FACTS supporting WHY it is such a waste in many areas (subsidizing empty flights on occasion being just one of the many areas of blatant and overt waste).
“I trust you’ll allow others to have different opinions.”
I’ll allow others to have different opinions but they’re not entitled to different FACTS, and the FACTS (those things you liberals claim to love) suggest it is a massive display of waste every single day.
“Certainly a lot of the people who are served by those rural airports appreciate their existence.”
Yes, most people who get a direct government handout appreciate its existence, no matter how wasteful or inefficient it is for the rest of society to shoulder that burden.
“And the program is incredibly cheap for what it accomplishes.”
How can you even quantify “what it accomplishes” and then have the nerve/gall to say that it’s “cheap.” That stretches beyond opinion into pure BS. Let me repeat, some of the money has gone to pay for EMPTY FLIGHTS.…..tell me what that accomplishes or what is cheap about it???? Please, I’m begging you.
“The fact that the Republican bill only eliminated airports in districts with Democratic representatives tells us quite a lot. It was a political move, an element of the larger extortion strategy, not an attempt to save taxpayer money.”
I’d have to see some hard facts/data to back up this claim that Democratic districts were targeted more than Republican ones.…how do we know there isn’t a disparity in where the subsidies go to and that they’re not already tilted heavily towards Democratic districts? And it’s just your opinion that cutting a massively wasteful program is just “extortion” and a “political move” rather than an attempt to save taxpayer money.
“Ah, yes, the Heartland Institute.”
Ah, yes, another casual dismissal of the source rather than the substance of the argument they’re making. Want to refute their claims? Point out where there are lies, misrepresentations, or wrong, conclusions in the article rather than give the same ol’ “Ah, biased source.…” spill.….it’s tiresome and intellectually lazy and you know it.
“Why is it that conservatives so often insist the way for Congress to “show it’s serious about cutting waste” is to eliminate tiny programs whose cost is inconsequential.…”
And why is it that liberals insist that the cost of nearly every program is “inconsequential” — evidently because they can quote some meaningless statistic that it only represents 0.1% of federal outlays or some small number like that — yet fully ignore the aggregate and combined waste of all o fhose programs together, which is a big problem. The EAS should be low-hanging fruit for both sides to agree on in terms of massive cuts in funding.
“but which make life easier for millions of people?”
Millions of people? Really? Got a source to back that up? Hard to rack up “millions of people” with so many flights that have no more than 2 or 3 individuals on them, some even empty. Many of these airports are located within an hour’s drive of a major national or international airport? Why should taxpayers foot the bill to prevent them from having to drive an extra hour to a bigger airport?
“Why does it show “Congress is serious about cutting waste” to make a not even a tiny meaningless dent in the budget,”
Again, a logical fallacy that ignores the aggregate waste of numerous “small” programs. You have to start somewhere and as I said above, this is low-hanging fruit.
“while putting thousands (or tens of thousands) of people out of work?”
Subsidizing empty or near-empty flights just so some have a “job” is not just wasteful, it’s asinine. It’s the equivalent of paying people to dig a ditch and then fill it back up.….I see you’re not at all concerned about the burning of all that jet fuel either and what a waste that is and its polluting effects on the atmosphere.
“Why is “waste” defined as “things that help people”?”
That’s not always the case, but IN THIS CASE it is. Yes, it’s nice and “helpful” for a select few who need to fly from BFE, Iowa, to Boondocks, Missouri, to have the government pick up most of the tab, but the evidence is incredibly weak that it is actually “helping” broad swaths of the communities where these airports are yet it’s very strong that it is massively wasteful and doesn’t do much economic good at all.
-
mclever,
The problem with EAS, like so many things, is the details in the rules. Decatur and Visalia qualify for EAS because the rules stipulate distances from major or minor hubs, but don’t cover distances from other regional airports with unsubsidized scheduled air service. Decatur is served by Springfield and Bloomington, and Visalia by Fresno and Bakersfield. EAS does a disservice to Springfield, Bloomington, Fresno, and Bakersfield by pulling potential passengers away from those airports, reducing the overall efficency of the entire system.I suspect that somewhere in the neighborhood of 25–35% of the service outside of Alaska could be eliminated by a simple rule change of requiring the community to be more than 50 highway miles from the nearest airport with daily scheduled service.
-
#12 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
Analogy and thought exercise for you liberals — you specifically, dc — to show you the insanity I’m talking about.
I’m a homeowner (with an acre+ lot) and have two vehicles.…and we’ll say my household income is between $70,000 and $80,000, so it’s good but not great.
I’ve got all the normal expenses you’d expect to run my household — mortgage, utilities, groceries, etc. that fit within the budget for someone with my income, but, because I like a well-mowed/manicured lawn and shiny cars, and because I want to help the neighborhood teenagers have a job — Lord knows they’d appreciate it — I hire them to cut my grass and wash my cars.….but I have them do it far more than necessary — they cut the grass every 3 days and wash my cars once a week — and I pay far more than is necessary or what they’d be willing to accept for those jobs.….we’ll say I pay $100 for the mowing (whne I could pay only $40) and $50 for the car wash (when I could pay only $20).
All told, I’m spending roughly an additional $1,200 per month just to keep my lawn perfectly manicured and to keep my vehicles shiny clean. Now, I’m sure those teenagers really “appreciate” the work, especially since it’s a job they’re getting “above-market” wages for, and I’m sure those stores at the mall appreciate (and benefit from) it too as all that money has a multiplier/stimulus effect as they go spend it.
