Yo Republicans! Show Us Your Budget Cuts!

A beat down, smack down, hose down, a shellacking. That's what the Democrats got last Tuesday, no two ways about it. An angry electorate punished the Dem's for high unemployment and a sluggish economy. Their advantage in the Senate was narrowed, and the House was turned upside down.

So, what now?

Well, if you listen to the Republicans, they are going to repeal Health Care Reform (yeah, good luck with that), continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and cut spending by 20%.

Here's the problem: those first two things work in direct opposition to the last one.

In regards to repealing the Health Care law, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that pulling the law back would actually cost $100 billion. So, we're already working in reverse. But then, the only way that's going to happen is if the Republicans get enough votes in the Senate (highly unlikely) and the President doesn't veto it (a snowball and Hades come to mind).

So let's move on.

Now, about those tax cuts...can anyone please explain how losing a minimum of $700 billion in federal revenue is going to cut the deficit? It's fascinating that Republicans who fought against an extension in unemployment benefits because we couldn't afford it (chump change, comparatively) can argue that the deficit can be cut while reducing revenue.

Their two stock answers are "the tax cuts will pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth" or, we'll make budget cuts elsewhere.

As far as the first response goes, if only we had four years of a historical data to base an opinion around this theory. Oh wait, we do. It's called the last four years. All the Bush tax cuts were in effect by 2006. In that time, the market crashed, middle class incomes stagnated, millions of jobs were lost, and the GDP went in reverse. But hey, let's continue to do the same thing whilst expecting a different result, shall we?

So, that leaves us with the GOP goal of cutting 20% from the budget. Which would indeed pay for the tax cuts for the rich. To do this, you will need to make serious and painful budget cuts. And on talk show after talk show, congressional Republicans refused to answer the question, "what will you cut?"

When Michelle Bachmann, John Cornyn, and John Boehner were asked if they would cut defense or entitlements, they either started answering a different question than the one that was asked, or refused to commit to cutting either. And here's the thing, if you don't cut from defense or entitlements, then you only have 15% of the federal budget left to chop. Which means you could probably balance the budget sometime in the next oh, 100 or so years.

Of course, the reason they don't want to touch entitlements is because it is a "third rail" issue with most of the public. And hacking at defense is even more of a toxic issue for their conservative base.

The Republican strategery is starting to take shape though. This week, former Bush White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card said that the President will produce a budget and the opposition will "react" to it. Which is another way of saying "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Or even more bluntly, You go first and I'll throw dirt all over it while never offering a specific alternative. Ahh, political courage at it's finest.

Is this the best they can do? They ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, and their very first policy out of the gates will add nearly 3/4 of a trillion dollars to the deficit and they can't come up with one specific offset?

This is make believe, fantasy land, poppycock.

And we're just getting started.

Sumo-Pop
November 5, 2010