What to expect from a Republican House
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-11-08/what-expect-republican-house
House speaker-in-waiting Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, talks to the media, after the elections, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2010.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Ohio Congressman John Boehner is expected to be the next Speaker of the House. A panel of journalists joins Diane to discuss the challenges he faces within the Republican party and the possibilities for compromise with the Obama Administration.
Guests
Todd Purdum
national editor, "Vanity Fair"
Major Garrett
congressional correspondent, National Journal
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
What do you think about the new House Majority Whip, Eric Cantor's new YouCut website, where, first on the list of government programs he'd like to cut, is federal funding for NPR?
It was a pretty laughable site when I last checked it out yesterday. Are we really to believe the republicans suddenly care about responsible budgeting, just two years after a near decade of debt-generating tax rates and rampant spending under Bush? The NPR part was especially corny if you understand how little federal funding contributes to most individual stations or programs.
The YouCut site is nearly the definition of "manufactured consent" with the top ten ideas being chump-change red meat for the republican base - along with anything about defunding the deficit-reducing PPACA. If they wanted to get serious about fixing the books, they'd raise taxes progressively and cut defense first, then look for savings in SS and Medicare, THEN sort other programs by total cost and potential practical savings. Considering that it's the republican party, they will argue that defense spending is a sacred cow which should only grow, while Medicare and Social Security can't be touched in any way which might have an effect on today's seniors.
After those four main items (Taxes first, then Defense, then SS + Medicare), we can talk about federal public transit subsidy and AEITC and all the other small-time items they want to gut.
Realistically though, big-ticket and popular programs are off the table for the republicans, so expect any "fiscal responsibility" to come in the form of deregulation by a thousand funding cuts to our agencies and their enforcement arms. Whee - I can't wait for our toxic consumables, toxic toys, toxic rivers, and toxic work environments to return. It's been a couple of years and I was starting to miss them! Good thing you all might possibly shave $200B off the deficit this year, guys! Thumbs up!
The back and forth about the budget seems to be more about punishing the Democrats for their political philosophy than about actually arriving at a sensible budget. The Republican party has become the party of retribution, losing all right to being considered the party of respected conservatism. Republicans have also been, of course, the party of the big spenders.
I wish there were a way to have these discussions be less "inside the beltway." We are a country in which only 1/3 the population is college educated, where over 40% do not speak English as their first language, and where people's reality is around (these days) which bills they will pay and which they can postpone. Washington feels irrelevant. A "bring in change" vote is not a mandate for any policy, but a sign of frustration.
The party that controlled the white house and had a rubber stamp congress for 6 years gave us 2 wars and the worst financial crisis will do what now? So now all of a sudden they are for the people! Gimme a break. Everything that is done for... the people by the dems is considered "hateful social welfare" by these demogogues. Now they are for the people? Excuse me!
This election was not won by the people. It was won by big businesses and the US chamber of commerce and for the sole reason that they were afraid that they would have to be accountable for their shenanigans if the government started probing deeper into their affairs. They could have avoided this in the first place if they had been more forthcoming and respectful.
And for those who toot their horns against social welfare (granted that not all of it is good) can you explain why you are not against corporate welfare? What has corporations trickled down on you lately that you like so much? High prices? Low wages? Scandles? Coming begging for money from the feds after screwing up royally?
Also for everyone who thinks that Obama and dems screwed up. You need to lighten up a bit. Obama is a leader in times of one of the worst ever turmoil that US has seen. People make mistakes doing mundane things. Running a country US is not a joke especially when the sole purpose of the opposition is to see you fail regardless of what happens to the country.
Obama should stay his course and only make changes that are really needed and appropriate without buckling down to pressure from the media loudmouths and right wing failures.
Finally if anyone expects anything different from the right they are really misguided because the right is still run by the same failures. To name a few Karl Rowe, Tom Delay, Dick Armey... They will pander to big money at the expense of the people of the USA...
As an Independent, I personally don’t expect anything from the republicans….for almost two years they’ve shown nothing but contempt for the President, the middle class and this country. Unfortunately their politics of race baiting and fear mongering seems to work on an ignorant proletariat. These people are not serious about dealing with the real problems confronting this country. As an Independent I can never vote for a party that want to turn America into a third world country..nor could I vote for a party that’s too spineless to stand up against republicans.
We need real leadership to deal with real problems…..not their typical rhetoric
If the Democrats call the Republicans on the tax cuts by for the very wealthy by banning those wealthy from taking big chunks of their tax cuts and just lending it back to the government--so no govt bonds for those who who get big tax cuts--, will the Republicans give up this ploy?
