gop

This week the House will vote on repealing healthcare reform, the first big legislative move of the new Congress. Perhaps the GOP leadership in the House wants to rethink this, since they are “listening to the people” and all:

As for repeal, only about one in four say they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 percent after the elections to 49 percent now.

But what people need to realize is that they were sold a big lie from the GOP. The talking point of the last election cycle was “repeal and replace”. Well they are trying to do the first one, but the second is non-existent. The Republicans have absolutely nothing to replace it with, meaning we will go back to the same old broken system. That’s something else the people don’t want:

Also, 43 percent say they want the law changed so it does more to re-engineer the health care system. Fewer than one in five say it should be left as it is.

So what should the GOP do? For starters, scrap the vote this week. Instead of repealing everything, work to fix it. Let’s start with getting rid of the mandate, which seems like a very popular idea:

Nearly six in 10 oppose the law's requirement that people carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Starting in 2014, people will have to show that they're covered either through an employer, a government program, or under their own plan.

Finally we get some good news on the job front:

The U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs in the final month of 2010 while the nation’s unemployment rate fell to 9.4%, the lowest level since May 2009, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Payrolls for November and October were also revised higher by 70,000 jobs, the government said. Read the full report.

What’s interesting there is that the job market was better in October and November than first anticipated. I’m sure a lot on the right will try to swing these numbers as being good for the GOP, but October was before the election. You can’t spin time, even though they do try.

So the party of “financial responsibility” is going to spend about $1.1 million just on reading the Constitution on the House floor:

The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.

To get this estimate, I took the total FY 2011 costs for House salaries and expenses and House office buildings, then added half the costs of joint House-Senate expenses, the CBO, the Capitol Police and the Capitol power plant. Then I divided that sum by 205, the number of days the House was in session last year, then divided again by 24 (the number of hours in a day) and multiplied by 3 (the estimated length in hours of members reading the Constitution). It might not take three hours to read the document, but on the other hand, Congress is usually in session for considerably less than 205 days a year. Also, I didn’t include staff costs, since most aides will probably be working through the reading. But not all will be, so overall I think this is a conservative estimate.

Of course the wingnuts are already in full defense of this, just the same way they defended Bush and the GOP’s runaway spending during the last decade.

This is how the GOP cuts government spending:

For a guy who insists that federal bureaucrats make too much money, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor sure doesn't mind handing out handsome government raises of his own.

Cantor, the Virginia Republican who has led the GOP charge this year to freeze federal salaries, has boosted his congressional office's payroll by 81 percent since coming to Congress in 2001 – about 8 percent per year through 2009. When he became minority whip last year, the office's personnel expenses went up by at least 16 percent.

And how about a Tea Bagger darlings?

_ Firebrand Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has for months pushed legislation to freeze what she calls "unconscionable" federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.

If you are one of those Tea Baggers that believe in people like Bachmann then I got some ocean front property in Utah to sell you. You really need to wake up and realize that you are being made a total fool of.

Yesterday news broke that Willow Palin, the 16 year old daughter of 1/2 term governor Sarah, took to Facebook in a homophobic slur rant against someone who complained about Palin’s reality show:

During the premiere of "Sarah Palin's Alaska" Sunday night -- a boy named Tre who went to school with the Palin kids wrote a status update that read, "Sarah Palin's Alaska, is failing so hard right now."

The comment sparked an intense response from Willow -- who replied on the boy's wall, "Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I've seen pictures of, your disgusting ... My sister had a kid and is still hot."

Willow followed up that comment with another that read, "Tre stfu. Your such a f**got."

Bristol Palin also got in on the smacktalk -- writing a message to Tre saying, "You're running your mouth just to talk sh*t."

This sparked the GOP to come to the defense of Willow, writing this off as “kids being kids”. Here’s the statement from Tammy Bruce of GOProud:

“Willow Palin is a 16 year old girl who, like all 16 year olds is going to make mistakes and say things she shouldn’t have. This, however, has nothing to do with Willow Palin or the substance of what she said on Facebook. The ‘slur’ used here is one you could hear on the streets of West Hollywood or Chelsea every day of the week.  Apparently, it’s only a ‘homophobic slur’ when it comes from the daughter of a conservative female leader.  Make no mistake; this is all about destroying Sarah Palin by any means necessary.

Something a lot of people don’t seem to be discussing is the merits of the actual rule requiring MSNBC/NBC employees to get approval before making political donations, and the further extreme stance of CNN barring it’s employees from the act. To me this is something that goes against the fundamental Constitutional right of Americans to engage in the political process.

These type of policies are not limited to the media though. Another common place to find them is in local government. From police to firefighters to regular city workers, countless municipalities across the country have policies in place barring employees from donating or partaking in the political process. Even things like having a candidates sign in your yard can be grounds for dismissal.

Yesterday Senator Bernie Sanders released a strongly worded statement supporting Olbermann. You can read the whole thing here, but the key part I want to bring up is here:

"It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.

Out of Kentucky comes one of the biggest problems of the secret campaign donors the Supreme Court has allowed:

In the bitter U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, a local millionaire has helped launch a barrage of ads attacking the Democratic candidate a candidate who, as the state's attorney general, is prosecuting the businessman's nursing home for allegedly covering up sexual abuse, records show.

The businessman's name is Terry Forcht. And like many super-wealthy conservative donors who are quietly stoking the GOP's mid-term election surge around the nation, the extent of his investment in the 2010 campaign is both vast and, for now at least, largely unknown.

In addition to donating personally to Republican Rand Paul's upstart campaign, Forcht is the banker handling funds for American Crossroads. The conservative group was founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove and has, through its non-profit arm, American Crossroads GPS, channeled millions into this year's campaigns without identifying its donors.

We are auctioning off our democracy to the highest bidder and this is exemplifies the very problem with that.

Ezra Klein lays out the odds of the GOP reducing the deficit should they regain control of Congress:

If Republicans take the House and the Senate, how much likelier is a full extension of the Bush tax cuts? I'd say it goes up to 70 percent, and the only reason I don't say 100 percent is that President Obama has more incentive to pick a fight with Congress. Nevertheless, the compromise will almost surely include a temporary extension of the tax cuts for income over $250,000.

Now, if Republicans take the House, how much likelier is a deficit-reduction deal that increases revenues or cuts spending by at least$700 billion over the next 10 years, thus making up for the tax cuts? Maybe 10 or 20 percent? And I think I'm being generous here.

What if the Republicans take the Senate, too? I'd think the chances might actually go down, as Obama would need to fight on behalf of his base if he's going to remain viable for 2010. You might see some changes made to Social Security, but nothing on the order of $700 billion over the next 10 years.

When you have a closely divided Congress you end up with another gray elephant that increases the deficit – earmarks. This is mostly evident in the Senate and something we have already seen come into play with the GOP’s “filibuster it all” attitude.