Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:50 AM ET, 02/10/2011

Wonkbook: So many budget proposals

By Ezra Klein

PH2011020906653.jpg

There are two budget debates going on in Washington right now. One is about the budget for next year, fiscal year 2012. That's the debate that the Obama administration will kick off when they release their budget on Monday. The other is what happens for the rest of this year, fiscal year 2011. That's the debate Republicans are going to kick off when they release their budget proposal next week. Confused yet?

Recall that for all the lame duck session's productivity, Senate Democrats didn't manage to overcome Republican opposition to a package funding the government for fiscal year 2011. Instead, they passed a resolution keeping the funding going for a few more months. That bill is coming up for renewal soon, and Republicans are hoping to use it as leverage for some big cuts. At the same time, this is the season when the government traditionally begins debating its proposal for the next fiscal year, too. Which means we're going to have a bit of a budget-proposal pile-up next week: We're going to get two proposals next week -- and perhaps three, if the Republican Study Committee decides to go its own way -- but they'll be covering different time periods. Republicans in Congress are looking at the rest of this year (and at some point, Democrats in Congress are going to have to weigh in on that, too), while the administration is looking to next year.

Top Stories

The House GOP previewed its budget cuts proposal, report Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray: "House Republicans sketched their vision for a smaller federal government Wednesday, proposing sharp spending cuts that would wipe out family planning programs, take 4,500 cops off the street and slice 10 percent from a food program that aids pregnant women and their babies. Top White House priorities also would come under the knife: Key Republicans are proposing to defund President Obama's high-speed rail initiative, slash clean energy programs and gut the Office of Science by 20 percent - cuts that would deal a direct blow to Obama's innovation agenda. They would also cut the Environmental Protection Agency by 17 percent."

"All told, House leaders are aiming to cut programs unrelated to national security by more than $40 billion over the next several months, an unprecedented reduction...The full impact of the Republican plan was not immediately clear. Rogers released only a partial list of spending decreases measured against Obama's 2011 budget request, which was never enacted, rather than actual spending levels. He is expected to announce the complete spending plan later this week and present it for debate in the House starting Tuesday."

Conservatives are opposing GOP spending proposals from the right, reports Janet Hook: "Ultimately, the plan calls for a 9% reduction in nondefense, discretionary spending from 2010. It would eliminate some programs entirely, among them family planning for low-income Americans and the AmeriCorps national service program. But so many conservatives complained about the bill, aides to the GOP leadership said, that it might be revised with further cuts before it is introduced. Congress must approve a new spending measure for the current fiscal year by March 4, when short-term legislation that has kept money flowing for government operations expires. The bill must also pass the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority and are certain to push back."

Obama and the House look ready to cooperate on free trade and education, reports Perry Bacon: "President Obama and a trio of top House Republicans largely played down looming clashes at an hour-long lunch Wednesday at the White House, instead discussing issues of potential compromise, such as an education overhaul and free-trade agreements...Republicans have said they will support a free-trade agreement with South Korea that the Obama administration negotiated at the end of last year. And the president and congressional Republicans have in the past backed education proposals that emphasize increased accountability for schools whose students persistently get low scores on standardized tests. Next week, Obama plans to begin his push to get Congress to adopt his education proposals."

Fed chair Ben Bernanke urged Congress to pass an increase in the debt limit, report Neil Irwin and Peter Wallsten: "Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke offered dire warnings Wednesday about the damage Congress could wreak if it refrains from raising the government's debt limit this spring and forces the country to default on its debts.
Testifying before the House Budget Committee, Bernanke added his voice to a debate that could soon become a high-stakes contest of brinksmanship between Republicans and Democrats. With the national debt hitting record levels, President Obama needs to reach agreement with Congress on increasing the legal cap on how much money the government can borrow, or the federal government will be unable to pay some of its debts."

Folk interlude: Alexa Woodward plays "Darkest Days".

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device? Subscribe!

Still to come: Interest groups oppose killing off Fannie and Freddie; states forge ahead with health care cuts; a group of Republicans want to require bills address a "single issue"; the Obama administration is cutting heating aid to low-income people; and two red pandas try to open a door.

