The Budget Conflict Continues
In the spirit of our ongoing discussion/debate about the wisdom -- strategic and otherwise -- of the Republicans playing hardball on this round of budget negotiations, I offer this piece by Stephen Moore in the WSJ.
Peter Robinson and probably three billion other Ricochet members believe Republicans should not allow the government to shut down but should get the best deal they can get because they should reserve their political capital to promote the far-and-away bigger issue, Ryan's comprehensive budget proposal. I and maybe two or three -- not two or three billion -- Ricochet members believe that they should hold the line -- fight, never surrender, etc. -- believing that it is not only important in principle, but a better strategy to succeed on the Ryan budget -- for multitudinous reasons.
One of Dr. Evil's (Peter Robinson's) lame justifications for throwing in the towel in the manner of Roberto Duran ("No Mas") against Sugar Ray Leonard in their second fight is that the a shutdown will be blamed on the Republicans (even though it shouldn't be) and it won't be pretty.
I had cited a poll indicating that voters preferred government shutdown to continued profligacy -- which didn't remotely move the Ricochet masses -- and certainly didn't faze their ringleader -- the mastermind -- the proprietor, Mr. Big, Dr. Evil, Peter Robinson.
Not that this will make any difference to the Doctor or his cult followers, but in his piece, Stephen Moore cites another poll -- a new Tarrance Group poll finding that "while 38% of Americans would blame a shutdown on the Republicans, 41% would blame the White House or congressional Democrats." The article adds that the "same poll also found that almost three out of four voters (73%) say that any budget deal must contain 'significant' cuts."
Though I've just had time to skim the rest of the article (some of us have day jobs) -- I think it might also contain some information damaging to my position. I do not think that even Ricochet's pristine Code of Conduct ethically requires me to divulge specifics that might harm my position. Therefore, I leave it to Dr. Evil and his minions to do their own homework and carry on the debate ad nauseam while I leave for work, trying to earn enough money to pay for college tuition for my five children -- notwithstanding the deleterious effect Dr. Evil's pernicious position in this debate could have on my children's financial future. I leave it to you all to sort out and wish you well.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
"I leave for work, trying to earn enough money to pay for college tuition for my five children "
Number 1 reason for no shutdown--whatever we may think of Congress or the White House, the people really affected by the shutdown are people just like you--working to provide for their families. (Full disclosure--I am a former federal employee, and my husband is a hardworking current federal employee.)
We recognize the need to cut the budget, but this kind of brinkmanship only leaves a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I will happily spread the blame around to both sides if this shutdown occurs.
Mar '11
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself. If Republican leadership had any history of fighting, then skipping a minor battle to set up for a major one would make sense. A more pugnacious history would give veracity to such a tactical argument. But Republican leadership does not have such a history, quite the opposite.
I don't know how any conservative can claim confidence in their representatives; history disproves that confidence. In order to nurture confidence in us, leadership needs to etch a discernible pattern of fighting for principle in the future annals of history. Maybe Ryan's budget proposal will prove to be the dawn of a new age in Republican tenacity.
I have my doubts.
Aug '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
Well stated, and Stephen Moore is right. We must stand on our principles or lose them. If they are truly our foundation and cornerstone, they must be fought for. But we're facing an insidious evil that plagues our national psyche.
For over ten years, Americans have been split down the middle. Remember Bush-Gore, and the razor-thin margins in Florida? The spineless inability of the American people to form a clear majority is the root cause of our ills, and it invites corruption. It's easy then to turn an election with a few hundred votes.
Republicans must remind Americans that the Democrats HAVE NOT PASSED A BUDGET SINCE 2009. This is a grotesque dereliction of duty. One of many.
Edited on Apr 6, 2011 at 7:15amSep '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
" I and maybe two or three -- not two or three billion -- Ricochet members believe that they should hold the line -- fight, never surrender, etc. -- believing that it is not only important in principle, but a better strategy to succeed on the Ryan budget -- for multitudinous reasons."
You're wrong for business and management reasons, not political ones. If I was a CEO faced with two ways to spend my staff's days: planning to deal with a clearly unimportant, minor budgetary issue or working on solving an existential threat which will require the deconfliction of large numbers of interconnected issues of great import to customers and workers for years to come, there is no way on Earth I would waste any time at all on the smaller issue.
I know you love to take stands on purity and principle, but I don't think you understand the principles involved to any significant depth at all. It's not all about politics. It's a waste of scarce resources - expert staff hours - to spend time fighting the continuing resolution when they need to be spent on the FY12 budget.