Now, let’s get back to my personal finances.….I’m shelling out an additional $1,200 on top of my other bills just to pay for having my yard mowed and cars washed more often than is necessary. It doesn’t take long to see that, with my household income, that’s probably not going to fit too well and is unsustainable.….pretty soon I’ll run out of money, lose my house, and those teenagers will, at least temporarily, lose their job until the next schmuck moves in, but there’s no guarantee that he’ll pay them what I did, much less hire them at all.
Now do I have to cut out hiring those teens completely from mowing my yard and washing my cars? Not necessarily, but it would probably be cheaper.…at the very least, though, I should pay them closer to market wage (asking them to shoulder some of the financial burden) and have those things done much less frequently.….say, mowing every 7–10 days and a car wash once a month.…..that way I’m out only $140-$180 per month for those services and not $1,200.….the teens still get some money but not the previously desribed largesse where I was shouldering a heavy financial burden by paying them too much and recklessly wanting those things done too frequently.
DC, your argument almost seems to be that I shouldn’t change a thing because, well, you know, those teens really “appreciate” the business and stimulative effects of me throwing money at them and because each individual yard cutting or car wash at only $100 or $50 is pretty “insignificant” compared to my overall budget with annual revenues of $70,000+ and other major expenditures of mortgage ($1,000+), utilities ($500+), etc.
I hope this brief economic lesson sets in deep and hard with some of you.…
-
Good analysis, Michael. Yes, things can always be improved. Which is a far cry from “Eliminate it!” or “politically cherry-picked retributive cuts.”
I do agree with Mainer, that simply shifting the cost to the states isn’t a good idea. The Feds have been doing that in many functions for years, which is one of the big reasons state budgets are now so far in the red. States then do it to cities and counties. Both the Feds and the states then boast about how they’ve “cut spending” — but the spending wasn’t “cut,” it was just moved to smaller governmental units which can’t do it as efficiently. Taxpayers wind up paying more for the same (or worse) level of service.
A nationally-coördinated system of aviation makes a lot more sense to me than fifty separate systems, inconsistently applied and inconsistently funded and maintained.
-
#14 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“I suspect that somewhere in the neighborhood of 25–35% of the service outside of Alaska could be eliminated by a simple rule change of requiring the community to be more than 50 highway miles from the nearest airport with daily scheduled service.”
I’m with Michael.….actually, I’d probably try and bring in broader cuts, but I’d support this as at least a starting point. That’s all I’m asking.….get the low-hanging fruit. Why is it so hard and we have to throw fits and tantrums because someone “appreciates” it? I’d appreciate the government going out of its way to do something fo rme too, but I don’t expect society to shoulder that burden.
-
Mule,
For me, the major problems with your analogy are two:
1) A nation is not a single wage-earner. The economics of running a nation are far different, and comparisons don’t work well at all.
2) I never said that we as a nation should spend money on wasteful things. You and I simply have a different definition of “waste.”
We can discuss the details behind those points if you like. But taken together, they render your analogy irrelevant to my position.
-
#16 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
The pure libertarian in me would like to see EAS 100% de-funded, but the political realist in me believes knocking it down 25%-50% would be a good start with an eye on dismantling at least 50%-75% of it.
It’s predominantly a massive waste and there are no two ways about it.….if the airport can’t survive on its own (hey, I’m not saying BFE, Iowa, can’t have air service, just that passengeres wanting to fly in and out of there should have to shoulder that burden and NOT ME), by all means let it.
-
We’ve also quickly drifted from the point of my article, which I want to get back to.
The Republican strategy of rule by extortion is unethical at best, and destructive at worst. If Republicans have any good ideas, those ideas should be rationally debated, and national policy then set based on what’s best to do for the country — not based on trying to avoid the consequences of terrorism and hostage-taking.
-
Mule,
Let me repeat, some of the money has gone to pay for EMPTY FLIGHTS.…..tell me what that accomplishes or what is cheap about it????
There are legitimate reasons to have empty flights. I wouldn’t use that as the sole metric of effectiveness.
I’d have to see some hard facts/data to back up this claim that Democratic districts were targeted more than Republican ones
Near as I can tell, there wasn’t any such targeting. At least, not in HR658, which I believe to be the bill in question.
And why is it that liberals insist that the cost of nearly every program is “inconsequential”
Because, truthfully, the cost of nearly every program is inconsequential. We have a budget with a few boulders, a decent amount of gravel, and a lot of sand. Most of the Republican noise focuses on eliminating grains of sand…and only a few of them. And maybe a pebble or two.
Millions of people? Really? Got a source to back that up? Hard to rack up “millions of people” with so many flights that have no more than 2 or 3 individuals on them, some even empty.
About a half million per year take EAS flights, based on the latest numbers I could find.
Many of these airports are located within an hour’s drive of a major national or international airport?
I don’t think this is true. Many are located within an hour’s drive of a regional airport, but the maps I’ve seen don’t show any that close to a major airport. I’d be interested to know which, if any, are.
-
#19 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“1) A nation is not a single wage-earner. The economics of running a nation are far different, and comparisons don’t work well at all.”
That’s a red herring. Yes, the two are different, but the principle is the same and it doesn’t negate my example of spending my out of a budget on something that is a complete waste. The comparisons DO work in this case.
“2) I never said that we as a nation should spend money on wasteful things. You and I simply have a different definition of “waste.””
Then you are looking at the wrong definition of waste because objectively the EAS fits it to a tee. Sorry, you can’t squirm out of it like that.
“We can discuss the details behind those points if you like.”
I offered and am still offering the opportunity for you to refute my position and argue why significant portions of the EAS (if not the entire program) isn’t wasteful. There’s plenty of literature on the web exposing its many wasteful properties.….funny, though, as the evidence is incredibly scant to non-existent talking about its positive economic virtues. Here’s your opportunity to provide some context to your argument — something factual, PLEASE — rather than generalizations about how people “appreciate” it, it gives some of us a job, etc.
