So, what’ll you cut?

On FOX News yesterday, Republican candidate for Senate, Carly Fiorina, said, if elected by the people of California, she’d fight to make Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans permanent. When pressed by Chris Wallace on what she’d cut in order to cover the $4 trillion budget shortfall that would result, though, the failed former CEO of HP couldn’t name a single program that she’d axe. But that’s kind of what you’d expect, seeing as how the American people, despite all their red-faced ranting about “big government,” really don’t want to see the programs that they rely upon cut. (The reality is that they like social programs. They just don’t like them for everybody else.) So, Republican candidates like Fiorina perform the requisite Kabuki – saying that they’ll substantially cut back government programs if elected, with no intention whatsoever of actually following through. I don’t suppose that surprises anyone, but I thought that it was worth mentioning.

Oh, it’s probably also worth noting here, as long as we’re talking about hypocritical Republicans, that several anti-stimulus lawmakers lobbied aggressively for stimulus funds behind the scenes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

15 Comments

  1. Knox
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    The truth that no one seems willing to face is that sooner or later Social Security needs to be cut. The retirement age needs to be raised to 70-something and benefits need to go only to those who need the money. Whoever votes for it, though, won’t be going back to Washington ever again.

  2. Edward
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    They can start by cutting all spending on public schools. Then they can cut the Department of Education, HUD, and the EPA. There are a lot of programs that don’t affect middle aged white people to be trimmed.

  3. Peter Larson
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    How about cutting the military budget in half. Our military budget dwarfs the military budgets of China, Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, and Australia COMBINED.

    Yet, I hear only calls of increasing spending from the right. See the Repugs “Pledge to America.”

    The Obama admin has been no better, making half hearted promises to reduce the useless nuclear arsenal, but being unwilling to reduce the overall budget.

    It’s telling to me that Americans are unwilling to provide decent schools, health care, retirement benefits and monies to repair out crumbling infrastructure, but are more than willing to wantonly throw trillions of dollars into a military complex which is largely superfluous.

    But, I guess having the power to obliterate all life on Earth directly benefits middle aged white people.

  4. TeacherPatti
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    Oh public schools will be the first to go. One of these days, I know that someone is going to decide that the special needs kids don’t need to be educated and start a’cuttin’. But yeah, that person won’t go back to Washington but the damage will be done.

  5. Peter Larson
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    No, Ms. Patti, you are wrong, that person will get re-elected.

    There are many, many people who would love to stop funding public schools. Not the least of which is the braindead California congressional candidate David Harmer who believes that schools should return to “the way things worked through the first century of American nationhood.”

    Remember those days? When black people couldn’t go to school? Those days were great.

  6. Robert
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Though Peter Larson gets some of the credit for driving EOS away, I’m going to claim the bulk of it. I know it seemed heartless but I’m just trying to follow through on my campaign promise to make needed cuts here at MM.com

  7. Alice
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    I’d have a lot more respect for Fiorina and others if they were straight forward and told the truth. If she’s really not going to cut anything then she should say so. And, if she is, she should have the courage to say that social security and public schools need to be whacked down a bit. And Dems should say that they’d cut the military. We need an open, honest debate.

  8. Peter Larson
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Robert, like cockroaches, EOS will return.

  9. TeacherPatti
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    EOS is gone? Oh I missed that.

    Peter, I wonder who will be the politican to stand up and say, “*Those* kids don’t need to be public schools.” Could be from this election cycle?

    Rumblings are already happening because of inclusion, esp. with kids with behavior problems and autism. In my little world, we’d have two teachers in every room (me trained in special ed and her/him trained in the subject area)…I kind of do that now with “push in” support and it’s great. But the norm is to have all kids in one room with one teacher and if the one kid is spitting and climbing the walls, then it’s up to the teacher to deal with it while the other 29 are left to themselves. Parents are (and I don’t disagree) upset about this. So I think that is how it will start…instead of doubling up teachers, we’ll start pulling special kids and segregating them into the “little rooms with the shades drawn” from days of yore.

    Personally, I can’t wait for the first local politican to fuck with my blind kids…who is going to bail me out of jail when I pull off his head and shit down his throat?

  10. John Galt
    Posted October 19, 2010 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    We need to pipeline minority kids right into the military. They don’t need school.

  11. Posted October 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    I have to hand it to you, John. That’s one hell of an idea. And it’s much more practical than Obama’s idea of filling pot holes with aborted babies.

    Speaking of Obama and his radical agenda, a friend and I were talking over lunch today and the subject of guns came up. Specifically, we were wondering why, despite all the warnings from the right in 2008, Obama never came for our guns. Wasn’t he going to do that?

  12. Robert
    Posted October 20, 2010 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Mark, they are just waiting for when we are least expecting it, just like the terrorists did when they waited for the Bush Administration to get in before they carried out the 9/11 attacks. Bad guys are real clever like that…all ruthless and imaginative and shit.

  13. Andy C
    Posted October 20, 2010 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Funny, I work with a guy who didn’t vote for Obama because “He was gonna take my guns!”. I ask him every day “Did Obama come for your guns yet?” “Not yet.”

  14. Robert
    Posted October 20, 2010 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    BA and I stopped him with our harsh words.

  15. Meta
    Posted October 20, 2010 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    The New York Times is on it today:

    Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law.

    The House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, has called for immediate cuts in “non-security discretionary” spending to prerecession 2008 levels. Independent analysts say that would require eliminating about $105 billion — or more than 20 percent of spending by departments like Education, Transportation, Interior, Commerce and Energy — a level of reductions that history suggests would be extremely hard to execute. (Since 1982, nonmilitary discretionary spending has never dropped by more than 5.5 percentage points in any given year.)

    At the same time, most Republicans are calling for the permanent extension of all Bush-era tax cuts, which would add $700 billion more to the deficit over the next 10 years thanPresident Obama and Democratic leaders have proposed by continuing only some of the lower rates.

    Republicans say extending the cuts will spur economic activity, but that is hardly guaranteed. And the cost of either plan is astronomical: Mr. Obama’s plan will add more than $3 trillion to the deficit; the Republicans’ plan will add more than $4 trillion.

    The rest of the article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20spend.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Peter Sickman-Garner