Thursday, October 7, 2010

A Hollow Plan

It's true, you know. The Republican party this election has as their central promise this vague plan to "cut government spending", but they literally have nothing they actually plan on cutting.

It's like saying that you are going on a diet, but cannot name a single food that you will eat less of. Would you expect anybody to have confidence in your ability to lose weight? So why would you expect Republicans to actually cut spending?

Watch this video: It's 5 minutes of a bunch of interviews with Republicans avoiding very specific, point blank questions about what government programs they would cut in order to reduce the budget deficit.


tomm said...

Not one of these people interviewed has anything to do with the budget, since Peposi been SOH (2006) she has only allow 1 BILL (not a budget bill)to come to the floor where members been allow to add admendments, so what came out of committee is the bill voted on, no chance for the republicians to make cuts or such if they didn't make in the committes, the republicans has a roadmap go here to see it

Jungle Jil said...

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning Tomm. You seem to be saying, "Not one of these people interviewed has anything to do with the budget NOW, so it makes sense that they wouldn't have made any plans to cut the budget in the future when they win back Congress."

You see, in the upcoming election in a month, the Republicans are 100% certain to regain control of the House, and therefore will be responsible for making budget cutting decisions. And yet, as is shown, they have no plans.

And even if they didn't have control, are you saying that because Pelosi is keeping the Republicans away from making amendments (which she does because every time Republicans add ammendments to a bill, it is a poison pill rider that makes it impossible to pass), that Republicans shouldn't have ideas of what they would like to cut if they could?

Really: There is a $400 billion budget deficit. What plans to Republicans have to cut government spending by $400 billion? Cut social security? No. Cut military spending? No. Cut farm subsidies? Not that they have mentioned. Raise taxes? Hell no.

The simple fact is that Republicans refuse to mention what they would cut because they know that dumb voters won't choose them over Democrats if they switch from the populist and easy-to-digest "we're going to cut spending across the board" to the specific things like: "we're going to close the department of education, department of welfare, and department of agriculture. We're going to shut down military contracts around the country, shut down 30 bases around the country, and 10 overseas bases. And we are going to let the Bush tax cuts expire. And we are going to repeal the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan." Every person in America would be affected by that... and they will be affected by that no matter who they vote for.

But, I (and many others) strongly suspect Republicans don't have the stomach to do that kind of thing because they know that they'll get voted right back out of office by the dumb voters of America.

Jungle Jil said...

And, just as an additional thought: No bill that the Republicans have planned that goes against what the Democrats want is going to get passed in Congress anyway. The Democrats are about 80% likely to hold onto the Senate where they will vote down Republican efforts to close the Department of Education or repeal Obama's new healthcare legislation (and even if they didn't have a majority, they could still filibuster — like the Republicans have been doing for 6 years — and Obama could veto).

This will inevitably lead to another shut down of government similar to 1995 in which the dumb voters of America will finally hear Republicans having to defend those cost-cutting measures that I mentioned above.

Then and only then will the actual debate be held about how to cut the federal deficit. And that is likely the point at which the Republicans (wanting to eliminate the (generally popular with the dumb voters) "welfare" and "socialist" and "healthcare" programs while keeping military spending and tax cuts at current levels) will come out on the short end of the argument.