“But taken together, they render your analogy irrelevant to my position.”
Then you are blind to or willfully ignorant of what I’m trying to say.
-
-
Mule, I will gladly argue EAS another time. At present, it’s a distraction. The political gambit I’m underlining wasn’t about the EAS. EAS was used as a pawn in a larger game to hold the FAA and rural Americans hostage in order to weaken unions. It’s part of a still-larger pattern of Republicans inventing crises (like shutting down the government, or defaulting on America’s debts, refusing to fund the FAA) in order to extort policy changes.
It isn’t, and it never was, about the EAS or even about the federal deficit. It’s about rightist social engineering, forced on America at gunpoint.
I’ll discus your analogy another time. Maybe I’ll write an article next week about why comparing the Federal budget to a household budget is absurd. But right now, I want to see if you can defend hostage-taking as a means of advancing the Republican social agenda.
-
Mule,
That’s a red herring. Yes, the two are different, but the principle is the same and it doesn’t negate my example of spending my out of a budget on something that is a complete waste. The comparisons DO work in this case.
Here’s why the comparisons don’t work:
I’m sure those stores at the mall appreciate (and benefit from) it too
What if you also owned the stores at the mall? The kids spending money at the mall would benefit you. In the same sort of way, since government is funded primarily by taxation on commerce (especially at the Federal level), spending money on functions that increase the amount of commerce has the effect of increasing one’s paycheck in your analogy.
-
#23 written by mclever 1 year ago
Michael,
The problem with EAS, like so many things, is the details in the rules. Decatur and Visalia qualify for EAS because the rules stipulate distances from major or minor hubs, but don’t cover distances from other regional airports with unsubsidized scheduled air service.
Oh, I’m with you there. That’s exactly the sort of “revisit” that I’m talking about.
For the Decatur situation in particular, I figure a lot of the folks flying out of there are either students from the local universities looking for a cheaper flight, or they are locals from places like Pana, Shelbyville, or Windsor, where the drive to Decatur is about forty minutes or an hour, but the extra drive to Bloomington would put them roughly two hours from an airport that offers regular service. However, rather than subsidizing Decatur which is conveniently centered between Springfield, Bloomington, and Champaign where it competes with them for customers, it would make more sense to subsidize an airport farther out, like maybe in Effingham, which is two hours from anywhere else and about half-way between St. Louis and Terre Haute. Someplace like that would serve all of those rural customers from places like Clay City, Newton, Pana, Shelbyville, and Windsor without competing with the bigger airports in Springfield or Bloomington. That would seem more in line with the purpose of the EAS legislation, at least.
(Yes, I grew up in Illinois, so this is like talking about my backyard…)
I suspect that somewhere in the neighborhood of 25–35% of the service outside of Alaska could be eliminated by a simple rule change of requiring the community to be more than 50 highway miles from the nearest airport with daily scheduled service.
I suspect you’re right. I’d be willing to require more than 60 or 70 highway miles, because rural folks are accustomed to covering those sorts of distances to get someplace. Whether 50 or 70 miles, that sort of tweak in the rules could make the difference between being “one of the most wasteful programs ever” and providing a valuable service to otherwise unreachable parts of our country. Scrapping the program entirely could be devastating to the economies of isolated communities in Montana, Kansas, Nebraska, or Wyoming where, as you say, there are large distances between airports and few other transportation options.
-
#24 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“There are legitimate reasons to have empty flights. I wouldn’t use that as the sole metric of effectiveness.”
Fair enough. I can see where an empty plane might be going somewhere but is anticipated to be full at its next stop and return flight, but that still doesn’t change the fact that far too many of these flights are scarcely traveled.
“Near as I can tell, there wasn’t any such targeting.”
You might want to share that with dc then.
“Because, truthfully, the cost of nearly every program is inconsequential.”
That doesn’t mean it should be exempt.….and I’m for cutting waste at all levels. But here’s the difference. Take something like the military and defense spending. It’s arguably a boulder, a big one in fact. There’s a lot of waste there but how much could we legitimately cut back before we’ve neutered ourselves completely? Let’s say 50% is about as much as we can tolerate. Something like EAS, as small as it is, really has no business eating up any tax dollars and should probably be 100% de-funded. It may be much, much smaller but pound-for-pound is far more wasteful.
“About a half million per year take EAS flights, based on the latest numbers I could find.”
Okay, so far from being in the “millions” as dc suggested, and that doesn’t include repeat travelers, which I’m sure account for much of the total.….when you get down to it, this is just benefitting a handful of citizens at the expense of everyone else.
“I don’t think this is true. Many are located within an hour’s drive of a regional airport”
Yeah, I didn’t portray that too well.…many are located near regional airports as you suggest and some are located near national airports, but the distance to int’l airports, on average, is pretty far. Still, if you live that far removed from populated society, you should shoulder the burden of the cost of travel to get you there and back.
-
Here is another example of Republican hostage-taking.
Eric Cantor won’t let victims of Hurricane Irene get disaster relief unless we cut Federal programs he doesn’t like, or take it from other FEMA disaster relief:
Why should those government layabouts at the Federal Emergency Management Agency be allowed to splurge on costly services like yanking people out from under collapsed roofs when the feds have congressional salaries to pay? For Cantor, the good news is that FEMA is already having to withhold aid for tornado-battered towns in the South and Midwest so it can afford to help clean up the damage caused by Irene.
-
#26 written by shortchain 1 year ago
-
#27 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“I’ll discus your analogy another time. Maybe I’ll write an article next week about why comparing the Federal budget to a household budget is absurd.”
