Associated Press
Though participants made no meaningful efforts to negotiate before the elections, President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, and others have been engaged in fiscal talks for about four weeks now -- though at this point, It's no longer clear why they're even bothering.
Boehner visited the White House yesterday for another chat with the president and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but by all indications, everyone is just spinning their wheels. A senior administration official told the New York Times the House GOP leader "has not given on revenue and has not identified any cuts that he wants in exchange for rates." The official added that Republicans "have only moved backwards since the beginning,"
This dovetails with what Greg Sargent reported yesterday.
I spoke this morning to an official familiar with the fiscal cliff talks. He tells me that ever since Republicans rejected the first White House fiscal offer, White House negotiators have been asking Republicans to detail both the spending cuts they want and the loopholes and deductions they would close to raise revenues while avoiding a hike in tax rates for the rich.
According to the official, Republicans continue to refuse to answer. "No answer ever since the Geithner meeting," the official said. "To date they have been unwilling or able to identify a list of specific cuts or changes they would like or a single loophole they are willing to close."
Remember, it's been four weeks. If Republican leaders weren't prepared to come to the table with specific ideas and policy details a few days after the election, that's understandable. But a full month later, with the deadline looming, and with a credible White House plan already presented, all available evidence suggests GOP officials haven't even done the first page of their homework assignment.
They want spending cuts, but won't offer any details as to which ones. They'll accept new revenue, but won't say where it might come from. They want "reforms" to social-insurance programs and entitlements, but won't point to any details.
In the process, we're learning something important about how congressional Republicans think about governing.
There are different schools of thought to explain the GOP's tactics. Maybe Republican leaders are afraid the details of their wish list would be wildly unpopular with the American mainstream. Perhaps they simply lack the policy chops needed to add substantive meat to the rhetorical bones. Maybe Boehner & Co. simply prefer a process in which they tell Obama, "Try to make us happy," and the president keeps offering them concessions in the hopes of guessing what the right will find satisfactory.
It may even be some combination of all of these.
But as Paul Krugman explained yesterday, a pattern has emerged.
Remember that all the Republican budget "plans" of recent years -- very much including the Ryan plan -- have been built largely out of magic asterisks. Even the one real budget cut they've been willing to endorse specifically, savage cuts to Medicaid, involved block-granting and turning it over to states, so that they don't have to specify who, exactly, will be denied medical care. And with Obama dead set against that kind of cut, they have nothing.
We are at a strange and dangerous place in American political life.
In sports, coaches stress the importance of teams learning to do the basics. In football, players need to understand blocking and tackling before they can move on to more advanced plays. In basketball, players need to nail down passing and playing defense before they master the pick and roll or the alley-oop.
And in governing, Republicans need to understand that mutli-trillion -dollar debt-reduction packages require, as a prerequisite, some numbers on the page.
Tick, tock.
Leave a Comment:
Nobody, neither side, want's to "Own" spending cuts on anything,, what a waste of time, money and lack of common sense,,,,,,
Obama already accepted 1.5 trillion in cuts so now it's time for the GOP to pony up and you say "neither side" ?
Read up : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/pain-ahead-if-the-us-goes-off-the-fiscal-cliff.html?hp
I can safely assume these are "cuts" in the rate of growth, yes? Not actual spending decreases. Baseline budgeting and all that?
Blankman - at least the President has offered something, your side has offered nothing of substance, then again that is the GOTP way!
Here's the Republican "plan": we're going over the "cliff." This is their last, best chance to salvage their 30+ years of failed conservative economic ideology. Why? They know Keynes was right in a demand slump. They know we're in a demand slump. They know the "cliff" will cause economic retrenchment. They want to try, once again, to blame it solely on the tax cuts and hope in 2014/16, voters are fooled by it.
They have one goal: to kill the government. This is their last, only chance. It is our duty to stiffen Democratic spines and hold firm. It's going to get very, very nasty.
The GOP has aggressively applied the Election fraud technique of Vote Scrapping to keep Boehner in power. So despite the low poll numbers of congress, despite the low opinion of GOP policies advocated by Boehner, despite the election, the House leader will not bow to the will of the people.
He does this because the GOP is successfully not counting Democratic votes. The method used is ghettoizing Democratic voters so that excess votes are scrapped - and are ineligible for other state congressional representatives.
