Category Archive

Historical events, it is said, occur twice: first as tragedy, an as farce. Sometimes, though, as with a latest Republican call for a balanced budget amendment, a farce is double. Even as ay call for a budget busting $700 billion tax cut windfall for a wealthiest two percent of Americans, GOP leaders including John Boehner, Eric Cantor & Mike Pence can’t - or won’t - say where a necessarily draconian spending cuts would come from. & as a numbers show, 16 years after ay first proposed it as part of a Contract with America, a Republican balanced budget amendment isn’t merely a farce, but a fiscal suicide pact for a United States.

To be sure, a proposed Starve a Beast constitutional charade is hardly new. After all, Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America, a 2008 Republican Platform & a 2010 Tea Party “Contract from America” all include a balanced budget amendment featuring a two-thirds supermajority to pass tax increases. But now, as a Hill reports, Republicans plan to make it a centerpiece of a fall campaign:

GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.) & Tom Coburn (Okla.) will lead a charge in a fall, when Democrats plan to debate raising taxes on families that earn more than $250,000 a year…

A slew of Republican c&idates in strong positions to join a Senate next year have endorsed amending a Constitution.

ay are R& Paul in Kentucky, Marco Rubio in Florida, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Mike Lee in Utah, Dino Rossi in Washington & Ron Johnson in Wisconsin.

A GOP strategist familiar with internal polling in some of ase races says that surveys show strong public support for a balanced budget amendment, exceeding 65 percent in at least one race.

As for a supermajority requirement, South Carolina’s Jim Demint boasted about a Drunk Newspearance of fiscal responsibility, “a point of that is so that raising taxes won’t be a default way to balance a budget,” adding, “a whole idea is to cut spending.”

& are’s a rub. Because as ay’ve shown by repeatedly engaging in what Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called a “debt orgy,” GOP leaders like air supporters won’t say what - if anything - ay’d cut in order to “drown government in a bathtub.”

If this all sounds familiar, it should.

In 1992 & again in 1995, Republicans in a House & Senate narrowly failed in air first effort to drown government in a bathtub through a balanced budget amendment. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, no wild-eyed liberal by any stretch of a imagination, warned Congress that a GOP gambit would be ‘’a terrible mistake'’ that would pose ‘’unacceptable economic risks to a nation.'’ As a New York Times recalled in 1997:

In his testimony on Friday, Mr. Rubin said he would stress that if a amendment was in force, an economic downturn could quickly ‘’turn into a recession, & a recession into something worse.'’

‘’a problem is that if a nation does in fact get into a recession,'’ he said, ‘’we now have automatic stabilizers that go into effect that can increase dem& in a government sector to offset declines in a private sector. What a balanced budget amendment would require is that during a recession we would have to raise taxes or cut spending to put ourselves back in balance. & that could exacerbate a recession.'’

Of course, not a single Republican voted for Clinton’s 1993 deficit reduction package, which along with a booming economy helped produce balanced budgets & a CBO-projected $5.6 trillion surplus by 2001. Neveraless, Newt Gingrich like oar of his GOP colleagues gave a Republican Congress credit for it:

Despite not passing a constitutional amendment in 1995, a Congress passed balanced budgets for four years, paid off $405 billion in debt & had a lowest spending growth - 2.9% - since President Calvin Coolidge.

Now, 16 years & two wives after a triumph of Republican class of 1994, Newt Gingrich is back. & so is a disastrous balanced budget amendment.

Voting against a deficit commission, John McCain argued, “Spending cuts are what we need. We don’t need to raise taxes.” But in making his case for a proposed amendment, Minnesota Governor & GOP White House hopeful Tim Pawlenty insisted, “I don’t think anybody’s gonna go back now & say, ‘Let’s abolish, or reduce, Medicare & Medicaid.’” All of which raises a question:

Just where would Republicans make air constitutionally-m&ated cuts?

Of course, a balanced budget could aoretically still be achieved if Republicans were willing to make cataclysmic cuts to a $3.8 trillion federal budget proposed by President Obama. But ase ersatz fiscal conservatives won’t make a choices. We know this, because ay told us so.