Economy

Interest groups are mobilizing against a Fannie/Freddie overhaul, reports Zachary Goldfarb: "To many Republicans and the Obama administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government's mortgage giants, are ill. But rather than healing them, both sides agree that the companies should be left to die and that their support for the housing market should wither away. Some influential interest groups are taking issue with that surprising bipartisan consensus. They include small banks, real estate agents and consumer groups, who all say that Fannie and Freddie, or something similar, are crucial for sustaining the struggling housing market...Although Republicans and the administration agree that Fannie and Freddie have got to go, that's where the agreement ends."

The GOP wants to try aid to workers displaced by trade to approving new trade deals: http://wapo.st/fBVpx7

Annie Lowrey profiles Ron Paul -- and his plans to end, or at least bother, the Fed: "Last year Paul had what may be his greatest triumph as a legislator. He and other members of Congress successfully placed a provision to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve into the Dodd-Frank law, against the strong opposition of both the Fed and the Obama administration. The bill also forced the bank to release the details of 21,000 loans granted to financial firms during the credit crunch. Now Paul is in charge of the House subcommittee that actually oversees the Fed. That might cause some awkward moments, to say the least. The title of his book is not misleading. The central bank 'is immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, promotes bad economics, and undermines liberty,' he writes."

It's dangerous to treat the budget as a bargaining chip, writes David Wessel: "The White House argues there's no point in the president proposing anything serious on big health- and retirement-benefit programs until Republicans are ready to deal...By casting the budget as a bargaining chip in a two-year poker game with Republicans rather than showing gutsy leadership and offering ways to slow benefit spending, the president runs the risk that no one will take his rhetoric about taming the deficit seriously. Here's the tough reality: Even if defense spending goes from 4.7% of GDP to 2.8% by fiscal 2021, if stimulus spending ends, if domestic spending is cut and then frozen and if taxes are raised on upper-income Americans, the debt-GDP ratio still keeps climbing, Goldman Sachs projects."

Adorable animals failing at human activities interlude: Two red pandas try to open a door.

Health Care

State health spending is facing deep cuts, reports Julie Appleby: "Washington’s quandary is shared by many states: Demand for health-related services is growing, voters don’t want to raise taxes, payments to doctors, hospitals and clinics have already been reduced and states risk losing federal funds if they cut eligibility for the joint federal-state Medicaid health program for the poor and disabled...Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told them they can trim some optional services, such as dental care, and those with budget deficits can cut eligibility for non-disabled, non-pregnant adults above 133 percent of the poverty line, which is $14,500 for an individual. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia currently cover adults above that level."

The House GOP's malpractice reform efforts have hit a snag due to concern from Texas' reps: http://politi.co/hKpT68

Health care reform gives states more power than the federal government, writes Kathleen Sebelius: "The Affordable Care Act puts states in the driver's seat because they often understand their health needs better than anyone else - and that is why it is so frustrating to hear opponents of reform falsely attack the law as'"nationalized health care.' The truth is that states aren't just participating in implementation of the law; they're leading it. Consider the state-based health insurance marketplaces that will be created under the law in 2014. These marketplaces, called exchanges, will allow individuals and small-business owners to pool their purchasing power to negotiate lower rates. They'll also serve as a one-stop shop where insurers must compete to deliver the best deal."

Drug companies should be able to market drugs for the same condition together, writes Ian Spatz: http://nyti.ms/gwU9Cs

Domestic Policy

A group of Republicans wants to limit bills to one topic, reports Shira Toeplitz: "Republican Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming want to end the practice of weighing down bills with irrelevant add-ons by confining every bill to a single issue, a companion proposal to one already proposed in the House. Lawmakers often combine issues into a single bill in an effort to drum up a coalition of support and move it quickly through Congress. But Enzi, Barasso and their co-sponsor in the House, freshman Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), introduced a bill this week to change that because they believe the current system does not give members enough time to review the legislation. 'Every bill voted on in the U.S. Congress should be considered on its own merit in an open and transparent way before the American people,' said Schweikert."