One response is- "Hey JM get a clue- that's the way the founders set it up." But it isn't. There is no such thing as House districts in the constitution. The Supreme Court has found that states may not use segmentation of the vote to unfairly weight some citizens versus others. In Reynolds v. Sims, the fraud used was to make some districts exceptionally small- some had 150 voters while other districts had 60,000.
There are other ways to segment the vote to scrap the votes of citizens that the ruling party does not care for.
All the constitution says in Article 1, section 2 about the selection of House members is that they be chosen by the people of the state. Clearly, a voice vote is a method of choosing, but would be ruled unconstitutional, if districts with only 151 voters is unconstitutional. Must counting be as fair as technically practical, or does the constitution bar only egregious cases of bad mathematics?
Districting segments the vote resulting in Vote Scrapping. Segmentation of the vote disenfranchises voters whose opinions are in the minority in the district. Yet the constitution says their vote must have equal weight in the selection of House members.
Such Choice voting is used in Cambridge Massachusetts (aka the more poli-sci geeky term "single tranferable vote). Voting is proportional so that if 30% of the voters prefer a conservative city councilperson, 30% of the council will have conservatives- with those chosen being the ones most highly preferred.
Tuesday's segment on House districts gave attention to Holder, but not the tools at his disposal. The Voting Rights act has been severely curtailed in the courts and applies to discrimination based on ethnic group, not political affiliation. If there is a constitutional right to a count of the vote where each vote has equal weight, then it can be easily proved that districting (segmenting a states votes into districts) disenfranchises voters and is therefore unconstitutional.
Perhaps this argument will have to wait until the court's composition is more favorable to rulings such as Reynolds v. Sims. I don't see that Holder has many other tools in his bag. Or am I missing something?
In the meantime, Congress does have the constitutional right to override state practices on how members of Congress are chosen. Article 1, section 4:
They have the power to abolish Vote Scrapping and mandate Cambridge's system. This would require Pelosi to have a firm majority, and would be challenging since it would mandate statewide proportional representation voting and eliminate House districts. Traditional politicians unfamiliar with social media techniques of reaching such state wide constituencies will find this disconcerting, however- for any established politicians with broad popularity, proportional representation will strengthen their hold on their seat. Those who would fear it are parties since choice voting makes party primaries obsolete, and radically curtails the power of party elites.
Negotiations are not about time, unless there is a deadline. Negotiations are about power. Sure, President Obama won re-election and the whole world can cheer. His re-election gives him power, but he does not have absolute power. In our three branch system of government, power resides in the Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. Fortunately, we have a President who understands that. In reality, the President is negotiating with the Koch and Company House of Representatives. I say Koch and Company because they have the power over what the House ultimately will agree to. They have had that power for the last two years and they will have it for the next two. So what the Kochs decide as to how much they want to give up in these negotiations is what will be finally agreed to. The Kochs do not want to go over the fiscal cliff, but they will go right up to the edge of it before they sign off on an agreement.
Power - the Kochs lost some in 2012 when President Obama was re-elected, but they gained more in some states. The Koch-Rove "wedges and win" strategy worked to perfection in at least 24 states that now have Republican legislatures and governors, some of them have super majorities. Thirty states have Republican governors, an increase of 1.
The Kochs and the .1%ers are not just interested in personal, financial gain. They are after power. Look at ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and the damage it has done with "Stand Your Ground" laws, as one example. Power. Power to motivate enough voters to be one of the wedges.
The Kochs are like cancer. They invade a state or a branch of Congress and begin to destroy what has been built up over the years. People cheer when the cancer is defeated in one place -- the President is re-elected, but are horrified when it appears in another -- Michigan right to work law. Make no mistake, the cancer is still alive and spreading.
The Kochs and the .1%ers yell "class warfare" on the tax issue, but what they have actually done is declare war on America. And they have the arsenal to wage it, including owning 80% of all media. They control the vast majority of the media battlefields. The American people do control a few of them: some MSNBC programs, Current TV, Public Broadcasting, but even these do not reach everywhere in the country.
The most certain way to lose a war is to refuse to recognize that there is a war. Believe me, the United States is in a war and the cancerous power of the evil Koch empire is working hard to destroy what we treasure most. So they can have power. We have a leader who has proved that he can win in this war, but it is a civil war and the forces we are up against are formidable. We must defeat this evil empire.
