republicans

Last night’s State of the Union address by President Obama received some of the highest marks ever. One poll has 91% of the viewers approving of what the President said, while another had the approval at 84%. A vast majority of this country likes the plans the President laid out and that’s a number you just can’t ignore.

Or can you?

Well if you look around at the right wing sites today, you will quickly see them dismissing the speech:

If you were expecting a moderate Obama or a bold Obama, you were disappointed, most likely, by Tuesday's State of the Union Address. In a nutshell: Obama proposed a ton of new domestic spending, promised to freeze discretionary spending (attained by savaging defense), abstained from offering specifics on entitlement reform and largely ignored major foreign policy changes. Moreover, the delivery was so listless that this State of the Union address likely garnered less applause than any address in recent memory.

I didn’t know the “applause-o-meter” was the key to success in SOTU addresses. The last SOTU address that saw poll numbers like this was in 2002, right after 9/11.

President Obama laid out a clear plan for a successful America last night. The Republicans won’t have anything to do with it simply because Obama laid it out. Numerous polls have already shown that the honeymoon is over with the Republican controlled House, and with the support the President saw from his speech, fighting the plans laid out will help keep the newly found Republican power in check. As matter of fact it could lead to a one term win for them.

There has been a lot of talk that President Obama might be open to some sort of deal to cut Social Security benefits. Well that is a very bad idea:

President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos.

Even more interesting is that the poll is finding the public not trusting the Democrats on Social Security as much as they did before, while the trust in Republicans is on the rise. During that time frame we saw Republicans going out to the angry town halls and saying that they would not touch Social Security. Of course those of us who really follow politics know that is far from the truth. This was just another example of “snake oil salesman” tactics by the GOP.

So hopefully we won’t hear the President talk about Social Security at the SOTU next week. If he does then he should lay out a plan to restore all the borrowed money to the system and legislation that will prevent lawmakers from using the money for anything they want. That is our money and it should be kept as such.

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.

We have heard for months the chest beating of Darrell Issa, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Now it’s gone from chest beating to down right slander:

The Republican congressman who is taking over responsibility for congressional oversight calledPresident Obama's administration "one of the most corrupt administrations" on Sunday and predicted that the investigations he is planning over the next two years could result in about $200 billion in savings for U.S. taxpayers.

It sounds to me like Issa has already passed judgment without as much as a hearing or seeing evidence. The really makes for an impartial judge (NOT!).

And while on this subject, something that really irks me is that Republicans love using the power of Congress to enact oversight on the administrative branch, but when the administrative branch enacts oversight on the legislative branch, generally through the DOJ and criminal investigations, they label it as a “political witch hunt”.

It’s also funny how Republicans, like Issa, warned against investigating George Bush, warning the Democrats would suffer the same way Republicans did when investigating Clinton. Yeah that whole premise went the way of common sense in Washington. Of course I also blame the Democrats for falling for that whole BS line. But perhaps President Obama should take a page from the George Bush playbook and start claiming executive privilege on everything. Let that happen and you can bet the Republicans will be crying foul instantly.

The Senate has just ratified the START treaty by a 71-26 vote. All Democrats voted for the bill and 13 Republicans, 1/4 of the Republican caucus, broke with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ratify the new treaty.

(On a side note, sorry for the lack of posting. With the holidays, a bad cold and massive work load, I haven’t been able to keep up with anything!)

Hearing the Republicans pound their chests as the anti-earmark crusaders has me laughing. I decided it was time to look for some historical data on earmarks, which ended up validating my suspicions.

First thing you will notice is that the source of this chart is from the very conservative Heritage Foundation, using data from the also very conservative Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense. I wonder if these two groups recognize what I have in the data? Look at the biggest years of earmark spending and the number of earmark bills. The two biggest years just so happen to be years that the Republican Party controlled Congress.

But apparently these groups didn’t even look at their own charts. Read the top part; “Despite pledges from President Obama and congressional leaders to curtail earmark spending, the practice has continued at previous levels”. While the number of earmarks is still high (though much less than in 2005), the cost of these projects have seen a pretty substantial drop.

Any shock?

If you ask Republicans around the country, they'll probably tell you that Tuesday's election results were all about pushing back against excessive government spending. Problem is, they may have forgotten to elect anyone who's actually planning on real budget cuts.

Rep. John Boehner, presumptively the next Speaker of the House and a longtime rhetorical foe of earmark spending in its present form, told a Fox News host on Thursday that the proposed ban on congressional earmarks he'd been talking up was officially off the table.

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.