The Tweet of the Day comes by way of Molly Ball, a politics writer at The Atlantic, who posted this gem this morning.
This may seem surprising at a certain level. After all, House Republicans are necessarily going to love the House Republican budget plan, aren't they? They all worship Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and are eager to follow his lead, right?
Well, the answer falls somewhere between "sort of" and "not entirely."
A year ago, GOP leaders recognized the anxiety felt by some of its caucus members, but told Republicans to hold hands and jump off the cliff together. They did, and when the final vote came on the party's right-wing, Medicare-killing plan, 235 House Republicans -- 98% of the caucus -- voted for it.
Democrats were probably even happier than Republicans with the vote -- the attack ads wrote themselves -- and vulnerable GOP members started feeling pretty intense pressure almost immediately. It was as clear an example of political overreach as anything we've seen in recent memory, and Congress' approval rating began to tank.
Now, the leadership is asking these same members to take another plunge, only this time, it's an election year.
A lot will be said in the coming weeks -- by me, among others -- about the far-right nature of the new House Republican budget plan, and the extent to which it reneges on the bipartisan agreement the GOP already accepted. But there's another angle to keep in mind: what Republicans intend to do is unpopular.
Igor Volsky and Travis Waldron flagged some of the more offensive elements of the plan -- forcing seniors to pay more for health care; cutting coverage for the elderly and disabled; eliminating coverage for 30 million Americans; giving a big tax cut to the wealthy; cutting the safety net while increasing Pentagon spending -- and it's worth appreciating the fact that the American mainstream doesn't support any of this.
Republicans can read polls as well as anyone else, and the most vulnerable among them may balk at sticking their necks out twice on a budget plan that can't pass the Senate anyway.
Last April, just four House Republicans voted against the Ryan plan. This year, I suspect that number will go up, not down.
Leave a Comment:
But there's another angle to keep in mind: what Republicans intend to do is unpopular.
Unpopular has worked very well for the Republicans for decades. Especially when the press and the punditocracy characterize it as "Bold", "Daring","Brave", "Intellectual" adn "Shared Sacrifice."
The Dems have to start calling it the horrible piece of crap it is, instead of treating it as a starting point for negotiations.
This is a budget only David Brooks and Bill Krystal could love. It has to make members of the GOP caucus who represent vulnerable districts quake in their booties. The GOP staffer who e-mailed Molly Ball was correct: Not only will this divide the caucus, it will wreak havoc on re-election chances for a number of Republicans in Congress.
Maybe not as many of those "tea-potty reps" see it as their duty to CUT what they identify as "waste" - so regardless of being an "election year" the tea-potty reps may vote to cut, then lets see how long their constituents keep them in their seats?
If the Democrats running for Congress don't make the Ryan budget the focus of their campaigns and put tons of money into ads attacking it, they're committing political malpractice.
The sight impaired led by the blind ~
I just don't understand why ANYONE, Republican or Democrat, would present a plan that cuts taxes on the rich and cuts benefits for the poor and middle class. To call it 'tone deaf' is simply a massive understatement.
You don't have to be rich to have Congress look out for you. They are equally interested in the needs of anyone who can route a few hundred thousand a year their way.
"...would present a plan that cuts taxes on the rich and cuts benefits for the poor and middle class."
Raygun indoctrinated the sheeple into believing that "trickle down" works, never mind that he eventually raised taxes to cover his shortfall, the "faithful" continue to uphold that position and even in the face of massive deficits, that's the line that they're going to stick with! If you want a better crop of candidates than start recruiting them, and tell your friends to stop voting for these traitors to working Americans!
I guess the GOP has had their lips on the arse of the corporations for so long they are incapable of differentiating the smell of old crap, and the new steaming pile they are trying to sell. Just because they candy coat it doesn't change the fact that it is BS.
Ah yes, attack ads - the modern way to win elections. Don't really spell out your platform, just trash your opponent with ominous sounding narration and tell everyone how evil/rotten/stupid they are. It can work eleswhere too. Drink Coke because Pepsi sucks....and they kick puppies.
"Medicare killing plan" sounds so much better than "ends Medicare as we know it." Democrats are you paying attention? Or even just plain "ends Medicare" or "kills Medicare," both are much better than "ends Medicare as we know it."
Running scared for fear that FactCheck will call them names again.
Ryan is either crazy or setting the stage for a presidential run in 2016. I am going for the latter. Ryan and the Republican leadership know that the same plan stirred up reactions against the plan and cost them a seat. So the only benefit from making this proposal is to the Dems and Obama. I think Ryan is trying to sabotage Romney.