I would add that they own a majority of SCOTUS, as well.
Remember, it's been four weeks.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but as your citation of Krugman implies, it's actually been a couple of years. The fact that an election took place changes nothing about the fact that the GOP will not pony up an actual plan, just a lot of hand-waving about cuts and job creators.
Hand-waving is pretty much all Boehner and the boys are good at.. one thing they aren't good at is working. Not only working with Democrats, but just 'working'
In the previous Congress, the House worked 286 days and the Senate worked 349 days. That Congress passed 383 bills, according to Library of Congress records.
This Congress however... According to a CNN analysis of congressional records that looked at bills that became law and the number of days lawmakers worked, members of the House have spent more than 150 days and Senate just over 140 days in session so far, comparable to previous Congresses at this point in the term.
But of the thousands of measures introduced, only 132 passed both.
About one-fifth of those measures were to approve official names for post offices.
Want to bet most of those were named for Republicans?
I wonder what Boehner and any other Republicans actually say in these negotiation meetings. Do they just sit there and not respond? Do they talk in circles with nothing of of substance uttered? Do they filibuster the meeting and make small talk about the weather or provide non-responsive answers?
Regardless of which it is, since they have provided no specificity on spending cuts or revenue, the White House should be hammering them to the public over this, yet we hear McConnell and Boehner make statements that it's the President that isn't negotiating. I know they're projecting and as usual dishonest, but the headlines state their lies and the articles may or may not point out the truth. I think it would be great, and very damaging to the Republicans, if Obama had a speech that basically quotes this post of Benen's as well as pointing out how they feel it is appropriate to hold the economy hostage over their unknown demands. Their approval ratings might dip in to the single digits.
Brewer - just look at their "press conferences" (pick one) and see exactly what they say - nothing! Bloviating about nothing is still just blowing hot air.....
Don't assume nothing is going on. I suspect Boehner is going through theatrics and does not want to go over the cliff. Obama is not giving up anything with the tax increase on the wealthy. If the House passes the tax cut for the middle class and Republicans get nothing in return, then they have lost one bargaining chip since they get no cuts in spending. Obama is looking for a deal to wrap up the tax cuts and spending cuts with the debt ceiling raised. But Republicans do not want to give up their second bargaining chip. And Obama is saying no deal unless the debt ceiling is included. He is not going to let the Republicans get two bites of the apple when it comes to spending cuts and tax rates. If Republicans refuse the deal, they lose if we go over the "cliff." Obama still has the tax cuts for the wealthy as a bargaining chip which is his only leverage in negotiations. Then Republicans have to negotiate the tax cuts for the wealthy and the spending cuts along with the debt ceiling because the new tax rates and spending cuts are then in effect. Obama is no worse off in negotiations, but Republicans are at a bigger disadvantage with a more Dem Congress and voter anger. Once Obama gives up tax cuts for the wealthy he has no other bargaining chip in dealing with the Republicans.
Until Boehner actually comes up with some concrete proposals that do not include eliminating the tax rate increase, and that do not let the Reptilians destroy Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the President should tell him not to even bother ringing the doorbell on the White House. Boehner hasn't come up with one single proposal that can actually be looked at, and keeps hoping that the President will offer concessions first. The longer Boehner does this, the more foolish the Reptilians look to the voters.
it's rather easy to see that the GOP and Boehner are so afraid of offering specifics that they will do *anything* to avoid it. They do not want the responsiblity of actually defending their viewpoint, being consumate cowards. Mitt Romney did exactly this in the campaign and Boehner et al are trying to do it now.
Well, that would be that "arithmetic'-ey thing again.
Their position is the same one they have had for 80 years "Get rid of the new deal". Just because they haven't managed yet doesn't mean they aren't going to keep trying.
The Republicans in Congress have identified Paul Ryan as the MENSA whiz kid. If that's their idea of really smart, its obvious that they are completely bankrupt of any critical thinking skills let alone negotiating finesse. The Republicans operate at the level of an especially bad tempered toddler who just wants his way - now. The media continues to frame this exchange as a "both sides" blah blah blah. Seriously, there is the side of the American people and then there is the side of purely self serving Republicans who continue to hit their block heads against the same old racist, misogynist, corporate ownership wall. The media is equally to blame for fomenting the idea that Republican are making legitimate, reasoned arguments. Republicans have now reverted to the full out toddler mode in which the answer to everything is "no" accompanied by crying and foot stamping.