Democratic House members are pushing for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from campaign finance cases: http://politi.co/e8mV4S

Businesses are worried the House GOP will expand an immigration enforcement program, reports Shankar Vedantam: "In an early indicator of how congressional Republicans will legislate on immigration, House GOP leaders are expanding an inquiry into an enforcement program that allows employers to check the immigration status of employees. The E-Verify program has long been championed by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's immigration panel, which will hold a hearing on it Thursday. Many business owners believe that Gallegly and other House Republicans want to make E-Verify, currently a voluntary program for companies, mandatory. Critics of such a move, many of them farmers, warn that it could destabilize the agricultural economy."

Teacher's colleges are fighting attempts to grade them: http://nyti.ms/fLYDx7

Progressives should be open to Social Security cuts, writes Matt Miller: "Advocates for these built-in increases (which didn't exist before the late 1970s) say Social Security should always replace the same portion of wages as it does today; since real wages will grow as the economy grows, the logic runs, so should benefits...But in an era when health care and pensions for seniors are poised to crowd out cash for every other public priority, or else require tax increases beyond what even liberals think would be good for the economy, this shouldn't be the left's only objective...Should Democrats really say trillions in automatic pension increases over today's levels are 'untouchable,' when there's no similar 'trust fund' guaranteeing great teachers for poor children, universal preschool, repairs for America's crumbling roads and sewers or help for [insert your favorite non-elderly priority here]?"

When ads aren't short enough interlude: This year's Super Bowl ads in two minutes.

Energy

Obama will cut energy assistance for the poor, reports Marc Ambinder: "President Obama’s proposed 2012 budget will cut several billion dollars from the government’s energy assistance fund for poor people, officials briefed on the subject told National Journal. It's the biggest domestic spending cut disclosed so far, and one that will likely generate the most heat from the president's traditional political allies. Such complaints might satisfy the White House, which has a vested interest in convincing Americans that it is serious about budget discipline. One White House friend, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said earlier today that a Republican proposal to cut home heating oil counted as an 'extreme idea' that would 'set the country backwards.'"

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson got a frosty reception in the House, reports Darryl Fears: "EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson got a cool reception Wednesday in her first appearance before a House energy subcommittee under Republican rule. Conservatives grilled Jackson on her agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, saying it would burden manufacturers with expensive costs. EPA regulations would 'reduce manufacturing output in Michigan by $3 billion,' Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said. Last week, Upton and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unveiled legislation that would strip the EPA of its ability to force industries to lower substantial greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming under the Clean Air Act."

Republicans vow to block Obama's high speed rail proposals: http://on.wsj.com/gxEIXZ

Climate denialism has become Republican orthodoxy, writes Brad Plumer: "Take Fred Upton, the new chair of the House energy and commerce committee, who is working with Inhofe on the stop-the-EPA bill. Upton once thought climate change was 'a serious problem.' But, just this week, he said at a National Journal event, 'I do not say that it is man-made.' Surprisingly, he didn't feel the need to explain his shift--he recently told Politico that he probably wouldn’t bother to hold climate-science hearings...At the hearing on Wednesday, Texas Republican Joe Barton was simply content to quote former EPA economist Alan Carlin saying that the theory that humans were warming the planet failed to 'conform with real world data.' (He didn’t trouble himself explaining what real-world data he was referring to. Record temperatures? Dwindling ice caps? Who can say?)"

Closing credits: Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Dylan Matthews and Michelle Williams. Photo credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais Photo.

By Ezra Klein  | February 10, 2011; 6:50 AM ET
Categories:  Wonkbook  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reconciliation
Next: No apology -- unless you'd like me to apologize for something, of course

Comments

Both sides are disingenuous on debt, spending and taxation.

What we should do is restore tax and spending rates to the level as existed in Dec 2000, the last time the budget was balanced.

Posted by: lauren2010 | February 10, 2011 7:42 AM | Report abuse

"The Affordable Care Act puts states in the driver's seat because they often understand their health needs better than anyone else - and that is why it is so frustrating to hear opponents of reform falsely attack the law as'"nationalized health care.