And, of course, Boehner. However, if the POG loses control of the House he's going to lose his own stage.
Ryan only cares about his future so I don't think he sees the loss of the House by Republicans a big issue. He knows he has no chance of getting that bill or anything close to it passed in the current Congress and possibly the next Congress. But if he runs in 2016, he thinks he can be the new Reagan. The only problem is that there are going to be so many Boomers retired and on Medicare, they are not going vote for any plan that pushes them out of Medicare and gives them Coupon Care.
Okay! No body likes the budget. So, can you petition Harry Reid to pass a Senate budget; then, a debate can begin. But then he can't, given Senate rules. With so many vulnerable Dems up for reelection, I guess we just live with trillion dollar deficits forever, especially when the Affordable Healthcare Act's projected deficit has doubled.
it should be the basis for "a conversation," but my question is why no one ever gets to their increase in the DOD budget. The DOD overpaid private contractors between $20-60 BILLION in the first 7 years of our wars; cutting 2 Fighter Jets currently on order would allow every middle-school child in America to get an IPad. The drums of war with Iran are beating so loudly because the DOD needs a war. We could leave ALL the social programs alone if we just audit the DOD!
The Republican plan is to kill everything has gone wrong without fixing any problems.
Lifetime cost of medicine has doubled each decade for 40 years. It was 15% of income in 2010. It will be 30% of income by 2020.
Why?
Look at penicillin.
500mg pills are about $1 each, so 2 week supply is around $20 to $40. Prices have steadily declined over the past 40 years, so this isn't the problem.
The high price is because congress criminalized penicillin to prevent drug abuse, so a prescription is required to block access to antibiotic addicts.
The only problem is that there is no such thing as an antibiotic addict.
Physicians and blood tests cost up to $1,000 to obtain that prescription. The cost of insurance paperwork is responsible for half that cost.
Decriminalizing penicillin will reduce health costs for infections by 90%.
It's not like penicillin is a gateway drug that leads to heroin addiction. Drug stores used to sell penicillin chewing gum when I was a kid.
The US is the only country on the face of the planet that is stupid enough to criminalize penicillin then complain about the high cost of medicine.
There is a slight risk for people that do not know they have a C. Difficile infection, but that happens with or without medical care. Physicians never test for that before proscribing antibiotics, so it's not like the proscription solves a problem. You just stop the antibiotics if you get a stomach ache, use a probiotic, and go to the emergency room for severe problems.
Idiotic drug prohibition laws are the reason for rising medical costs, including Medicare.
I've never seen anyone laying in the gutter strung out on penicillin.
Untreated infections are the leading cause for chronic disease.
Look into how bacteria develop resistance. Requiring a prescription for antibiotics is vitally important for our future.
Learn some science.
So tell me - why does drug resistance make it important to allow diseases to remain untreated?
Your passion is admirable but your claim is utterly false unless you actually believe that physicians should intentionally not treat disease so that the disease organisms can breed and spread without limit.
Sounds pretty stupid when you put it like that.
You posted no research to support your claim.
The following diseases began to grow at epidemic rates at the same time that antibiotics were criminalized by congress during the 1960s following the Row vs. Wade abortion debate.
Insects are a good model for why this is happening.
You can walk into any gas station or grocery store and purchase insecticide. Only dangerous stuff requires a special permit. Insecticides require no permit despite insects having the same kind of resistance phenomenon as bacteria.
Allowing infections to go untested and untreated allows them to spread to other people with no limit just like insects multiply with no insecticide.
The rapid increase with things like diabetes, arthritis, and lupus indicates that this is exactly what is going on.
Nobody says we should let insect infestations get out of control. That is why there is no such thing as insecticide prohibition despite insect resistance to insecticide.
Penicillin and sulfa drugs are safe and resistance is not considered a serious threat. Things like vancomycin and dapsone are used when these fail.
It is illegal to purchase and use throat swabs to check yourself for strep and staph. You have to have a medical license for this despite the fact that these are no more complicated than a pregnancy test and very effective.
You can use throat swab test kits in any pharmacy outside the US. This is against the law in the US.
I've done this in Spain and Mexico before purchasing antibiotics. It costs about $20 for the kit and $20 for the antibiotics.
Penicillin, sulfa, and test kits should be over-the-counter at any drug store with no proscription. The other "stronger medications" should be the only ones that require proscription so physicians can keep track of drug resistant epidemics.
That is how it's supposed to be done.