@Michael and dc,
Your critique that the “analogy is bad because federal budgets don’t compare well with household ependitures” is a red hering and ignores the principle and substance of what I was arguing and my refutation of dc’s points about why EAS is good.
The main point is that it’s incredibly wasteful for me to get my yard mowed 10 times a month and my car washed 4 times a month and pay so exorbitantly for it when I can either do it myself or have it done much less often and pay much less for it. Either I should cut those teens off completely or give them much less money to do it much less often. In other words, they’ll either need to work for someone else or do something else entirely or keep doing those things for me in a way where they shoulder some (actually most) of the financial burden and I can run my household in a sustainable manner caring for much bigger priorities like mortgage and utilities.
To dismiss the substance of my argument because “well, gubmint doesn’t compare well with households” is disingenuous, at best. I’m very disappointed with the level of discourse here today.
-
#28 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“Apparently, you don’t like to have people know where the source organization of your article gets its funding. I wonder why?”
I never said that.….I said it’s ridiculous for you to attack the messenger and not the substance. That’s at the very heart of the ad hominem fallacy. The opinions and facts stated in that article stretch far beyond what you’d find at the Heartland Institute. I guess you don’t like doing a Google search to reveal all of the negative material out there pointing ou the blatant waste of the EAS program.…I wonder why.….
-
Mule,
My comment about “millions” of people was part of a larger, more general complaint. I said:
Why is it that conservatives so often insist the way for Congress to “show it’s serious about cutting waste” is to eliminate tiny programs whose cost is inconsequential, but which make life easier for millions of people?
I was alluding to this general Republican tendency which causes pain for nearly everyone in the country in one way or another. I didn’t mean that comment to apply only to the EAS,
Let’s eliminate all the “grains of sand” (to use Michael’s analogy) — public broadcasting, the EPA, FEMA, EAS, the Education Department, NEA, etc. etc. etc. You haven’t made a dent in the deficit, and you’ve wound up harming millions, throwing hundreds of thousands out of work, impoverishing rural communities, increasing illiteracy, poisoned our food — etc. etc.
The “millions” I referred to are the collective victims of the entire Republican social agenda, not limited to the victims of this one particular bit of it. I apologize for the confusion caused by my poor wording.
-
#30 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“I take it you oppose the electrification of rural areas that occured in the last century as well? And the building of the Interstate Highway System?”
Wanna talk about bad analogies, here they are. The electrification of rural areas and IHS literally impacted EVERYONE outside of those who just refuse service or never travel far from home (although they benefit indirectly from the movement of goods and services promoted by others using the service).….it’s difficult to quantify, but you’re talking at least 90% of people in those areas are positively affected and it’s likely closer to 100%.
You just don’t have the same level of participation and benefit in rural communities with EAS, even accounting for any “multiplier effects.” This only affects a handful of people in those communities and ignores the hundreds of other small communities who could have EAS but don’t.
-
Mule,
The main point is that it’s incredibly wasteful for me to … [etc]
Well of course it is.
Okay, then I have three problems with your analogy. 1) A nation is not a household. 2) We disagree on what’s wasteful. 3) Obsessing about and overpaying for lawn care and carwashes has nothing to do with insuring that isolated rural communities have air service, and it’s a ridiculous comparison.
I don’t agree with your starting premise, that your analogy is in any way relevant to the EAS, to the Federal budget, or to the topic of Republican extortion to advance a right-wing social agenda.
-
#32 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“Maybe I’ll write an article next week about why comparing the Federal budget to a household budget is absurd.”
A better one would be to defend the merits of EAS. You do an article trying to rip my analogy, and we’ll now you’ve run off on some tangent and are trying to dodge the argument.
Step up to the plate and be a big boy. Stop crying and wetting your pants when you’ve been called out.
-
#33 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“1) A nation is not a household.”
Agreed. But both must live within a budget or face dire social and economic consequences. That’s a fact and at the heart of my analogy.
“2) We disagree on what’s wasteful.”
But my argument of what is wasteful is grounded in facts and reality. Yours, not so much. Pumping millions into a program so a handful of people can have cheap flights from obscure, rural airports to other obscure, rural airports or even into larger ones has little economic benefit for ANYONE outside of those getting cheap flights and the pilots who parade them around. All I’m asking is that if it’s so necessary for those people to travel in that manner from those obscure places that they shoulder most if not all of the cost themselves.
“3) Obsessing about and overpaying for lawn care and carwashes has nothing to do with insuring that isolated rural communities have air service, and it’s a ridiculous comparison.”
That’s why it’s called an “analogy,” genius. The two are very dissimilar in many ways but the parallels of spending wisely on government programs versus spending wisely on household chores are very apt. It’s NOT a “ridiculous comparison.:”
“I don’t agree with your starting premise,”
Again, I have facts and reality on my side, so disagree all you want, you’re wrong.
“that your analogy is in any way relevant to the EAS, to the Federal budget,”
Willful blindness doesn’t excuse you or make the things I’m saying wrong and I’m making very apt and appropriate comparisons.
“or to the topic of Republican extortion to advance a right-wing social agenda.”
If you’re so off-base in your understanding of this one component of your argument, it calls into question the accuracy or legitimacy of the rest of your argument, so, yes, it’s very relevant to the main topic. I just chose the one I knew I could eviscerate you on, but if you like, I could tear you down on the others given enough time to do background research. Is that what you’d like?
-
#34 written by shortchain 1 year ago
Mule,
Since my original comment about the funding of the Heartland Institute made no comment, pro or con, on the article in question, merely provided information for people to use in evaluating possible bias in the article, you cannot honestly accuse me of “ad hominem” or any other fallacy.
Are you claiming that providing information is a fallacy?
