And now we learn the cost of cutting corners on the stimulus package:
Eleven weeks after Congress settled on a stimulus package that provided $135 billion to limit layoffs in state governments, many states are finding that the funds are not enough and are moving to lay off thousands of public employees.
... As the stimulus plan was being drawn up, there was agreement among the White House, congressional Democrats and many economists that a key goal was to keep states from making big layoffs at a time when 700,000 Americans were losing their jobs every month.
The House passed a stimulus bill with $87 billion in extra Medicaid funding for states, as well as $79 billion in "stabilization" money to plug gaps in states' budgets for education and other areas.
But in the Senate, the stabilization funding was cut by $40 billion to secure the support of the three Republicans who were needed for a filibuster-proof 60 votes -- Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- as well as to gain the support of conservative Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
On the bright side, if you're an abuser living in Arizona, they might not bother to investigate complaints:
Arizona has already laid off 800 social service workers this year and is facing the likelihood of deeper cuts over the next two. The state no longer investigates all complaints of child or elder abuse.
The best part of the article is Susan Collins (R-ME) defense of her insistence on the cut:
The fundamental purpose of the stimulus bill is to save and create jobs and help get our economy moving again. The bloated House-passed bill stood no chance of passing the Senate.
Because it would save jobs?
And on the idiot front:
Apparently missing the article’s point — that the stimulus should have included more budget stabilization funding for states — the House GOP featured the article on their website today, suggesting that the report vindicated their unanimous opposition to the recovery act. Later in the day, they linked to the article on twitter and gleefully quipped, "Look how many layoffs the stimulus created"
atrios: Keep Doing What You're Doing
I'm not gonna get outraged about this, just point and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh...
It'll be even funnier if the media bites. You know, "The Democratic Party, otherwise known as the Democrat Socialist Party..."
The laughs from America’s favorite comedy troupe just keep on coming:
A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”
***Two other resolutions — to urge Republican lawmakers to reject earmarks and to commend them for opposing “bailouts and reckless spending bills” — are also on the agenda, but language that would have denounced Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican turned Democrat, and Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting for President Obama’s stimulus package has been dropped.
Steele didn’t want the special session to be held at all. The RNC will hold its regular summer meeting in July, and all matters could have waited until then. But the special session is being viewed by some in the party as a “comeuppance” for Steele and an implied criticism of his performance and behavior in his first 100 days in office.
Maybe they could build an effigy of Specter and denounce that.
And just say it again. They are meeting, according to the Politico, to call the Democrats names, to call Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins names, to fap about spending bills, and to give their chairman his “comeuppance.” For that, they are calling an “extraordinary” meeting.
Too funny. And I honestly didn’t know anyone used the word “comeuppance” outside O Brother, Where Art Thou?
- Steve Benen:
But the shrinking GOP has invested quite a bit of time and energy into coming up with a new name for Democrats. Roger Simon reports:
A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party."
Notice, these clowns can't even get the grammar right. The "Democratic Socialist Party" would merely be moronic; the "Democrat Socialist Party" is both moronic and an insult to the English language.
Regardless, the effort is a breakthrough moment in political inanity. Members of the Republican National Committee are holding a special meeting so they can officially ask Democrats to change the name of their political party to something Republicans prefer. In fact, the resolution, which might as well have been written in crayon, concludes that the RNC is "calling on" the Democratic Party to embrace the GOP-endorsed name. It adds that Democrats "should agree" to the re-naming.
If Democrats disagree, the RNC has promised to stomp its feet and hold its breath.
If you're thinking the RNC might need a "time out," we're on the same page.
Richard Posner, a well-known conservative and Reagan-appointed federal judge, argued this week that "conservative intellectuals" no longer have a political party. For some reason, the Republican National Committee appears anxious to prove Posner right.
- Tim F.: I Will Now Illustrate How A Small Number Of Deranged People Destroyed The Country With Torture
Re: John’s post below.
Rebranding the other party sounds silly until you think about how the media works. Last Sunday the popular news chat shows featured Dick Cheney, John McCain and Newt Gingrich. Although I don’t remember which, another recent show discussing Sonia Sotomayor invited…three Republicans. When Republicans control the government, major news shows skew Republican. When Democrats control the government the shows still lean right. Judging by the people in charge of scheduling these things, Americans really, really want to know what Republicans, who they hate, think about everything.
