Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:52 PM ET, 01/19/2011

I just don't know what to say

By Ezra Klein

Jon Bernstein transcribes this gem from Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.):

What's in here? $500 billion cut to Medicare for our seniors. What else is in here? $500 billion of tax increases. What else is in here? Six years of benefits for 10 years of costs. What else is in here? A new entitlement program. Our nation is broke. It is broke because of our entitlement programs, and this law added a new entitlement.

Take that, logic!

By Ezra Klein  | January 19, 2011; 1:52 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Lunch break
Next: What does it mean to be pro-labor when labor is in decline?

Comments

These are awesome! You should start a whole new blog titled "Congressial leaders contradicting what they just did/said in nanoseconds"

@Chris_Gaun
chrisgaun@gmail.com

Posted by: chrisgaun | January 19, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Pretty simple translation here:

"This modestly cuts a hugely expensive program that helps people who vote for me. It establishes modestly expensive but paid-for help for people who I couldn't care less about"

I think that's really the motivation. Ezra, you can try to take things like the two wars, or the 2001 tax cuts, and compare them to any less-expensive initiative you like. But it doesn't matter, because you haven't considered the "deserve" part of the conservative equation.

Huge numbers of people with inadequate healthcare, or none at all, is simply not a problem. Those people are not important. Extending coverage is not worth doing.

Sure, it's not cheap to provide that care, or insure providing it. But it's a hell of a lot cheaper than tons of other garbage our government does. I really do believe that conservatives feel that, in this area, any cost is too much, because the beneficiaries are outside the circle of the deserving.

I try to read all the arguments opposing ACA and I can't see any other motivation connecting it all.

Posted by: StPaulite | January 19, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Six years of benefits for 10 years of costs."

If this is really what's happening, then please explain how years 10-20 under the ACA save MORE money than years 1-10 did? Somehow, 5 years of costs and 20 years of spending saves MORE money than 5 years of costs and 10 years of spending. Explain that one!!!

And why did the most recent CBO estimate, 2011-2020, save MORE money than the estimate when the bill passed (2010-2019)?

Not to mention, this thing is in balance or close to balance every year. Yes, there's a little noise, but in reality we're in surplus in 2011 AND in 2019. That's not an accident.

Maybe the problem is that it's been so long since Republicans have seen a surplus they don't really understand what one is!

Surpluses are the things Clinton made! The things you got rid of!

Posted by: theorajones1 | January 19, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

--*I just don't know what to say*--

Why don't you say you're sorry, Klein, for doing everything within your power to put the decision making concerning one sixth of the nation's economy in the hands of 535 such individuals? You moron.

Posted by: msoja | January 19, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

msoja:
For once, I admit you are right. Nobody should leave major decisions in the hands of Republicans. That's why I believe they should be voted out of office ASAP.

See? That unity thing is easy!

Posted by: ciocia1 | January 19, 2011 8:53 PM | Report abuse

--*See? That unity thing is easy!*--

The jokes on you. A. Because it isn't a laughing matter. B. Even as far as the slime of socialism has spread, there is still a sizeable block of people who know from which principles the country draws its greatness, and they aren't suddenly going to start voting for mindless collectivism. And C. You wouldn't like living under one party rule.

Posted by: msoja | January 19, 2011 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company