Mar '11
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
KayBee: "I leave for work, trying to earn enough money to pay for college tuition for my five children "
Number 1 reason for no shutdown--whatever we may think of Congress or the White House, the people really affected by the shutdown are people just like you--working to provide for their families. (Full disclosure--I am a former federal employee, and my husband is a hardworking current federal employee.)
We recognize the need to cut the budget, but this kind of brinkmanship only leaves a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I will happily spread the blame around to both sides if this shutdown occurs. · Apr 6 at 5:12am
You are in an unfortunate position and I feel for you, but decisions of this scale should never be made on the basis of individual cases. In truth, real budget cuts will result in thousands of federal employees being out of work, for a while. The private sector will absorb people with marketable skills.
Mar '11
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
K T Cat: " I and maybe two or three -- not two or three billion -- Ricochet members believe that they should hold the line -- fight, never surrender, etc. -- believing that it is not only important in principle, but a better strategy to succeed on the Ryan budget -- for multitudinous reasons."
You're wrong for business and management reasons, not political ones. If I was a CEO faced with two ways to spend my staff's days: planning to deal with a clearly unimportant, minor budgetary issue or working on solving an existential threat which will require the deconfliction of large numbers of interconnected issues of great import to customers and workers for years to come, there is no way on Earth I would waste any time at all on the smaller issue.
. · Apr 6 at 5:22am
Apples and oranges. Representatives are elected to, er, represent us. That includes the little things as well as the big ones.
Sep '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
Work out the math. How many people are on the congressional budget staff? How many usable labor hours a week does this work out to? What is the scope of the CR? What is the scope of the FY12 budget?
Now look at the risks involved. What happens if you only get $10B in cuts on the CR? What happens if you lose out on entitlement reform in the FY12 budget?
Now pretend you're in charge of the process. With the labor hours you have to allocate, you spend them where? On the CR? Really?
May '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
The poll is useless, I'm afraid, saying only that Republicans will blame Democrats and Democrats will blame Republicans. This much we knew already. It's that 20% in the middle who, as the poll confirms, still have their heads up their fannies: they're undecided, uninformed, busy with Charlie Sheen news, etc. and can therefore be easily influenced in the days ahead by glib Dem talking points and MSM sob stories.
But the even bigger risk is that news coverage, being zero sum, will focus on the more dramatic shut-down story at the expense of what would otherwise be the biggest story right now: the Ryan roll-out.
Ryan's sound-the-trumpets moment is being drowned out, mentioned only as an after-thought yesterday everywhere except talk radio. A crying shame.
Edited on Apr 6, 2011 at 5:52amSep '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
Here's a fixed cost analysis for you.
Every run of a budgetary tradeoff requires a fixed cost of labor hours. It doesn't matter if it's over a $500M cut in Medicaid or a $12B cut in the Navy's shipbuilding programs. You have to issue data calls to the affected agencies, assemble and synthesize the results, plug numbers into the budgetary spreadsheets, which are enormous and complex, run various economic prediction models so your congressman can refute his opponents' accusations, prepare presentations, email all kinds of people the interim and final results of the analysis, wait for their replies to collect them into a consensus report and on and on and on.
There is a finite number of expert hours available to you to expend on these tradeoff studies.
Are you going to burn these hours to get a payoff so small that it's essentially a rounding error in your bottom line? And you want to claim we're the party of rational business thought?
Oct '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
All this earnest, closely-reasoned discussion by KT, Gus, etc...
Did no one see the bombshell revelation David let slip. Folks, there are THREE BILLION Ricochet members now. THREE BILLION! Rob and Peter have never published the membership numbers and now it's pretty obvious why. They're too busy appointing their mega-yachts.
If only a third of us vote Republican in '12, we crush the Dems even if they each vote a record twenty times each. Thirty times! Giv'em a revolving door. I'm taking off work! For the week! Drinks all around (On Peter and Rob)!
Nov '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
David, I'm on your side of this, after careful consideration. I hate the leave the Evil Dr. Porkchop, but I say we take a stand here. And we take a stand on the overall budget when the time comes. I agree with River's point above. The Congress should have taken care of the 2011 budget last year. They didn't. Obama said yesterday, "This should have been done month's ago." Yes, Mr. President, it should have. Lead your party! Republicans need to stand up and fight for fiscal responsibility.
To KT's point: the primary difference here is that the government doesn't create wealth. So in the end it doesn't matter what they spend their time doing. If they spend it wrangling over this continuing resolution then it's not as if they are being pulled away from something that is going to benefit us. Rather, it keeps them busy so they aren't doing something that will be detrimental to us.