As for the claim that I should somehow attempt to refute the article’s claims — sure, I’d be happy to. Just pay me exactly as much as the author got paid, and I’ll go through the article, taking my time, and let you know exactly where he fudged a number here, or left out a bit there.
-
Mule, I often enjoy conversing with you. But you’re starting to be insulting again, and also trying to derail the thread.
Here, if you want to discuss a parallel between the federal budget and a household budget, how about if a criminal comes into your house, holds a gun to your head, and demands that you stop paying for your wife’s clothes. If she doesn’t want to be naked, she can find something to wear on her own, it’s not fair you should have to pay for her. Of course, she’s in a wheelchair, and can’t easily get to the store — but then, you shouldn’t pay for her medical bills either. Now, either agree to this crook’s demands, or get your face shot off.
And if you try to point out the unfairness of this crook holding a gun to your head, he’ll cuss at you about about lawn care and car washes instead of defending his tendency to extort ridiculous demands by gunpoint.
This is the analogy we’re discussing today.
-
Mule,
To dismiss the substance of my argument because “well, gubmint doesn’t compare well with households” is disingenuous, at best.
I misunderstood the substance. The problem is that the household analogy gets pulled out for all kinds of things, many of which break down because household spending doesn’t have an impact on household salary, while government spending often does impact government revenues. I didn’t recognize that this was a different case.
Government/household analogies should be avoided for this reason.
-
#37 written by Eagle Rock 1 year ago
-
Mule,
…you’re talking at least 90% of people in those areas are positively affected and it’s likely closer to 100%.
So your issue is the percent of people directly affected by the program?
…ignores the hundreds of other small communities who could have EAS but don’t.
??? Which communities? Why don’t they have the service?
-
#40 written by parksie555 1 year ago
Republican “hostage-taking” = Dems whining about their agenda being successfully obstructed.
Bottom line — if the people don’t want to see these kinds of tactics, they’ll stop electing Republicans. It obviously didn’t happen in 2010, we’ll see in 2012.
The beauty of representative democracy — if a majority of the people don’t like the tactics used by their representatives, they get to vote for different ones.
The amount of whining by liberals is absolutely stunning. It’s a big part of the reason why I can only take liberals in small doses. They are just too damn depressing.
-
parksie,
The beauty of representative democracy — if a majority of the people don’t like the tactics used by their representatives, they get to vote for different ones.
Not exactly. It only takes representation of 10.3% of the population to stop legislation (filibuster in the Senate). 76% of the population is of voting age. Typical turnout in a midterm election is about 37% of the voting-age population, while in a Presidential election it’s more like 50%. Since the Senate is on 6-year cycles, that averages out to 41%. So 31.5% of the population determines the Senators. And since only a majority of votes are necessary, half of the votes is all that are needed, meaning 15.76% of the population.
Since we’re talking about 15.76% of the population in states that represent only 10.3% of the national population, it means that it takes a mere 1.62% of the population to stop legislation.
That’s the beauty of the representative democracy we have — if a majority of the people don’t like the tactics used by the representatives of only 10% of the population, voted in by less than 2% of the population, they’re screwed.
-
Thanks for doing the math, Michael.
We can go a bit farther, and point out that it is a minority of elected Republicans who are terrorizing their own party, and forcing these outrageous political maneuvers. The percentage of the U.S. population that elected the Teaper Terrorists is even smaller than your figures would indicate. There are perhaps sixty Representatives and maybe a half dozen senators who are the core cell, the inner-circle ringleaders.
No, I’m not implying a “conspiracy”, merely drawing a parallel. There is a tiny and unprincipled minority that is engaged in really vile tactics to cram their inflexible demands down America’s throat.
But decisions are made by those who show up. This is why it’s necessary to get out the vote and stop the political terrorism.
-
p555’s projection aside ~ replying to one disingenuous flyby w/another that has actual facts and figures.
Repeating:
1992 ~ 39 million ~ 37.5% incumbent president Bush41
1996 ~ 39 million ~ 40.7%
2000 ~ 50.5 million ~ 47.9% Bush43 appointed president
2004 ~ 62 million ~ 50.7% as mclever mentioned, an incumbent wartime Rep president
2008 ~ 60 million ~ 45.7%Soooo, let’s average the last (5) Rep presidential elections, shall we:
(((44.5%))) hmm, did someone mention this is a center right country …
2012 should be very interesting ie how good is/are the voters memory re: the total frickin’ disaster of 2001⁄2009. The current laughable/inept/ad nauseam filp/flopping Rep frontrunners of Perry, mittens, bachmann notwithstanding.
>
So, in reality, that Republican 44.5% is probably more like 20% of eligible voters, give or take a conservative whiner at a liberal blog.
>
Using MW’s metric:
203 million eligible voters in 2000 ie (18) and older and Bush received 50.5 million er less than (((25%))). So much for p555’s beauty of representative democracy in America.
As always, America gets the govt. it deserves and oh the irony of p555 talkin’ about liberal whining considering Bartles’ et al yahoo teabaggers 24⁄7 crying/hyperbolic exasperation since Obama was elected in 2008.
-
#44 written by Wally 1 year ago
I’m way late to this conversation, but I particularly liked this by Mule:
“Subsidizing empty or near-empty flights just so some have a “job” is not just wasteful, it’s asinine. It’s the equivalent of paying people to dig a ditch and then fill it back up.….”
Its actually quite a bit worse than just paying people to dig a ditch and filling it in. With ditch digging there is very little to no opertunity cost on the time of those that do the digging or on the resources needed to dig a ditch (a shovel). However, in air travel there is a huge amount of wasted resources.