Ms. Sebelius,

Your analogy works great. Many states don't want to drive YOUR vehicle though, that's the point. They want to drive what they see best for their constituents so while you're right in that they will be able to drive it, you're the one that's building it by determining what is the basis for the plans within the exchange. You're going to require what is covered and what is not within those exchanges. That's the issue that the states have and I think that would be quelled somewhat first if the process is VERY transparent (which I don't know that it will be as there's no talk of lobbying currently going on by interest groups of what makes into the essential benefit plans) and secondly if the plans are allowed enough flexibility to be adjusted if necessary.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 10, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

States had decades to provide health care.

Most chose not to, or relied on Medicaid and fed money.

ACA is a reasonable, private oriented, way to now to solve a serious problem. The dems could have done single payer.

At this point, the choice is go back to a broke system or build on ACA.

Anyone pretending there's another choice really is just hoping to go back to the broken system we had.

Posted by: lauren2010 | February 10, 2011 8:00 AM | Report abuse

@lauren,

no the choice is to do it with special interests of the Dems in mind or to do it right with the interest of the constituents in mind. We'll see what they choose. And don't pretend like the Dems ever had a choice of single payer. The pushback would have made the summer of 2009 look like a day in the park if they tried that and there's not enough stomach in their own majorities to do that otherwise they would have.

I don't want to go back to a broken system so don't incinuate that I do. I just want an open, honest, transparent system but i doubt we'll get that. We'll get the same thing we got in my heavily democratic state of NJ. We got things like the IVF lobby that pushed to get IVF coverage to be a requirement even though its the furthest thing from medical necessity. If liberals watched this process half as much as they were worried about insurers MLR then we might actually get something that worked.


Anyone pretending the only options are Ms. Sebelius' way or the old system is just a fool. There are many ways to do this right (just look at what MA is finally tackling now when it comes to costs). We'll see what they choose to do.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 10, 2011 8:12 AM | Report abuse

" I want an open , honest , transparent system " Visionbrkr says , yet how can we have that when everyone has their own idea of what is " medically necessary "?. I happen to think that penile enlargment/implant surgery is not " medically necessary" , yet Medicare pays for it , because impotence is considered a " medical condition " . Fair enough if that is so ,then so are " fertility issues " , as in pregnancy prevention ( contraception ) or infertility .
I think single payer is the most transparent system we can have because its all online for anyone to see , Medicare is transparent and pays up immediately , which is why doctors and hosptials love it. Yes there is fraud, as in any big system , but at least we can CONTROL it better and there is no profit motive , but I know that US is not yet ready to embrace this system .

Posted by: sligowoman | February 10, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Get out of the war business -- a total waste. We are not the world's morals cop. Get out of this hugely expensive and wasteful endeavor.

Reduce government payroll by 20% this year.

Work on our broken education system. Our future requires more brains than we have.

Stop all the farm subsidies, especially corn to alcohol.

Posted by: catclaw | February 10, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

@sligowoman,

you're right that everyone has their own opinion of what is medically necessary but when entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid are busting at the seams (with another 15+ million to be added to Medicaid) now is not the time to cover questionable items. If there's a question of whether its medically necessary i say keep it out. Those making the final decisions though need to have absolutely NO STAKE in the inclusion or removal of the benefit and the process of it needs to be 100% transparent. We don't know that they do because we aren't party to who is deciding. Will we be? Who knows? Will Ezra cover it? I'd think so but we'll have to wait and see.


That being said, single payer run by the government is a horrible suggestion as its currently run. You neatly gloss over fraud but fraud is as prevalent as it is because of as you say providers get paid immediately so fraudulent providers will flock to Medicare (and single payer) like bees to honey. It'll be much worse than the 100 billion + per year that happens now.

Why can't we have a non-profit private run system like some countries have? We fight the fraud aspect but we don't have what liberals fear from a profit motive?

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 10, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Any system we have has to have provision for those who lose their job and so are left without health insurance .
This is probably why we have such swelling in Medicaid applications , no job equals no health insurance .... seperate the health insurance from employment and you make 2 groups happy it seems to me .. Business and self employed entrepeuners /artists who want freedom to move about the job market . I still do not undrstans why Business want to be in the Health Care business !

