U.S. Politics 19

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Coco, I am glad you remarked on the budget. Ezra Klein has a very informative post today about how and why the budget process is so tortuous. My favorite part?

Yup. People have this idea that there's a giant chunk of the federal budget labeled, "Useless Crap." Truly useless spending has no constituency, and as Klein points out, wouldn't have survived very long. For example, those of us in Pennsylvania might think that spending on a Woodstock museum is useless, but I'll bet the New York construction workers who are going to make money building it would disagree. So would the folks who own the local diner that will feed the people who will visit said museum.

I recommend reading this post. Klein's I mean, not mine.

I agree with that, which is why claims to cut the deficit by cutting "waste" are pointless. A realistic view of spending reductions means cutting programs that are popular. If you're not willing to do that, you're not going to solve the problem.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Daniels also called for a truce on social issues.

It went over as well as you'd think it would.

It didn't go over well with the hard core social activists, but you don't need them to win the nomination. It goes over very well with the rest of the party, including the libertarian wing, and any Tea Partiers who are not hard core social conservatives. At worst, Daniels appeals to the same constituency as Romney, plus all the people Romney lost either because of RomneyCare or because of his religion. Not to mention that Romney actually took non-conservative positions on social issues, including abortion, whereas Daniels just says that he doesn't plan on making his conservative positions on those issues a priority. Certainly, Daniels is more conservative than McCain, who pissed off wide swaths of the conservative base with his position on immigration and some other issues. Yet, that didn't stop McCain from winning the nomination in 2008.

The thing I personally like about what Daniels said is that it doesn't do the GOP any good to beat Obama if you're not going to make some big-time changes after you win, and that requires addressing entitlements and other popular programs. I'm not really enthused about voting for someone who isn't willing to address those issues up front in the campaign season. Because unless you're willing to campaign on somethign that controversial, you will have zero chance to get it enacted once election.

[TrackerNeil]

Certainly, Daniels is more conservative than McCain, who pissed off wide swaths of the conservative base with his position on immigration and some other issues. Yet, that didn't stop McCain from winning the nomination in 2008.

McCain was playing a different game. I understand that, in 2012, Republicans will use a proportional allocation of delegates, similar to what the Democrats have been using for some time, instead of first-past-the-post. I am not certain that McCain would have won in such a scenario, but because of winner-take-all rules he could win with a plurality while Huckabee and Romney split the majority between them. I think proportional allocation makes for a longer race, but ensures that the nominee is more popular generally.

Maybe Daniels is that guy - I haven't studied him very much - but I don't think he can win in 2012 just because McCain won in 2008.

[TrackerNeil]

Depts of Education, Commerce, and HUD should all be dissolved. Useless crap.

Before I double down on what Markos said, let me point out that those departments do not make up a large portion of the federal budget. Even if you eliminated funding entirely, you wouldn't be saving very much. It's like trying to balance your household budget by cutting out purchases of toothpicks.

Oh, and blahblahblahblah.

[TrackerNeil]

That sounds like something that David Frum would say.

Yeah, and we see what happens to the David Frums of the Republican Party.

[Shryke]

It didn't go over well with the hard core social activists, but you don't need them to win the nomination. It goes over very well with the rest of the party, including the libertarian wing, and any Tea Partiers who are not hard core social conservatives. At worst, Daniels appeals to the same constituency as Romney, plus all the people Romney lost either because of RomneyCare or because of his religion. Not to mention that Romney actually took non-conservative positions on social issues, including abortion, whereas Daniels just says that he doesn't plan on making his conservative positions on those issues a priority. Certainly, Daniels is more conservative than McCain, who pissed off wide swaths of the conservative base with his position on immigration and some other issues. Yet, that didn't stop McCain from winning the nomination in 2008.

The thing I personally like about what Daniels said is that it doesn't do the GOP any good to beat Obama if you're not going to make some big-time changes after you win, and that requires addressing entitlements and other popular programs. I'm not really enthused about voting for someone who isn't willing to address those issues up front in the campaign season. Because unless you're willing to campaign on somethign that controversial, you will have zero chance to get it enacted once election.

Except you DO need the socially conservative base to win the nomination and Romney has been running to the Right for awhile because of this. It's just Romney is so smarmy, no one trusts him when he says he's really conservative now.

[TrackerNeil]

Except you DO need the socially conservative base to win the nomination and Romney has been running to the Right for awhile because of this. It's just Romney is so smarmy, no one trusts him when he says he's really conservative now.