Just to go down the list a little bit:
The av-gas or JetA costs per traveller would likely boggle the mind in many of these cases. An EMB-120 burns something like 150 gallons of Av-Gas per hour in cruise. So, a two hour flight probably burns around 500 gallons of gas. If a person where to drive a rough equivalent distance, they would probably burn something like 40 gallons of gas in a SUV. And honestly, the time difference in doing so isn’t going to be too much. Many of these flights serviced by the EAS are about an hour long, just getting you to the nearest hub. And that one hour is very costly on gas because it includes so much climbing and time at lower altitudes. And remember, these are the people also trying to tell us we need to cut back on our CO2 emissions. But, I know, its idiotic to expect them to be consistent, particularly a guy like DC that just reacts instinctively.
Then you have air traffic issues. Generally the airports these flights go to are going to major hubs, even though they come from very small feeder ports. So what you end up with is a number of small tubro-props going into large airports serviced generally by large jets, in very crowded skies. They slow down approaches since their landing speeds are lower, and on take off on their way back out, they can’t climb out of the lower crowed airspace as fast. These are airports that if you wanted to go take off in your private plane, even if you were actually carrying more people on it than this turbo-prop, you wouldn’t be allowed to land. They just don’t have time for you. But we make time for these flights.
Next we have the aircraft. These are mult-million dollar planes running around days on end carrying small numbers of people. Those have to be some damn important people to warrant building the planes to do so. Plus, you have to service these planes, which will cost, on the order of 5–10% of cost of the plane each year. Especially given the way these puddle jumpers fly.
Then there’s the flight crew. Being a pilots aren’t looked upon as an élite job any longer. But it still takes quite a lot of training and significant amount of money to train a commercial pilot. It doesn’t take any training to get people to dig a ditch.
Certainly, if we, as a society are going to train people to operate complex machinery, use hundreds of gallons of gas, build and operate million dollar machinery, and generally get in the way of thousands of other commuters we could be doing a lot more than just moving a small handful of people a few hundred miles.
And this is done in cities like Prescott AZ, which is less than 2 hours drive from PHX. Merced CA, 2 hours drive from Sacramento or San Jose. Athens GA, 1.5 hours to Atlanta. Maybe we don’t need to cut the program entirely, but I’d like to see how many of the airports are within 2 or 3 hour drives from major airports. Then, take that list and cut them off entirely. We can’t be concerned with just keeping people employed, no matter how fruitless the job, we need to use our resources (including human resources) on productive jobs.
“Ah, yes, another casual dismissal of the source rather than the substance of the argument they’re making. Want to refute their claims? Point out where there are lies, misrepresentations, or wrong, conclusions in the article rather than give the same ol’ “Ah, biased source.…” spill.….it’s tiresome and intellectually lazy and you know it.”
I also enjoyed this Mule. But you have to remember, this is DC you’re talking about. He’ll fight with anything he has, no matter how illogical or inane, if you threaten his ideology. He reacts, he doesn’t think.
-
#45 written by Wally 1 year ago
Michael,
“Because, truthfully, the cost of nearly every program is inconsequential. We have a budget with a few boulders, a decent amount of gravel, and a lot of sand. Most of the Republican noise focuses on eliminating grains of sand…and only a few of them. And maybe a pebble or two.”
I don’t know, there’s a good amount noise made by repubs about medicare/SS.
-
#46 written by Wally 1 year ago
Michael,
“There are legitimate reasons to have empty flights. I wouldn’t use that as the sole metric of effectiveness.”
There are, such as, you need to fly people to a destination, but you might not fly anyone back, or to the third stop, where you’ll pick up still more people. However, on the macro scale, you still need to minimize this through proper scheduling and routing of your planes. Like I’m sure many people have seen in places like this, when 1 person gets off and then 2 people get on, there are very few ways to “legitimately” need that stop, unless you’re assuming they carry a lot of mail.
So, empty or close to it, flights are going to be a pretty good measure. There might be more to it, but there isn’t really a much more too it once you’re on a large enough scale. Ie. you can’t just say, “well the 12:30 flight out of Nowhereville is always empty, lets cancel”. But you can say, “flights to and from Nowhereville only average .8 passangers, lets cancel it.”
I think you’re being little nit-picky here.
-
#47 written by parksie555 1 year ago
MWeiss — I don’t follow your math — are you assuming that the 41 Senators that vote against cloture (or 34 under nuclear option) come from the smallest states?
I am leaving all your other silly math about turnout aside as we can use those numbers just as easily to deflate the amount of representation needed to invoke cloture/stop nuclear option.
In any event DC’s repeated use of “political terrorism” to describe legitimate parliamentary procedure and implied comparison of Republican Senators and Representatives to hostage taking gunmen (nice photo) is simply vile, on par with the Obama in whiteface carictures commonly seen on Free Republic. I am utterly amazed that the moderators here tolerate this (not).
-
#48 written by parksie555 1 year ago
And BTW MWeiss if you think it is a mere 1.62% of the population that is opposed to Obama’s agenda I have quite a bit of polling data that argues otherwise.
The amount of liberal disbelief at the level of Obama’s unpopularity is quite remarkable to see, especially for a community that claims to be “reality based”.
-
parksie
DC’s repeated use of “political terrorism” to describe legitimate parliamentary procedure
When my son was four years old, he had a regrettable tendency to pull the dog’s tail. We scolded him for it. He’d claim, “I’m not pulling it, I’m just holding it. The dog is pulling!”
For Republicans to claim they’re just engaging in “legitimate parliamentary procedure” is akin to a murderer saying he was just doing target practice — it’s not his fault the target was your wife.
It’s not a credible defense that you’re making.
-
-
I am utterly amazed that the moderators here tolerate this (not).
Again, the irony of p555 talkin’ about liberal whining up the thread as that is pretty much all conservatives do at liberal blogs ie whine.