Posted by: sligowoman | February 10, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

"And don't pretend like the Dems ever had a choice of single payer. The pushback would have made the summer of 2009 look like a day in the park"

In other words, the fed chose to solve this problem in a reasonable, if imperfect, way.

They replaced the engine in an old car instead of trying to go buy a flashy new Ferrari or a budget minded Prius.

The states had their chance and failed.

The GOP did too.

Now its the fed's turn to force a solution.

And be very clear, you either support building on ACA at this time or you support repeal. There is no other practical choice. Anyone who thinks the GOP will ever enact a plan that bans pre-ex exclusions, covers 99% of Americans, bans recissions, and bans lifetime caps is living in a fantasy.

Posted by: lauren2010 | February 10, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

@lauren,

you're not worth my arguments. if you think there's only A or B then whatever. Its not about Dems or Republicans. Its about a right way and a wrong way to do it.


@sligowoman,

agreed. I've said before I'd be fine with Wyden/Bennett. Also I think employers want to keep healthcare as a means to keep who they see as good employees. They don't know any different so I'm guessing they figure the devil they know is better than the one they don't. Honestly you could structure Wyden/Bennett in a way that works for the employer and the employee. You could let employers have their employees purchase on the exchanges and be billed back to the employer for it. It would give freedom and flexibility to employers and employees. I don't honestly see any downsides to it other than its not the status quo.


And if you seperate healthcare from employment that's fine but it still doesn't address the issue of cost. Sure we can give more subsidies but how long until the subsidies crowd out other parts of the federal budget. All we're doing there is cost-shifting from the individual (or business owner) to the taxpayer.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 10, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"And the president and congressional Republicans have in the past backed education proposals that emphasize increased accountability for schools whose students persistently get low scores on standardized tests"


. . . but not accountabiliity for the out-of-wedlock- parents who are the PRIMARY cause of the low test scores.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 9:15 AM | Report abuse

"Interest groups are mobilizing against a Fannie/Freddie overhaul, reports Zachary Goldfarb: "To many Republicans and the Obama administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government's mortgage giants, are ill."

There aren't many things that could guarantee a loss to Obamam in 2012. Prematurely ending F&F is one of those categories. Together they currently guarantee about 95% of all new mortgages in this country, and we're still nowhere near a recovery in housing prices.

Mark Zandi say without them, mortgages would go up 1%. He's almost certainly wrong, whereby that might be the ultimate premium, but there would be an initial risk premium of the unknown that would be a 2% rise in interest rates.

So if you want to simply kill the little housing that is working with one shot behind the ear, cooperate in any way with GOP proposals at this time!

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"Progressives should be open to Social Security cuts, writes Matt Miller:"

Matt Miller has obviously never run for office, and has no plans to do so. Next, he will probably tell us how to run the war in Afghanistan from his laptop.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans vow to block Obama's high speed rail proposals:"

There's a Vertical Horizon song that covers this situation. It's called "Save Me From Myself".

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

"President Obama is to unveil a plan Thursday to bring wireless high-speed Internet access to all Americans, a goal the administration says is key to the country's ability to compete globally in the years to come."

A classic case of shut up, sit down, this isn't an issue. Stop wasting time and money in these little diversionary side trips.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

vision

The Republicans ARE PROMISING TO KILL ACA.

They just passed a house bill to do it.

They forced a Senate vote to do it.

Even some Dem governors dislike ACA.

Ezra has a new post TODAY about Rove and how the GOP will easily kill ACA after 2012 if they win more power.

What part of "We will repeal ACA" don't you get?

You got two choices: repeal ACA and go back to what we had, or build on (i.e. reform) ACA.

Anyone not admitting that is dishonest or an idiot.

Posted by: lauren2010 | February 10, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

What I think is the most egregious failure on the part of Republicans is this:
They’ve spent decades defending big tobacco, chemical waste dumpers, coal burning plants, and other industrial weapons of mass cancer distribution.
They have sworn that tobacco is not harmful or addictive, fast food is not killing us, BPAs are safe, pesticides, lead paint, asbestos, and on and on…
And now that we’re all dying of emphysema, cancer, obesity (with its diabetes and heart complications), lead poisoning, black lung, and high blood pressure, they say we should have made better life choices to avoid the medical care we now need to combat all the afflictions they spent decades telling us we would never get.
Well, one of those choices then should’ve been the same choice we should all make now: Never ever believe a word any Republican ever says.