At this point, does that even matter? Mitt Romney has changed position on so many social issues (abortion, gay rights, UHC), over many years, that it's hard to imagine that anyone really cares anymore. Those who are inclined to vote for him will find a justification for doing so, and those who demand philosophical consistency...well, they were never going to vote for Mitt anyway.

[Shryke]

Here's more on the budget proposal btw: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/obama-budget-proposal-cut_n_822689.html

It's hilarious hearing peolpe bitch about the costs since a HUGE chunk of the increase in deficit is due to the tax cuts. $800 billion in fact, although I can't find whether that's over per year or over the 2 years of the extension.

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that as a result of the tax cut deal, the projected deficit in Obama's budget will reach a "record" level of $1.6 trillion this year, though that figure, relative to the size of the American economy, is far lower than many other governments around the world, according to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency. And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity. "President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal projects this year's deficit will reach $1.6 trillion, the largest on record, as December's tax-cut deal begins to reduce federal revenues, a senior Democrat said Sunday," the Journal reported Sunday evening. (The deficit is only a record if it is neither adjusted for inflation nor considered relative to the size of GDP.)

Meanwhile, those massive increases in the deficit are being off-set by some nasty cuts.

The big thing, of course, is this:

The president's budget was expected to mostly target "non-defense discretionary spending," which makes up less than one-quarter of the overall budget, making balancing the budget with such cuts mathematically impossible.

Everyones bitching about the ocean being too wet while dicking around in the kiddy pool.

[Shryke]

Oh yeah, there's also this gem:

President Obama's FY 2012 budget provides $939 million to "continue the expansion of VA services for homeless and at-risk veterans. These funds will combat veteran homelessness through collaborative partnerships with local governments, non-profit organizations, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Labor."

In contrast, the Republicans' "continuing resolution" proposal would cut $75 million from a joint program with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that offers housing vouchers to homeless veterans, effectively killing the program.

Republicans: Pro-War, Anti-People-Who-Fight-Them

Obama just released his budget.

He projects a 50% increase in revenue over the next two years, from 2.174t in 2011 to 3t in 2013.

What the, I don't even...

Can you supply a link for this? I can't find any statement on this anywhere.

The only thing on revenue raising I'm finding is increases on taxes to rich people, oil companies and large financial institutions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/obama-budget-proposal-cut_n_822689.html#19_obama-plans-modest-tax-hikes-on-wall-street-oil-companies-and-the-rich

[Shryke]

At this point, does that even matter? Mitt Romney has changed position on so many social issues (abortion, gay rights, UHC), over many years, that it's hard to imagine that anyone really cares anymore. Those who are inclined to vote for him will find a justification for doing so, and those who demand philosophical consistency...well, they were never going to vote for Mitt anyway.

It's not about consistency. Republican voters ignore massive gaps in consistency on a minute by minute basis. They have to.

It's about image. You can change positions as long as you really look like you mean it and, at least back in 2008, Romney didn't. He had alot of problems on that front as I recall. People thought he looked smarmy and opportunistic. It's fine to BE that, you just can't look it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except you DO need the socially conservative base to win the nomination

No you don't. McCain was not popular among social conservatives, and neither was Romney. Yet they were the top two vote getters in the primary. Huckabee, the true "social conservative" guy in 2008, came in third, with only 20%.

Daniels is a social conservative. All he's said is that those issues will not be his focus in running. While there may be some truly hardline social conservatives for whom that will be a deal breaker, a great many social conservatives are also small government/economic types who know you can only jump on one grenade at a time. While that may mean that Daniels core base within the party won't be social conservatism like Huckabee, that doesn't mean some of those folk won't support him anyway if they view him as good on other issues. Again, the idea that social conservativism is the determining factor in every GOP primary just isn't true.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's more on the budget proposal btw: http://www.huffingtonpost. Everyones bitching about the ocean being too wet while dicking around in the kiddy pool.

That's exactly Daniels' point, Shryke. He's the one Republican who has come front and center and said we have to go after the entitlements. Now, you obviously dislike him for a lot of reasons, and clearly want to increase taxes as well. But Daniels, at least, is in the deep end.

[awesome possum]

No, I mean win.

Well then prepare to be disappointed. He won't even be the nominee.

Oh, I think there's a good chance you'll get at least half your wish. Governor Mike Pence may not be what you have in mind though.