Paul Ryan is an empty suit who thinks he's smarter than he really is. He has nothing. He is nothing.
Paul Ryan is a poster child for Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.
and he lied about his running time.
We are in a bad political place, and more than simply me, we, all, will blame the Republican party, its leaders, and its gerrymanderingly elected fellow Republican incumbents in the House and Senate.
We are witnessing a slow and agonizing death of a national political party right before our eyes, and let us hasten such an arrival - vote in 2014 for our future, vote against your local Republican! -Kevo
I wish.
Really hoping that people remember this in 2014, but political memory is historically short term.
That is the fault of Democrats. They need to learn to educate their public and keep the focus on the malignancy of Republican actions.
Half way through the article to which we are replying, I stopped and wrote my pathetice Rep. congressman a rather angry plea to do his job. Since all revenue bills originate in the House the Reps are failing to do their jobs by not even suggesting options. We, in either party should all be outraged and bombard Congress with angry letters. I hope everyone who posts here has already done that.
For the last several years, David Schweikert was my Representative in Congress. Then we gained a congressional seat and the Independent District Commission redrew our district. Now we have Kyrsten Sinema representing us, but not until January 2nd. There really isn't any point to write to Schweikert at this point.
The Republican lack of response reminds me of slimy used car salesmen. You go into a negotiation and tell the dealer (Republicans) you want to buy a used car. They ask what you want to pay and you tell them 25% under sticker price. They say "No, we won't accept that offer." You wait for their counter offer and they stare at you. You then ask "What price do you want me to pay?" and they tell you to come back with another offer. You say "20% under sticker price" and they again say "No" and stare at you. You ask again "What price do you want me to pay?" and they tell you to come up with another price but never counter with what they want. Basically, they want you to own the price you settle on so you can't say they gave you a bad deal. The Repubs don't want to verbalize any cuts that may haunt them later as they run for re-election. Cowards, all of them.
Boehner's press conference yesterday made me so mad I had to mute it. He pulls out a chart made by Paul Ryan. REALLY??? Oh, well, since your wunderkind drew it, it must be accurate, and unbiased....smh.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/republicans-marriage-fight-price-tag-heads-to-2
And they want the American people to believe they are the ones who want to reduce spending?
Obama has been trying to compromise, time and time again, while these Repo men only want to have things their way. Enough!!! Now, they don't want to give aid to to hurricane victims either, without further spending cuts. What if all the cuts, to give aid, come out of programs, earmarked for thier states? These Repo men are a plague upon our nation. May their thoughts, words, and deeds, be done unto them. Amen
The Orange One's gavel might be in danger...according to their side.
Not sure if that is good or bad, any speculation who might replace him?
Eric Cantor looks "lean & hungry" to me.
Then on top of everything else, they take off for a 4 day wkend!!! They have had countless 2 day wks now for 2 yrs. Something has just got to be done...
First, and foremost, I look at this as a complete failure by the mainstream media. I used to think that they were just cowed by the corporate ownership and need to make a profit and, above all, fear of being called "biased" if they dared point out that the GOP has ceased to be a political party in the traditional American sense of the word. But, increasingly, I'm coming around to the view that they're just too poorly-educated and too historically illiterate to see a problem.
Republicans no longer see governing as having anything to do with politics, no longer see themselves as good faith participants in the project of government, and are, quite literally, institutionally incapable of drafting a meaningful proposal with actual numbers and policy details because they are no longer interested in governing. The Republican Party has degenerated into a nihilistic insurgency. They live by bumpersticker slogans and ideas that can be stated in their entirety on Twitter and the idea that those slogans have to be translated into detailed policy proposals just doesn't compute, because it presupposes that they're actually interested in accomplishing something. Building a house requires a detailed plan. Renovating a house requires a detailed plan. Demolishing a house just takes a wrecking ball and some general guidelines about where to start.
And, despite that, to people like David Gregory and Jake Tapper there's nothing even slightly out of the ordinary going on in American politics today, and no meaningful difference between the two parties.
