 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
February 1, 2010
NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.... After the 2008 presidential election, Politico ran an "ideas" piece from Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), in which the governor shared some thoughts on what policymakers should do as the economy entered a tailspin. Pawlenty's prescription was as simplistic as it was stupid: he said the way to deal with a global financial crisis is to focus on balancing the budget. In fact, Pawlenty said passage of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget should be a top Republican priority, and the issue would position the GOP to "again become the national majority party." It was absurd, even at the time. If being correct about public policy had any relationship to a political figure's standing, the piece would have effectively ended Pawlenty's presidential ambitions on the spot. Alas, Pawlenty still pretends to be a credible figure and serious presidential aspirant. And once again, he returns to Politico today with yet another op-ed, this time characterizing the federal budget as "the largest Ponzi scheme our country has ever seen." The Minnesota Republican insists the U.S. policymakers cut spending in order to get their fiscal house in order. Putting aside the fact that Pawlenty seems a little confused about what a "Ponzi scheme" actually is, I was especially interested in learning where, exactly, the strange governor wants to cut federal spending. Wouldn't you know it, Pawlenty doesn't actually mention anything -- he wants the government to cut spending, but doesn't say where, or why, or when, or how, or what the economic consequences might be. Indeed, the only real substantive idea in Pawlenty's piece is rejection of policies that would reduce the budget deficit.
Health care reform would cut spending and lower the deficit -- ostensibly, Pawlenty's top two goals. Cap-and-trade and tax increases would also reduce the deficit and bring it closer to balance, which, again, Pawlenty says he wants. Bruce Bartlett characterized the governor's missive as "grossly ill-informed," before concluding, "Pawlenty is not ready for prime time. He may think he has found a clever way of appealing to the right wing tea party/Fox News crowd without having to propose any actual cuts in spending, but it isn't going to work. It's too transparently phony even for them." I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to be too transparently phony for unhinged right-wing activists, but a guy can dream. —Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)
Comments
Looks like Colorado Springs is about to get teabagged. Posted by: run up the score on February 1, 2010 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINKTo put things in necessary context. Right now Minnesota has a huge deficit and a huge shortfall of cash. Pawlenty's solution? Delay payments to school districts. So, our kids are directly paying for the deficit. Posted by: adjacent on February 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKI don't understand. Why should Pawlenty be held to a standard that no Republican has been held to in 30 years? What is Bartlett talking about? The Tea Party Movement is founded on the idea that we can easily cut unnamed spending, if only the fatcats in Washington would listen to them. Those bozos couldn't name a reasonable source for cuts any more than Pawlenty did. That's the whole gimmick of conservativism: It only works if you avoid the specifics. Posted by: Doctor Biobrain on February 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINKThis is the same GOP school that ran out on Friday after the President talked to the GOP House and said "See? The President acknowledged we have good ideas!" No, no, the President said you had IDEAS, not necessarily GOOD ones. Posted by: SYSPROG on February 1, 2010 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINKAdjacent beat me to it, but look at what Pawlenty has done to Minnesota's budget - ran it right into the friggin' ditch! And now he wants to ruin the national economy (not that it isn't ruined already). No thanks, Timmy! Posted by: Sam Simple on February 1, 2010 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINKI'm probably the only sicko who reads these things and imagines some "Saw"-like scenario, where they have ten minutes to get a set of scales representing the federal budget into balance by removing weights from the expenses side before the trap snaps shut... Posted by: Ken on February 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK...but doesn't say where, or why, or when, or how, or what the economic consequences might be. And you won't hear any of those. You see this dynamic in corporate America all the time. The director or vp will decide they need to cut expenses. He'll then float that ideas out there. If he gets the go ahead, he'll delegate the action to a subordinate. If the idea actually works, he takes credit for it. If it doesn't, he can say he didn't actually say recommend the specific action that was taken. After all, it was the subordinates idea to eliminate bonuses this year... Posted by: kanopsis on February 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINKAll you third-party advocates beware; the only reason Pawlenty got into office twice was due to a third party spoiler. He never got a majority. We need instant runoff. Posted by: Joey Giraud on February 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINKre: "right wing tea party/Fox News crowd ...It's too transparently phony even for them." Nothing is too phony or transparent for that crowd. Those who think otherwise are completely have no concept of history and are totally self-deluded. Posted by: d4winds on February 1, 2010 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINKThis crap has been going on for as long as tax-cap and tax-cut plans have been pushed at the state level. Howard Jarvis and Pop 13 in CA? Never said what to cut. Barbara Anderson and "Prop Two and a Half" in MA? I remember her being asked the EXACT QUESTION on a popular local radio talk show. "Its not my job to figure that out" she said, "that's the legislature's job." Again, a simple question: why is it that people who contribute to this dialog insist that there is a rationale behind republican behavior, beyond their one and only one raison d'etre, to wit, the republican philosophy is to restrict the role of the federal government to very little more than maintaining a military, along with an absolute minimum tax load to accomplish that minimal role. Governor BridgeFAIL probably would balance the budget - notably on the backs of those least likely to complain. See Tim Pawlenty's Minnesota Wrecking Crew. Posted by: Rob Levine on February 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINKForgive him, Steve. He meant Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, not the budget. He's getting his Republican talking points mixed up. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on February 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKPost a comment
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