Indeed p555, go team up w/the freepers as you’d fit right in w/their “cry me a river” 24⁄7 anti-Obama meme.
take care
>
but I particularly liked this by Mule
Previously mentioned Wally and MR would make a great team. The yin and yang of emotional winger discombobulation …
-
parksie,
MWeiss — I don’t follow your math — are you assuming that the 41 Senators that vote against cloture (or 34 under nuclear option) come from the smallest states?
The least-populus states, yes.
I am leaving all your other silly math about turnout aside as we can use those numbers just as easily to deflate the amount of representation needed to invoke cloture/stop nuclear option
It’s not silly at all. It should be used to deflate the amount of representation needed to invoke cloture. That number is 10%, by the way.
The point is, our government is democratic in popular nomenclature only. It never has been in reality.
if you think it is a mere 1.62% of the population that is opposed to Obama’s agenda I have quite a bit of polling data that argues otherwise.
Do please point to the place where I said that 1.62% of the population is opposed to Obama’s agenda.
-
#53 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
-
#55 written by parksie555 1 year ago
-
parksie,
You went to an extreme to make a point, I went to a similar extreme to disagree with that point.
I think you missed the point I was making. My point is that, contrary to the myth, the US is not, and never has been, a democracy. Since 1787 or so, it has been architected to give social conservatives’ votes more value than that of social liberals. This was an intentional part of the design.
-
#58 written by Wally 1 year ago
Michael,
“Aside from an unpopular and failed attempt by W to privatize Social Securty, and an unpopular and failed attempt by Paul Ryan to place an artificial cap on Medicare spending, there hasn’t really.”
And what would “failed” or “unpopular” have to do with the point you were trying to make, exactly?
-
-
#60 written by Wally 1 year ago
Michael,
You claimed that most of the republican noise is centered around the grains of sand. I skeptically pointed out that there is still a good amount of noise made regarding medicare and SS, both came up quite a lot in the budget talks and obviously in Ryan plan. If you don’t want me to draw the conclusion that you’re only editorializing, you need to present data. So far you’ve only offered your hand waving as evidence. If you have no data to support you claim, that’s fine. Its just your uninformed opinion then, no matter what you might claim to the contrary.
-
Wally, if you want to claim that Republicans have pushed the idea of Medicare or Social Security changes, you’ll have to present some data. Otherwise, it’s just handwaving. It seems more as if they made two (2) half-hearted efforts (once during the Bush administration with Social Security, once with the Ryan Medikill plan) and then ran away from it as fast as they could as soon as they hand the chance.
In contrast, they seem to constantly be complaining about the EPA, the Post Office, NEA, the Education Department, CPB, earmarks, and a host of other grains of sand.
If you don’t want us to draw the conclusion that you’re only editorializing, you need to present data. If you have no data to support you claim, that’s fine. Its just your uninformed opinion then, no matter what you might claim to the contrary.
-
#62 written by Wally 1 year ago
Oh poor DC, that logic class you never took is still waiting for you.
Michael made the original claim with no facts to support it. The burden of proof is squarely on him.
“It seems more as if they made two (2) half-hearted efforts (once during the Bush administration with Social Security, once with the Ryan Medikill plan) and then ran away from it as fast as they could as soon as they hand the chance.“
It is this that is hand waving and it is this is exactly editorializing. Neither you, nor Michael„ appear able to understand your own statements. Some people would call that insanity. -
-
Action in those areas tends to cause more political harm than good.
Indeed, as again, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Corwin in the NY-26 special election, in a heavily conservative district, because Corwin foolishly supported Ryan’s kill Medicare/SS plan.
And no, I won’t call Wally insane, just Corwin, Ryan and all of his teabagger buddies who voted for his plan in congress as “we” haven’t heard squat re: Ryan’s plan since, except from Dems running against Reps ~ Go figure!
btw, Perry has called SS a “Ponzi scheme” ~ Oops!
take care Wally
-
#65 written by rgbact 1 year ago
DC–After months of screaming about the GOP trying to “kill Medicare”.…are you really now denying that they even wanted to alter entitlements? Your last few posts are very puzzling–I agree with Wally that they seems borderline schizophrenic. Btw, I wouldn’t call getting 95% of your party to vote for something.….“running away as fast as you can”.
So, after trying to privatize SS and fundamentally change Medicare.…now you and MW are accusing the GOP of obsessing about “pebbles” rather than tackling cuts in big items?
Puzzling indeed. -
#66 written by shortchain 1 year ago
I’m a little confused. DC is talking about what the Republicans are talking about defunding or cutting. This hasn’t all that much about what DC is concerned about them cutting.
As for what the Republicans have been talking about cutting, and the relative amount of time they’ve spent on the various pieces, is anyone prepared to argue that they’ve spent 200 times as much time talking about cutting entitlements relative to the time they’ve spent talking about cutting, say, PBS?
Because that’s the rough proportion of the money involved between those two areas of the budget.
-
rgbact, I don’t doubt that Republicans would abolish Medicare and Social Security if they could. My point (as MW and shortchain both stressed) is that they spend an inordinate amount of time screaming about things that won’t make a noticeable impact on the budget — and pretending they’re doing it for budgetary reasons, rather than for reasons of their social agenda. Do you disagree?
And I encourage you as well to tell your favorite Republican candidates to campaign on shutting down Medicare and Social Security.
-
rgbact,
So, after trying to privatize SS and fundamentally change Medicare.…now you and MW are accusing the GOP of obsessing about “pebbles” rather than tackling cuts in big items?
Puzzling indeed.Not puzzling at all. It’s clear that the elected Republicans want to get rid of the social programs. I don’t doubt that for a minute. But the bulk of the time is spent on the sand and gravel, because those appeal to a wider audience, albeit one who doesn’t know the magnitude of the difference.