Daniel from Washington, DC
The Bush Tax Cuts need to expire; immediately for the wealthiest 1%, a year later for the next tax bracket, and three or four years for the next tax brackets. How many Americans would agree to keeping the tax cuts for the top 1% with the knowledge that we will borrow trillions to make up for the loss of tax revenue for the wealthy. I am sickened that I will pay for the wealthiest to acquire more wealth at my expense. The Republican are more focused on getting rid of President Obama and taking care of the rich that they will bring down the rest of us. I did not vote for one Republican this year because of my local Republicans allowing women's health care to be cut while sustaining tax breaks for the rich. The Republicans lost my vote because of their war against our President and the middle class.
Ditto!!!
Name: Don
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
How about a strategic review of government like New Zealand did in the late 80's; as did Sweden and the UK back then and then in 2010.
We need to think what are the core competencies of the USA government like:
- social and healthcare safety nets with corporate insurance / retirement above the safety net
- Justice
- Education
- Safety and defense
Any other items like R&D, NPR, etc. may need to be transitioned over time (5 - 7 years).
Items like Defense needs to be drastically scaled back, and we need China, India, Brazil and other countries to take a bigger stake in the UN and other global organizations, whether we like those political realities.
The number of American's who don't speak English as a first language is not 40%. Also, this number is different from the number of American's who speak another language at home.
Here's another DR Show with not one mention of corporate responsibility to do their fair share to help their country. What I hear is every panelist talking about jobs, but never one talking about corporate responsibility to put patriotism ahead of profits and stop firing people. There is a backlash against both corporations that don't do their fair share and media that won't talk fairly. Republicans - don't want the government involved? Good - then time for corporate responsibility to take up the slack and help their country.
The number of Americans who don't speak English as a first language is not 40%. I'm not sure what the number is, but it's lower than 40%. Also, the statistic of "Americans who don't speak English as a first language" is different from the number of "Americans who speak another language at home."
My husband and I live outside of Rochester New York. The most we ever made, as a teacher and cabinetmaker, was about 72,000. Instead of trillions, could someone break the tax increases down with real life numbers? I would happily pay a dollar or 2/day to help pay the debt down--EVEN though collectively we have both been unemployed for the last 3 years and are now seriously underemployed- How much are we talking-really?
Thanks-
Grace
Grace,
Sorry about your situation. What angers me is that while you want to help out with the debt of the country, Republicans are making sure that wealthy people can lend money to the government to make a profit with money from the tax breaks. That is a major reason Republicans want deficits--it represents the money that instead of paying in taxes to get to a balanced budget, they just loan back that money to the government in the form of government bonds and T-Bills.
I would demand that wealthy getting tax breaks no longer able to invest any of their money in government debt. It is a sick joke on most people that Republicans always make sure that there are deficits no matter what they say. Bush did the tax cuts with Republicans saying we were paying down our debt to quickly. No wonder, the wealthy needed the safe investments for their portfolio.
Daniel
I know this is a tired recommendation, however I hardly hear anything about it. Why not cut some, or a large portion, of the budget given to the "War on Drugs". Instead threatening people with cutting medicare, education, social security, etc., why isn't cutting funding to the DEA, DARE, NIDA, or Partnership for a Drug Free America. It has been shown many times over that many of these programs do not reduce drug usage, but bleed millions to billions of dollars? If we are seriously looking at cutting education (which has not been doing the best in this country), shouldn't we be looking at cutting education as an absolute last resort?
Every year, proposed changes are always the same. When is someone going to REALLY look at cutting wasteful programs? I know some people believe that the previously mentioned programs are helpful and important, but compared side by side with education and healthcare, the DEA, DARE, Partnership for A Drug Free America, and NIDA lose.
The drum beat of the Republicans is to cut spending, cut taxes and make permanent Bush's tax cuts. Couldn't you ask how the Republicans plan to pay for the tax cuts. Give concrete and specific plans for revenue to pay for the tax cuts. I support our President to allow the tax cuts to expire unless they have a plan for paying for the tax cuts. If that means he will be a one term president to work for the American People, so be it. Our President needs to stand up to the Republicans and their misleading statements, as Perlstein wrote this morning, that the mainstream media is not "correcting their misleading statements," and actually being co-conspirators, not unlike the mainstream media support for the run up to the war. Please NPR, can't you have stronger guests to stand up to the likes of a Major Garrett, or at least economic experts who can convince the American people of these huge errors, and allow enough time to adequately present the issues.
Lady Justice,
I agree with your point that the Republican doesn't make sense for fixing the deficit, until you realize it is in the benefit of the wealthy. Bush put in the tax cuts and the arguments included that the debt was going down too quickly. Remember the government needs to borrow money and that it create bonds and TBills to fund deficit spending. So the money that the wealthy do not pay in taxes, they can just lend it instead and make a profit on it. Just imagine if you could avoid taxes by just lending the government money. It is that simple.