Oooh, that's even better. Let that complete and utter tool drive the state even further towards destruction so that people here finally realize the GOP is made up of charlatans.

Daniels is a social conservative. All he's said is that those issues will not be his focus in running. While there may be some truly hardline social conservatives for whom that will be a deal breaker, a great many social conservatives are also small government/economic types who know you can only jump on one grenade at a time. While that may mean that Daniels core base within the party won't be social conservatism like Huckabee, that doesn't mean some of those folk won't support him anyway if they view him as good on other issues. Again, the idea that social conservativism is the determining factor in every GOP primary just isn't true.

We'll see about that when Sarah-PAC is putting out ads questions Daniels's credibility about aborting mentally retarded babies on crack or something equally stupid.

[Commodore]

No you don't. McCain was not popular among social conservatives, and neither was Romney. Yet they were the top two vote getters in the primary. Huckabee, the true "social conservative" guy in 2008, came in third, with only 20%.

Daniels is a social conservative. All he's said is that those issues will not be his focus in running. While there may be some truly hardline social conservatives for whom that will be a deal breaker, a great many social conservatives are also small government/economic types who know you can only jump on one grenade at a time. While that may mean that Daniels core base within the party won't be social conservatism like Huckabee, that doesn't mean some of those folk won't support him anyway if they view him as good on other issues. Again, the idea that social conservativism is the determining factor in every GOP primary just isn't true.

It also helps with those voters that Daniels is a social conservative, even if he thinks those issues should be secondary.

It's not like he's Giuliani (although the history between Daniels and his wife is interesting).

[Shryke]

That's exactly Daniels' point, Shryke. He's the one Republican who has come front and center and said we have to go after the entitlements. Now, you obviously dislike him for a lot of reasons, and clearly want to increase taxes as well. But Daniels, at least, is in the deep end.

And the chances of him touching the defence budget?

Yeah, not taking him any more seriously then any other "budget hawk".

[Shryke]

No you don't. McCain was not popular among social conservatives, and neither was Romney. Yet they were the top two vote getters in the primary. Huckabee, the true "social conservative" guy in 2008, came in third, with only 20%.

Actually McCain was lagging early and only surged to a win later in the race because of the winner-take-all aspect of the primaries. The man was not popular with the base and essentially defaulted into the win (with the help of Huckabee deliberately playing the spoiler for Romney).

The primaries aren't as simple as popular/not-popular and this primary will be even less so.

The Tea Party will also throw a huge wrench into the works and judging by 2010, they are very much about being as far to the right as humanely possible.

Daniels is a social conservative. All he's said is that those issues will not be his focus in running. While there may be some truly hardline social conservatives for whom that will be a deal breaker, a great many social conservatives are also small government/economic types who know you can only jump on one grenade at a time. While that may mean that Daniels core base within the party won't be social conservatism like Huckabee, that doesn't mean some of those folk won't support him anyway if they view him as good on other issues. Again, the idea that social conservativism is the determining factor in every GOP primary just isn't true.

It's still a large factor though. And it doesn't matter if they are his focus, they will be his opponents focus. They will hammer him on it.

[Commodore]

Everything I said is in the budget itself. You can search for the actual numbers (2.174 or whatever) inside the pdf. I had a link from WSJ, but it won't work off campus so you should find it on the website.

It's a trillion dollars in new revenues over two years, more than any other year on the projected budget. Not sure what math went into that.

It's based on high economic growth projections for next year.

Of course, as zero hedge pointed out, they can always get the fed to monetize the debt and close the gap that way.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And the chances of him touching the defence budget?

Yeah, not taking him any more seriously then any other "budget hawk".

He's already said defense needs to be cut, and wants to reexamine overseas military committments. Of course, you're free to not take him seriously on either that or entitlements, but we can't know whether any candidate will actual follow through until after the election. But at least at this point, he's raising controversial issues that other GOP candidates aren't willing to touch.

[Shryke]

A nice graph of the budget: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html?hp

I just noticed yet more nice big cuts to the IRS in the top Right corner.

/headdesk

[Shryke]

He's already said defense needs to be cut, and wants to reexamine overseas military committments. Of course, you're free to not take him seriously on either that or entitlements, but we can't know whether any candidate will actual follow through until after the election. But at least at this point, he's raising controversial issues that other GOP candidates aren't willing to touch.

I'm certainly impressed he said it out loud.