Let me explain how this will work. FOX News will work in the silly name at the margins, through crazy people like Glenn Beck and in the guise of ‘talking about it’ (a lot). Each Sunday Newt and John Boehner and (hey, why not) Tom DeLay will use the Nazified name as if they never used anything else. The host might talk about it, at first, but how often will they keep bringing it up? Hosts mostly don’t challenge obvious lies or intentional goofs like using ‘Democrat’ as an adjective so it isn’t clear how many would even object.
After a while Roger Cohen and people like him will correct themselves to account for this new reality. “Democratic Party or Democrat Socialist Party? Opinions differ.”
Why not? The same trick already worked once.
- hilzoy is Meeting Them On Their Level
I write to inform you that I have just concluded a special extraordinary session of me, in which I unanimously adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS the Urban Dictionary defines "Poopyhead" as "The single most offensive thing you can call someone. It's like the atom bomb of arguments. Men fear it's omnipotent and awesome power. It it literally unmatched and all humble themselves in the presence of it's divinity. Few have survived to tell of it..." [sic];
WHEREAS the Republican Party, in its present incarnation, is deserving of any number of schoolyard epithets;
WHEREAS something has to stop them from making fools of themselves, and neither reason, decency, good sense, nor the prospect of an endless series of electoral defeats seems to do the trick;
WHEREAS the time therefore seems ripe to deploy "the atom bomb of arguments"; therefore be it
RESOLVED: that I, the member of me, recognize that the Republican Party is dedicated to reorganizing American society along poopyhead ideals; and be it further
RESOLVED: that I, the member of me, do call upon the Republican Party to be honest and truthful with the American people by acknowledging that they have devolved into a party of schoolchildren and should, therefore, agree to rename themselves the Grand Old Poopyheads.
Sargent: Top Conservative Blogger Calls For Boycott Of NRSC Over Crist
Uh oh — the conservative backlash against the national GOP for its endorsement of moderate, stimulus-supporting Governor Charlie Crist in the GOP primary continues apace.
Top right wing blogger Erick Erickson of RedState.com is now calling for conservatives to stop giving money to the NRSC over the endorsement of Crist, who is running against conservative former House Speaker Mark Rubio.
Erickson denounced the NRSC’s decision to endorse Crist as “wholly unacceptable,” adding: “If the NRSC thinks this is smart, we must not waste our time or energy with them. Join me in pledging no money, no help, no aid, and no support for the NRSC’s efforts in the 2010 election cycle.”
Relatedly, in response to my claim yesterday that the Florida GOP primary was shaping up as a battle royale for the soul of the GOP, Republicans argued to me that Crist’s overwhelming establishment support, and Rubio’s near-total lack of name recognition, guarantee that this won’t be any kind of huge battle at all.
But primaries are notoriously volatile and unpredictable, and there’s a long way to go until Election Day 2010. Rush Limbaugh could start savaging Crist, and right-wing bloggers are trying hard to cast the race as a fight over the GOP’s future. If the traditional news orgs start telling the story this way — as they did with the 2006 Joe Lieberman primary — this primary could indeed shape up as a battle royale over the party’s soul.
By the way, the boycott-NRSC movement already has a Facebook page.
- Sargent: NRSC: Conservative Foes Of Crist Want “Pure” Senators With “Litmus Test”
NRSC spokesperson Brian Walsh sends over a response to the news that a top conservative blogger is calling for folks to stop giving money to the NRSC over its endorsement of moderate Charlie Crist in the Florida GOP primary:
“The Republican Party is a big tent party that welcomes different points of view. Obviously there is a small group of folks who would prefer to see 30 ‘pure’ Republican Senators with a litmus test for candidates. They’re certainly welcome to that viewpoint. We’re focused on rebuilding the party, winning elections and ultimately regaining the Majority so that bills like card check never see the light of day.”
The statement is noteworthy, and not just because of its apparent slap at the desire for “pure” Senators. It seems to come down firmly in favor of the idea that ideological diversity, and not an uncompromising adherence to core conservative values, is the only way for the GOP to mount a comeback.
That notion risks alienating some conservatives further, of course, so it’s interesting that the NRSC appears to have now placed its chips on it.