So, where arguments about deficits loses is that the wealthy depend on government debt.
How to catch them in their lie is to just tell them, wealthy can not both get tax cuts (supposedly to grow the economy) and buy or carry government debt.
And I wish like you said that Diane Rehm would have a guest on that could actually argue rather than repeat same old stuff.
Daniel
The rich pay big bucks to hire bright minds to work in "think tanks."
They buy up radio and television and newspaper media.
The think tanks are basically advertising agencies who develop strategies to manipulate the public, including producing the "talking point."
The talking point is short, catchy, and meant to arouse some primal emotion; for example: "Barak Obama is a Muslim" or "Don't allow medical socialism to take over." Or "The government is the problem."
These catch phrases are repeated ad nauseum until a majority believes them without thinking, just as companies try to make you believe Sprite is better than say Dr. Pepper.
Big money is spent finding and funding candidates that will mouth these jingos.
Then the corporate media belt out the slogans, and corporate money funds attack ads at anything they don't like, especially any politician who is for any kind of regulation or taxing (which gets in the way of making more money).
The issues get lost. Those who encourage public discussion are called "elites." Encouraging public discussion does not benefit the corporate interest.
Those who get in the way of the big green machine get eliminated. Casualties include Elliott Spitzer (whistle blower on fraudulent businesses like Enron), Russ Feingold (primary voice for campaign finance reform), and prospectively Barak Obama (proponent of national health care who threatens to cancel tax cuts for the rich).
Big money wants you to believe in privatizing... everything, and that outsourcing jobs ("free trade") will help our economy, and that government (that provides education and enforces environmental regulations, and offers retirement funds) is too big, and if we just get rid of government and let the rich run free that the profits will "trickle down."
And we're waiting, in the rain of soudbites, for just one drop.
Questions that I want the Republican party to answer:
Where did the money go?
1. on 9/10/01 Sec. of Defence Rumsfeld was being questioned by a committee about the missing 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of the Pentagon
2. 2004-2007 unaccounted 8.7 BILLION DOLLARS missing in Iraq.
3. we give 3 BILLION Dollars every year to Israel and they have Universal Health Care
4. 2008 it was reported that 1 TRILLION was missing in Iraq.
As Billy, said: "But WAIT! Theres more!"
Where did the money go?
It's clear that the Republicans only want the power in the United States and not necessarily to do anything more than enrich their bank accounts or those of their friends and allies. Karl Rove (Rogue) proved campaigning to win was all that he cared about within the Bush administration to satisfy the rich. Fellow Republicans are following suit.
Why or why do the media not challenge the idea of "how low" we have come as reflected in Mitch McConnell's declaration that his single most important concern is to defeat President Obama in 2012? McConnell was not elected a senator to do that! Yet, the press just "report" by repeating the low standards they see politicians practicing. I want a media that would investigate and expose how the self-serving politicians (and their corporate buddies) are destroying the U.S.
Am I exaggerating? Just recall who caused the financial meltdown and ask where the accountability is.
When those with the microphone, such as Diane's guests, defer to the unhealthy status quo, without question, they diminish the possibility for change and the opportunities for future generations, and they reduce themselves to puppets not press.
Hi. I'm Noton, and I'm a 2%er.
While my earnings are high, (.5mm+) so is my tax burden. Since I fall under the "minimum alternative tax" rule, my deductions all disappear. Without deductions, my effective rate skyrockets. My overall tax rate (fed,state,county,city,blah,blah,blah) is over 50%. That, by any measure, is a "fair share".
I think the ire I hear towards "the wealthy" and "the top 2%" may be misdirected. I drive a 2002 work truck. I buy my clothes at Wal-Mart. I think paying $4.00 for a bottle of Charles Shaw is an extravagance. Since I have a dumpster at my company, I haul the trash from home instead of paying for two pickups. My take-home pay is $500.00 a week.
So, If I don't spend the money, where does it go? In the bank? Under my mattress? No, it goes back into the company I've been nurturing for 25 years. Back into machines and people, wages and benefits, bonuses and paid time off. The company is now worth some real money, but unless I sell it before I die, it will be crushed by taxes, with the feds and county stepping in to demand half of the assets upon my death, and leaving many families without income.
The place to look is not at the high earners who pay tax on earned income. Look UNDER the rug at those (like hedge funds) who get taxed under special exemptions that allow them to earn billions a year in ordinary income and pay only 15%.
Nough said, ya'll can go back to trashing the rich now ;)