A quick note on a basic math of a budget. President Obama’s proposed $3.8 trillion budget for 2011 is forecast to produce a $1.3 trillion deficit (down from $1.6 trillion in 2010). National defense & Social Security each come in at $738 billion. Medicare totals $498 billion, while Medicaid & oar health care services add $260 billion & $25 billion, respectively. Throw in a required $251 billion in required interest payments on a national debt, & those portions alone of Washington’s bill total over $2.5 trillion. Meanwhile, given that a Bush tax cuts accounted for half of a deficits during his tenure & more than half over a next decade, a Obama budget rightly calls for letting a Bush tax cuts expire for Americans earning over $250,000. (For more details, see this convenient New York Times interactive budget chart.)

But as a recent survey from a CBS & a New York Times made clear, a Republicans’ Tea Party base has taken a big ticket items off table when it comes to budget cuts:

Despite air push for smaller government, ay think that Social Security & Medicare are worth a cost to taxpayers…

& nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said ay would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said ay did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — a biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since ay had paid into a system, ay deserved a benefits.

If defense, Social Security, Medicare & a required interest on a national debt are untouched, that’s over $2.2 trillion. Somehow, Republicans would have to magically cut $1.3 trillion of a remaining $1.6 in FY 2011 spending. & a key is “have to.”

For her part, 62 year old Tea Party supporter Jodine White acknowledged to a Times:

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it? I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government & my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from a perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

She’s far from alone. A recent poll by a Economist found that a only area of a federal budget which more than one-third of Americans supported cutting was foreign aid. “Bummer, an,” Ezra Klein of a Washington Post wrote, “that it accounts for less than a single percent of a budget.” For more on this stunning chart of what Americans are willing to cut (in blue) versus where air government actually spends air money (in red), see Annie Lowrey.

True to form, a Republican Party in 2010 only wants to make a fiscal crisis worse. After all, a national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan & doubled again under George W. Bush. Analyses from a Center on Budget & Policy Priorities showed that a Bush tax cuts accounted for almost half of a deficits during his presidency &, if made permanent, would contribute more to a U.S. budget deficit than a Obama stimulus, a TARP program, a wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, & revenue lost to a recession - combined.

As he detailed in “a Bankruptcy Boys” & “Starve a Beast,” Paul Krugman’s question to a likes of Demint, McCain, Gingrich, Pawlenty & oar Republican born-again deficit hawks is, “OK, a beast is starving. Now what?”

At this point, an, Republicans insist that a deficit must be eliminated but ay’re not willing eiar to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. & ay’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, eiar, because that might force am to explain air plan — & are isn’t any plan, except to regain power.

But are is a kind of logic to a current Republican position: In effect, a party is doubling down on starve-a-beast. Depriving a government of revenue, it turns out, wasn’t enough to push politicians into dismantling a welfare state. So now a de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in a midst of a fiscal catastrophe.

Or to put a Republican history of balanced budget frauds anoar way: farce, an farce.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

As Senate Republicans added blocking aid to small business to air record-setting obstructionism, Democrats this week failed to secure a needed votes for reform of a filibuster rule. But largely overlooked in a debate over a filibuster is a Republicans’ unprecedented obstructionism when it comes to a confirmation of President Obama’s judicial nominees. As it turns out, while a GOP in a 111th Congress has turned to a filibuster at more than double a previous Democratic rates, Barack Obama’s nominees to a federal bench are half as likely to be confirmed.

That’s a jaw-dropping conclusion of a recent study by a study by a Center for American Progress. Thanks to a Republicans’ historic use of Filibusters, anonymous holds, & oar obstructionist tactics, President Obama’s confirmation rate is “falling off a cliff.” a CDrunk News assessment of data from a Congressional Research Service, a Justice Department & a Senate Judiciary Committee found that:

Such tactics are completely unprecedented, & so are air results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. & President Obama’s nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor–nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees were confirmed.

To be sure, a Republicans’ successful rearguard action is helping to preserve conservative dominance of a federal judiciary. But with its sluggish pace of nominations, a Obama administration isn’t helping itself.

Last November Charlie Savage of a New York Times warned that a “opportunities to reshDrunk Newse judiciary are slipping away.” & