Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
Earlier this autumn, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report showing income inequality growing--and it got picked up throughout the mainstream media, which, with degrees of bias ranging from blatant to outrageous, used the report to hail the president and slam the GOP. Yesterday, the House Budget Committee issued a report of its own, "A Deeper Look at Income Inequality." From the cover page:
KEY POINTS:
• The question for policymakers is not how best to redistribute a shrinking economic pie. The focus ought to be on increasing living standards, expanding economic opportunity, and promoting upward mobility for all.
• Conventional wisdom on government’s role in inequality often has it backwards: tax reforms have resulted in a more progressive federal income tax; government transfer payments have become less progressive (due in large part to growing entitlement payments to wealthier seniors).
• Rather than further divide Americans, there is growing bipartisan consensus to target corporate welfare, to income-adjust entitlement programs, and to reform the tax code by removing loopholes and lowering barriers to growth.
As the report goes on to demonstrate in the course of 17 detailed pages, the federal government very often makes income inequality worse.
Who compiled this splendid document?
"Authorized," a note on the bottom of the first page reads, "by Paul D. Ryan."
Paul D. Ryan, who as chairman of the House Budget Committee commands the staff resources required to submit the work of the CBO to a fresh, stringent, and completely professional analysis--and who would lose his chairmanship, and those staff resources, the instant the Democrats recaptured the chamber.
Next year, the White House won't be the only House that counts.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
My sense, Peter, is that the House and the Senate will be even more vital if Obama somehow squeaks out a win. He's already doing those thing which a stubborn House won't do legislatively. We'll need both the House and the Senate if he gets unhinged and goes entirely extra-constitutional and must be removed from office. Of course, the really scary down side to that is a President Biden. Will the U.S. economy be capable of keeping him in enough crayons and paddle balls to neutralize Uncle Joe?
Apr '11
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
Peter, not complaining about the current state of affairs mind you, but can you imagine for a moment, if upon waking tomorrow and found the MSM touting this report as the new conventional wisdom? What would be your immediate thoughts and what paradigm shifts would occur?
Would it mean the end of Ricochet, God forbid, but what?
I think that would be a sitcom Rob could pitch. A liberal awakes, ala Rip Van Winkle into a completely honest conservative world, and not Pleasantville?
Oct '10
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
Peter R.:"Next year, the White House won't be the only House that counts."
Indeed. With either Obama or Romney in the White House, an increasingly likely electoral result, control of the Congress becomes extremely critical. I hope that we can dump most remaining Rhinos in the primaries, and elect a real Republican congress. The Fed. bank in San Francisco predicts even odds of a new recession in spring 2012, with unemployment rising to 12% in the US. This would create an anti-Obama, anti-Dems tidal wave, which increases the possibility of both electing real conservative reformers and effecting real reform of the welfare state, and of hopefully restoring constitutional limits on government.
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
Stephen Spicer:
I think that would be a sitcom Rob could pitch. A liberal awakes, ala Rip Van Winkle into a completely honest conservative world, and not Pleasantville? · Nov 18 at 9:34am
This is brilliant! Rob Long, call your office.
Mar '11
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
Peter Robinson
Stephen Spicer:
I think that would be a sitcom Rob could pitch. A liberal awakes, ala Rip Van Winkle into a completely honest conservative world, and not Pleasantville? · Nov 18 at 9:34am
This is brilliant! Rob Long, call your office. · Nov 18 at 10:19am
Or Stepford?
Apr '11
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
I don't see how the GOP loses the House unless people buy into the bologna being peddled by the Left. The house has passed a number of bills that are stalled in the Democrat controlled Senate. I think people are smart enough to realize that the House is not the problem, the Senate is, and hopefully they will choose to 'vote the bums out' of there, resulting in a GOP controlled congress. I can see the GOP losing a few seats in the House simply because they won so many the last time, but I think they need to lose 25 or so to lose the majority and that borders on a rout which I just don't see given the tide of independents shifting right and the lack of enthusiasm on the Left in general.
Apr '11
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
That, or unprecedented sums of money and intense personal destruction. To the extent that we can, we want to be boring and scandal free this cycle, but also enthused, by Obama if necessary. If Obama wins, I think it very likely that we'll lose the House in 2014, but quite likely we lose it this time. Intrade suggests ~75%.
Oct '10
Re: Why Retaining Control of the House Really, Really Matters
kausmickey Edsall: GOPs plan to win election, enact Ryan plan nyti.ms/sbW4g7 Sounds like Dem anti-Ryan campaign theme is alive #gopsshoulddrop
kausmickey Fearless prediction: Neither GOP fantasy (Ryanize Medicare) nor EJ Dionne fantasy (Bush tax cuts all expire) will happen. Middle too strong