No physician in the US has ever used a throat swab to test me for infection before proscribing antibiotics. They have no any idea if you have an infection when they proscribe antibiotics. Throat swab kits cost income for each patient so they don't do that.
Failure to test before proscribing is the reason multiple drug resistant bacteria happen.
It costs $200 or more each time you need antibiotics in the US.
The extra $150 cost we pay for medical care in the US does not fix any problem for the same reason that unwanted ultrasounds do not fix any problems..
Your reply is a veritable rogue's gallery of logical fallacies. The primary one is conflating causation and causality (re infection rates), generously assuming your data are even correct. The secondary one is begging the question. Does, or does not, indiscriminate use of antibiotics create antibiotic-resistant strains? Of course it does, but you couldn't either admit or deny it without losing your argument, so you waved your hands a lot instead. And of course there's the analogy with pesticides, which is irrelevant (and I think those should be more tightly regulated as well, so I'm consistent).
I see asking you to learn science is ineffective, as you think you already have. Still, other readers may be misled, so it's a public service to answer you.
I soooo want this to happen, so the Dems can beat the GOP's with economics and market ideology. I would much rather have the hard fight over the direction of the country where there is a progressive alternative, and a campaign to point out GOP failures than I would to win on social issues.
Hee's baaack.Back with the same old budget plan,with a few word's changed here and there. The same tax cuts for billionaire's the same "Death to Medicare"the same corporate welfare tax cuts the same balance the budget on the backs of the poor,middle class and the elderly.Will he never learn there is more than one class of people here in these United States and they are voter's too.
Let's see how the tea party members not in congress feel about how they themselves will pay the cost of their own health care once this budget is passed. I've looked at some of their rallies and know a few members, and they are a health crisis in the making. To start, most are older white men in their 40s-60s. Most are overweight, which is a life long diabetes problem, and insulin is very expensive. Now lets talk about heart disease, and more medication, plus stents. The costs are starting to rise aren't they? So now their congress is proposing to slash spending on them and their families, plus is convincing them to get rid of health care reform. That would throw their 22-26 yr old off their policy, not to mention allowing insurance companies to drop them for pre existing conditions, of which diabetes, and heart disease is. Talk about voting against your own self interest and that of your children and grandchildren! Either this group is not that bright and is easily manipulated, or true believers at the expense of their families future needs.
Well, I just finished reading "The Path to Prosperity" and after going through all that propaganda again (it never seems to change - same schock that was in last year's plan) I STILL cannot figure out where Ryan gets his numbers cause they still just don't make sense!!! It doesn't surprise me at all that the Republicans want to get as far away from that plan as possible!!!!
It really HELPS if you are going to do a budget that you start out with FACTS. Like the statement that the Department of Transportation's spending has increased by 24% (not counting stimulus funds) since Obama's become president. OMB keeps historical numbers so this one I could check. Their outlay was $81490 Million in 2008 (yep, I know, Bush actually set the 2008 budget) - in 2011, their projected outlay was $92960 Million for a difference of $11470 Million, Now 11470/81490 sure doesn't equal 24% by my math! There are LOTS of other "facts" that are wrong in that document which makes you wonder - does this guy even know what he's talking about?
Then there's that LOGIC thing that he just doesn't get like he plans to give Defense $692.5 Billion, but then he's going to take back $178 Billion and then he's going to give back $100 Billion, sooo - is he going to give them $792.5 Billion or is he really going to give them only $614.5 Billion?
Sad though, I think the Republicans are stuck with this plan because the rest of them have been too busy worrying about what goes on in a woman's uterus and vagina than actually doing something useful like figuring out a valid budget with valid numbers!!! I feel SOOOO sorry for them (snort, snort)!!
Was it Rachel Maddow that always lamented the Democrats' incoherence and lack of focus in delivering their messages? Hear what the WH spokesman had to say about the GOP budget.
...the budget "again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility."
This is nothing but a meaningless mumble of words that the average Joe will quickly ignore in favor of something that resonates, presumably from the Republicans. There's a good chance Dems, once again, will lose this debate. debate!!
I agree, the WH's response was really LAME!!! So how about we write one for them?
I'm not a creative person, but here's my shot!
WH: We appreciate all the hard work Paul Ryan has done for the Democratic Party!!
WHy are you allowing Exxon Mobile on your streaming program to run their ads on buliding Keystone Pipeline in an obviously patriotic theme? Have you sold out?
I am surprised to see the Exxon Mobile ad pushing Keystone Pipeline running constantly on your streaming program. From Chevy Volt to this. Have you begun to "sell out" also?