Benen: TAYLOR CROSSES RUSH LINE, FACES WRATH....
The other day, I teased Jerry Taylor for a post at the National Review in which he said President Obama wants to convince the public that guys like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh "are the leaders of the GOP at the moment." Taylor said this is premised on the notion that these personalities "are thought to be relatively unpopular with non-movement Americans."
I joked that there isn't any real mystery here; clowns like Limbaugh really are unpopular with Americans outside the conservative "movement." Taylor responded yesterday, and after encouraging me to "cut back on the coffee," he conceded he is "no fan" of Limbaugh and Hannity.
While I will admit to not listening to their shows, the snippets that I have caught over the years have irritated. One can agree with a majority of their vision regarding what constitutes good public policy and who is worthy of my vote while being annoyed by the manner in which their arguments are being made and chagrined by the dubious logic and dodgy evidence being forwarded to buttress their arguments. One can also be driven to frustration by the seemingly endless parade of political red herrings and conspiracy-minded nonsense that I have heard both of them traffic in.
Good for Taylor for having the courage to say so publicly. Indeed, after taking a few mild shots from fellow conservatives at "The Corner," Taylor returned to the subject.
[T]he more people who think Rush Limbaugh leads the GOP, the fewer votes the GOP will get. [...]
Just because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh agree with us more often than not doesn't mean conservatives should shout "Amen!" when Obama coronates them as leaders of the Republican party or the conservative movement.
Regarding my claim that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity often use "dodgy evidence" to back their claims, I can only plead that on the rare occasions that I've listened, this is exactly what I have found.... [I]f you want chapter and verse on that score, you can't do better than Al Franken's two books on this subject (Lying Liars and Rush Limbaugh). Now, I know that this will double my hate mail, but the fact is that Mr. Senator-Elect is often spot-on regarding the facts when he goes after these guys.
He added that many of Hannity's bizarre attacks on the president are "bark-at-the-moon crazy," which makes Hannity a poor banner-carrier for conservative ideas.
This, not surprisingly, also did not go over well at "The Corner." In fact, Mark Stein called Taylor's arguments "pathetic," and "an embarrassment to National Review." So, Taylor returned to the subject once more.
The question for conservatives is this: Do you want President Obama to succeed in painting the Republican party as the party of Rush Limbaugh? Given his sub-Nixon popularity figures, I can't believe I'm causing a firestorm by suggesting the answer here is probably "no."
Except, of course, he was causing a firestorm by crossing the one line conservatives aren't supposed to cross -- he questioned the value of letting a deceptive, drug-addled radio shock-jock lead a party and movement.
The irony here is that Democrats have worked for months to carefully characterize Limbaugh as the right's driving force and leading authority. Corner-ites, by slamming their conservative colleague for questioning the utility in following Limbaugh, only help reinforce the Dems' point.
The left keeps arguing, "Conservatives are a bunch of mindless ditto-heads, reflexively taking orders from a man who lies on the radio for a living." And the right keeps responding, "You're damn right we are!" It just never seems to occur to the right, Taylor's valiant efforts notwithstanding, that it's rarely a good idea to let Democrats call their shots for them.
- Yglesias: Rush Rules Their World
It’s pathetic to see conservative politicians repeatedly bowing and scraping and apologizing after offering criticism of the Great Leader Rush Limbaugh, but for a true measure of Rush’s influence look at what happens after Cato’s Jerry Taylor offers some criticism of Limbaugh at the Corner. All hell breaks loose. Katherine Jean-Lopez attacks Taylor. Mark Steyn rebuts that she “should have been harder on Jerry Taylor’s post.” Taylor defends himself then K-Lo fires back expressing shock that anyone would dare accuse a talk radio host of at times deploying invalid arguments* while Rich Lowry agrees that Rush is wrong about stuff but insists that he should be immune from criticism anyway. K-Lo, back for more, gushes that Rush has a large audience so everyone had better get in line.
Conor Friedersdorf has a good response on the merits, but I just find the whole thing kind of mind-boggling. Rush’s defenders understand, I hope, that painting Rush as the all-powerful lord of conservatism before whom all else must submit was, in its origins, a political strategy devised by their enemies, right? So why are they jumping so quickly to prove that the argument is dead-on?
No comments:
Post a Comment