And neither party seems ready to address the underlying issues. It’s not debt. It’s not deficits. And only about a third is comprised of tax policy.
-
#69 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
Ahhh, back after a couple of weeks and, like a soap opera, the same story line is going on!
Social security, and other topics, right from the pages of his 2010 book:
“Like a bad disease,” he wrote, New Deal-era initiatives have spread. “By far the best example of this is Social Security.” The program “is something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now.“
Sure will guarantee the vote of the “over 50″ crowd!!!!
”“If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas. If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.” Elaborating in July about New York’s decision to allow same-sex marriage, he said, “that’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.“But presidential candidate Perry has since clarified that he’s against gay marriage anywhere, and last month signed a pledge that, if elected, he would back a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between and a woman, which would preclude a state’s choice. So much for states rights. Can you say “hypocrite”???
When last I was here, parksie and I discussed the “Texas miracle”, or so Perry likes to bleat. Parksie posted a blog reference, and I see he repeated that a couple days back, that restated the numbers the gave a much more favorable take. Well, it’s all in how the numbers get massaged:
Sixty two passengers and crew survive fiery aviation accident!
Passengers and crew had almost a 2–1 chance of surviving. And of the several dozen ground crew, only one was lost.
Makes the Hindenburg accident look downright benign now don’t it??? The fact that “only” 35 people died that day, that the passenger airship industry died that day as well, and to this day three-quarters of a century layer, the use of hydrogen in American airships is verboten, not withstanding.
So, restating the data on Texas’ “miracle” DOES NOT erase the facts tpreviously stated on unemployment, creation of minimum wage scale jobs, multi-BILLION dollar education cuts, drop-out rates, and percent of adults without a high school diploma, percent of children with health insurance, etc. all coming under Perry oversight.
Not what we want for America!
-
#70 written by mostlyilurk 1 year ago
-
-
#72 written by rgbact 1 year ago
MW-The Dems spent much of the debt debate screaming about tax breaks for corporate jet owners and oil company depreciation tax breaks. Talk about your “gravel”. In fairness, when you know you can’t get big changes enacted.….sometimes its best to focus on small stuff that can serve as good negotiating pieces and good PR for your overall case.
-
#73 written by mclever 1 year ago
@rgbact
Do you happen to have a comparison of the dollars spent on things like NEA, Planned Parenthood, NPR, etc. as compared to what closing a few “loopholes” in the corporate and top-tier tax brackets would generate in revenue? Or, how much revenue would be generated by raising the tax rate on those making over $1 million to the pre-Bush levels? Or changing the rate on dividends and interest back to the Clinton era rates? Just curious, because that would help to determine if those items are truly pebbles or sand.
-
#74 written by mostlyilurk 1 year ago
-
#75 written by rgbact 1 year ago
MC–
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a budget of about $500M. Add in direct money to NPR, lets call it $1B. The “tax breaks for big oil” I’ve seen estimated at about $2B. So, both are pretty tiny amounts. However, there is something to be said that if you can’t cut the small stuff that impacts only a few people.…how can you possibly cut the big stuff?
I don’t even think your “big stuff” amount to that much. 1) If you assume we raise the highest tax bracket 10% 2) Then assume that only 50% of “rich people’s” income is affected, as alot falls below the income threshold for the increase 3) Then assume those “rich people” pay 50% of all taxes currently. Then the net impact of raising the top tax bracket is about 10% *50% *50%=2.5% more revenue. So, not a huge amount. If we do as you say an make the cutoff even higher at $1M.…it would likely be <1% more revenue. I could be wrong, but thats my rough estimate.
-
#76 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
rgb,
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a budget of about $500M. Add in direct money to NPR, lets call it $1B. …
If we do as you say an make the cutoff even higher at $1M.…it would likely be <1% more revenue. I could be wrong, but thats my rough estimate.Well, the actual numbers are out there if you were only willing to do a little research. If you did, you could provide something accurate, without “estimating” and have no worries about being “wrong”. Regretfully, that research, or the fear of the result, might upset your unfounded assertion.
Had you done so, you would have known that the budget for 2010 for the CPB was $422 million AND you would have known that NPR receives its subsidy from the funding for CPB. Then you would not have made the erroneous statement attributing an EXTRA $500 million in federal monies!
Come back with more than just your guesses and we’ll have something to talk about.
-
A couple of days ago, Michael posted links to a poll that shows Americans consistently overestimate the amount that America spends on CPB, foreign aid, education, and nearly all the other grains of sand that Republicans complain about. They even overestimated how much Medicare and the Pentagon get (not grains of sand, certainly, but even there, Americans are ill-informed).
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About dcpetterson (194 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson






Well, Rep obstructionism worked in the 2010 low turnout mid-term, except for their teabagger fools. We shall see if it works in 2012 as the party of no now controls congress, whose current job approval rating is subterranean ie Reps have more to lose and nothing to run on except 24⁄7 negativity and stagnant job creation.
Interesting Gallup has Obama at 38% job approval and yet Quinnipiac has Obama/mittens 45⁄45 and Obama/Perry 45⁄42. Numerically speaking, Obama could win re-election w/45% job approval w/the current boehner/cantor congress at 12%. btw, fox news has the boehner/cantor congress at 10% job approval.
How low can you go as we report, you decide.
Of course, all of this is meaningless over one year out as conservatives continue to keep hope alive!
>
And speaking of ceilings is mittens ceiling 45%? ~ Perry 42%? In 2008 McCain’s ceiling turned out to be 45.7% as the difference between McCain and bat shit crazy Perry is night and day.