If you used to think the media was bending to corporate pressure, what do you think now?
By and large, and with notable exceptions, I think they're just dumb. They're a bunch of people who pride themselves on how smart and savvy and in the know they are who are, in fact, dumber than a sack of rocks.
I think we have a generation of "journalists" dominated by people who majored in broadcast communications or grooming some such thing rather than journalism or history or English. People who went to schools where you can graduate without ever once writing a term paper or taking a math class. People who got their training in what the news business is all about at local television stations covering bodies and badges and cute little kids messily eating ice cream rather than at newspapers (which ain't what they used to be themselves).
I think we have a generation of "journalists" who are just so totally, abysmally ignorant of what came before them, that they can't see when something is unusual, or even dangerously out of whack, because they have no frame of reference. A generation whose ignorance is reinforced by an incentive system that rewards them for generating content to fill up the time between commercials rather than serving the function that led the Founders to give them special protection and sanction in the very first amendment added to the Constitution.
I think in all the things that matter, the things that would make them worthy of the position they've been put in as an institution, they're just pig-ignorant dumb.
You can't put that much blame on the media in general. What is frightening are the numbers of people who thrive on the angry, inaccurate words of Rush and O'Reilly.
Remember, Sarah Palin got a degree in Broadcast Journalism after attending 5 colleges. She finally achieved her goal at that bastion of journalistic excellence known as the University of Idaho. I suppose that makes here just as qualified as Chuck Todd or Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, but they're spinning this so well over on Fox. To hide the fact that House Republicans are standing up for the rich against a president trying to save the economy, they're spinning themselves as some sort of heros trying to slow a "demanding" spend-crazy president.
Is the President's message getting to the people?
A hypothesis: The Republican't party decision long ago to implement rigid "message control" on all candidates and office holders from President to dog-catcher (everybody spouts the party line at the same time, like robots) has had an upside for them, the Big Lie has become a daily dose of disinformation for the population as a whole, magnified by right-wing net and mass media. But now we discern an unexpected downside, a whole generation of politicians at all levels who have been forbidden to think for themselves. The only people who would've happily gone into politics as professional hand-puppets are air-heads, who think "prestigious hand-puppet" is something to be proud of. Hence, a party of attractive air-heads, who can parrot talking points brilliantly and get elected, but can't solve a problem worth a damn. "Idea" is not even in their dictionary. The party of stupid is not an accident, but a byproduct of an authoritarian mind-set.
Your hypothesis is about to be proven correct..again
What they want is to cut entitlements but they dont want to bring it up. They want Obama to suggest entitlements because whoever presses for it will pay for it in 2014. That is why Boehner is saying Obama needs to come back with an offer that will pass. Boehner needs to come back with an offer that he wants, but of course the crowd will boo the guy out of the building.
What is truly incredible is how wonderfully well it's worked for the insubstantial r's. They are butt naked and shaking it in everybody's face, but they consistently put liberals on the defensive and arguing with them(our)selves and making unnecessary concessions by constantly offering nothing and asking for more.
It's been a startling revelation to hear Obama and prominent Dems standing their ground and saying they've had enough of this nothingness and no ground will be ceded to the whining r's who bring f-all to the table.
The hollow r's have built a fortress out of a house of cards. It's incredibly lame on the part of Dems/Progressives to be as buffaloed by this ethereal B.S. as they have been.
The budget cuts and the revenue increases have already been identified and signed into law. It's called Sequestration and the end of the Bush tax cuts.
Done and done.
Added bonus: It will take us longer to hit the debt ceiling, so Obama has more time to mint those trillion-dollar platinum coins.
--------
If the GOP didn't like that deal, they should have stuck around and settled a better one last year. Or now.
They don't want spending cuts, they want attention and hostages, mostly attention to their ever shrinking significance.. They should be hooked up to Old Sparky along with any Democrat that listens to them.
Isn't that strange, this is not what I have been reading at all....completely different stories. Somehow, as one-sided as Rachael typically is, I just don't buy her crap...gee, I wonder why. If she EVER put out a post that was non-biased, I might even start believing what is posted here. She is not capable of being that person...a bigot, through and through. Maybe you all might want to check it out for yourselves from another source...just to prove that she is right, or maybe get an different perspective. But, wait, that would be called...thinking. Good luck with that.