So I say, let them shut down.
Nov '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
I should also point out that I agree with Dr. Evil as well. I just think that if Republicans would campaign hard on the subject, they can win the day. Political capital will not be spent, but invested, and trust of the people gained.
Jun '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
Severely...Not if the other two thirds vote for the Dems.
David is getting wild and I dare say a bit presumptuous. From my position "Any Deal" has never been a part of my vocabulary. A deal in the $30B of actual real cuts, as opposed to $60B in the House passed version, would be acceptable to move forward to the overwhelmingly larger prize. In lieu of 0 real or even billions of imaginary cuts, well that is no deal. Under those circumstances, we would be forced to let the Dems and the President shut down the government. I am very sorry, KayBee. However, it should be made clear, this is the Dem's 2011 budget which they never passed, and it is the Dem's doing the shutting.
Jun '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
Again, full disclosure--I am the wife of a federal employee. While everyone here is bickering about who will get (or deserve) the blame, have a little compassion for the federal employees and their families. A shutdown will be wrenching, completely unlike a more orderly reduction in force that would occur as a result of eventual budget cuts.
Federal employees have received no guidance. For example--we do not know how the employee portion of health insurance premiums will be paid during a furlough. As a three-time cancer survivor, I cannot afford to have any questions about my health insurance. This is just one example.
Yeah, I know---sob, sob, poor me. I am sure there are tiny violins being played all through Ricochet-land for federal employees. But I'll bet there is a lot more worrying and wondering going on in federal offices for the next few days, than actual work. What is the true cost of that? Is it worth it?
Mar '11
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
KayBee: "Yeah, I know---sob, sob, poor me. I am sure there are tiny violins being played all through Ricochet-land for federal employees. But I'll bet there is a lot more worrying and wondering going on in federal offices for the next few days, than actual work. What is the true cost of that? Is it worth it?"
Yes.
Nov '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
KayBee,
It is of course unfortunate that families will have to suffer. But the growth of government cannot continue to the way it has. We must cut everywhere, and we must stand and fight each battle. The goal from the conservative side of this is an economy where you and your family can find employment in the private sector. Every single job in the public sector is a drag on the economy. Every single one. Those jobs may be necessary (though I am confident many are not really necessary), but however necessary, they take from the private sector, and do not give back. The government does not produce wealth.
So pain will be felt amongst the government employees. It's inevitable. But it is worth it, in order to reverse the trend.
Oct '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
cdor (of Lebanon?)---Drat it all, I'd forgotten about Rob's squishy minions.
Jun '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
Severely,
"cdor (of Lebanon?)---"
No, Severely, that would be Cedar. It's confusing, I know.
Oct '10
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
David—after thinking about our fruitful discussion earlier in the week, I am convinced by your previous “momentum” argument in favor of fighting for a government shutdown. In fact, no matter what, we NEED to shut the government down. After watching the Democrat party’s hyperbolic talking points over the Paul Ryan budget proposal, that tens of thousands of seniors and children and minorities dead bodies will litter the streets, we need to shut the government down in order to show that it is NOT armageddon. We need to demonstrate the seriousness of the total fiscal picture, and this is a low-stakes manner in which to do it.
I remain unconvinced that we should hang our hat on favorable polls, or the magnitude of these cuts impact “on our children’s future,” because this budget impasse is over a glass of water spilling on the Titanic.
The media is more excited over a government shutdown than even the upcoming royal wedding in England. The Republicans need to show that the private sector, and the American people, can survive without an oppressive, ever-expanding government for a couple of days.
Re: The Budget Conflict Continues
cdor:
David is getting wild and I dare say a bit presumptuous.
What does this mean? I'm being wild and presumptuous? For the 10,000th time I am trying to determine what the consequences will be if the Republicans don't honor their promise and cave on this budget deal. I am not addressing what my own reaction will be, although I think I've alluded to it. But let me state it again: I will be disappointed if they cave, but I will not take my ball and go home. I will remain behind them, trying to help embolden them not to cave on the Ryan plan, which I think caving on the first will make them more, not less likely to do. But wild and presumptuous? Why do so many commenters always have to make things personal?
If your beef with me is that you think I'm characterizing your position as being willing to accept "any deal," I would ask you: "Wouldn't you?" Peter himself says $61 billion is chump change. Under the logic being promoted there is no reason not to cave for any amount up to the entire $61 billion, is there?