They have proven themselves willing to KILL YOU for the profits of the guy who makes the cigarette, the guy who tells you it’s safe, and the guy who will treat you for the massive health issues you will encounter because you believed them when they said it was safe.
When they’re willing to tell the truth or otherwise lift a finger to defend the constituents that don’t pay lobbyists to pay Republicans to kill you with lies, we will let you know.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | February 10, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Republican Rhetoric, 2000-2008: “States don’t have the right to regulate emissions or legalize marijuana! We will prosecute to the full extent of the law! Respect federal authorit-AH!”

Republican Rhetoric, 2008-Present: “States rights! Don’t tread on me! The Founders wanted states to have the authorit-AH!”

I wonder what it will be if they ever get back in power. I have a pretty good guess…

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | February 10, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

The insane, non-viable high-speed rail is toast. If there is SUFFICIENT demand, it will be built and operated. Just like airlines.

Posted by: illogicbuster | February 10, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Some influential interest groups are taking issue with that surprising bipartisan consensus. They include small banks, real estate agents and consumer groups, who all say that Fannie and Freddie, or something similar, are crucial for sustaining the struggling housing market"

People never want to make the necessary changes now.

If the market is weak, we can't kill the GSEs because they are crucial for sustaining the struggling housing market.

If the market is strong and rising, we will still be unable to kill the GSEs for to do so would put the housing market into a tailspin.

Just end the GSEs now. Home prices will fall, bottom out, new buyers will enter the market and home prices will once again rise.

Posted by: justin84 | February 10, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

justin:

You can't talk about F&F in a vaccum. What you suggest, would almost certainly kill the re-election chances of Obama. So how you feel about THAT, could change your choice, eh?

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 10, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Who’s trying to save/create jobs again?

Obama: Let’s save these automaker jobs…
GOP: Hell no!
Obama: Let’s fix the roads and build some stuff to replace the ancient stuff we have now. That’ll put some people to work.
GOP: Hell no!
Obama: Let’s start a whole new market to green up America. That way we can create jobs and compete worldwide with the Chinese for work instead of falling farther behind.
GOP: Hell no!
Obama: Let’s build high speed rail. That’ll revolutionize travel and create a whole (expletive)pot full of jobs!
GOP: Hell NO!
Obama: Let’s do nationwide broadband, let’s invest in technology, let’s educate…
GOP: HELL NO!


The Republicans: Looking out for you by making sure nothing good ever happens, even if it was our idea to begin with. Then we blame the Democrats.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | February 10, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Who’s trying to save/create jobs again?

Obama: Let’s save these automaker jobs…
GOP: Hell no!
Obama: Let’s fix the roads and build some stuff to replace the ancient stuff we have now. That’ll put some people to work.
GOP: Hell no!
Obama: Let’s start a whole new market to green up America. That way we can create jobs and compete worldwide with the Chinese for work instead of falling farther behind.
GOP: Hell no!
Obama: Let’s build high speed rail. That’ll revolutionize travel and create a whole (expletive)pot full of jobs!
GOP: Hell NO!
Obama: Let’s do nationwide broadband, let’s invest in technology, let’s educate…
GOP: HELL NO!


The Republicans: Looking out for you by making sure nothing good ever happens, even if it was our idea to begin with. Then we blame the Democrats.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | February 10, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"You can't talk about F&F in a vaccum. What you suggest, would almost certainly kill the re-election chances of Obama. So how you feel about THAT, could change your choice, eh?"

johnmarshall5446,

I'd accept a bill that would get rid of the GSEs once a Republican president is inaugurated, if that gets the job done.

Posted by: justin84 | February 10, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Let the people freeze, President said as he announces cuts in the home heating aid program. I haven't seen this headline yet, doesn't the media care about the poor?

Posted by: tateofpa | February 14, 2011 1:55 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