Respectfully, would you be kind enough to detail the source or sources of information you do trust?
MsFerg's first comment on this site seems like a generic blurb that she can post on any article on the blog to troll it. Just like the repubs in this story, it provides no specifics. MsFerg makes it seem as if she's read quite a few of the posts on this blog, yet has failed to read the bylines. If she had she would have seen that Rachael has NEVER put out a post; but apparently her hatred of Rachael is all-consuming and that's all that matters to her. Now, what's it called when you try to belittle people, but you're the one that's guilty of being ignorant?
Evidently so all-consuming that she doesn't realize "Steve Benan" is an actual person who is not the same person as Rachel Maddow.
Your girlfriends in Stepford are calling for you, you ignorant bimbo.
Why not try this approach in finding a solution for the Fiscal Cliff stalemate:
Give .5 year of increase in the Medicare eligibility age for each 1 point increase in the tax rate increase on incomes over $250,000
Re: #19
Raising the Medicare eligibility age is - at best - a long term solution.
The people it negatively affects are those who are not insured (hopefully ACA will help with this) who are getting older and sicker and are just trying to hang on until Medicare kicks in. If you force them to wait longer, then they will just be that much older and sicker - and more expensive.
So think of something else to tie tax rate increase to.
Not only that, it doesn't fairly affect the issue of different American demographics receiving Medicare and SSI.
The average lifespan of African American males is still in the area of 65 years.
A raise in the eligibility age to asy 67 continues the unfair practice of African American males not receiving any return on the years we donate to the fund from our taxes.
Re: #19.2
@kappa - very true! Another example of why just raising eligibility age as a solution to fiscal challenges is just WRONG!!!
Same goes for Social Security!
Why not try this approach in finding a solution for the Fiscal Cliff stalemate:
Give .5 year of increase in the Medicare eligibility age for each 1 point increase in the tax rate increase on incomes over $250,000
Wow, there was TWO of us who voted for Obama in AL! Look out, we'll turn the South blue yet...lol
I don't think Alabamo voted for Obama.
Or how about this?
DEcrease the Medicare eligibility age 1 year for every 1% increase in the marginal tax rate for those making at or above $250K? After the Bush tax cuts expire for those same higher-earning folks, that is.
Let's continue to make Medicare and Medicaid join Social Security on the "third rail" of American politics.
gee...another gelded GOP hack out in the hinterland hating any and all successful women. SURPRISE! GET A LIFE, FERGIE
I'm fairly certain that not many people care about a small rural protest in the northwest TN. Just as most people don't care that my congressman, Stephen Fincher, was named "most corrupt" by Crew. But they threatened us and I had to get it off my chest because I'm furious. They threatened to beat us up. They wouldn't allow us to assemble as a group. They wouldn't allow the press to record video, audio or take pictures. They threatened a group of mostly middle aged women - said they would "kick the dog sh!t" out of us. We were there because we don't want out taxes to go up - and the threatened us. Welcome to the New South.
http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Residents-Protest-Outside-Congressman-Finchers-Office-183433471.html
This focus on cuts, cuts, cuts, and especially 'painful' cuts that the GOP wants to inflict on the less well-off really makes me begin to question their psychological profile. Sadists, anyone?
I have an idea. If you voted Republican You should be the one that get your medicaid/Social Security/Right to work changed. They are true patriots who are more than willing to give up small things such as healthcare and retirement to make this country great!
Why is anyone surprised that the Reds can't come up with any positive proposals?
They controlled the House, Senate, and Administration for six years. Did they cut spending? Nope. So much for "starve the beast." All they could come up with was the unfunded Medicare Part D and two wars.
They've defined themselves since my late mother was a toddler by opposition to whatever Democrats wanted. And after Clinton, Democrats didn't want anything that they could oppose other than Obamacare -- which was based on a Republican plan.
That leaves them with nothing but bile, and all you can make with bile is gallstones.
To #25 - regarding unfunded Medicare Part D - My understanding is the Republicans refuse to even discuss allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs....if Republicans were serious about saving money..this would be a great place to start....and the only pain felt would be by the drug companies losing their oversize profits.....Oh, yeah, now I see why there is no talk on that subject.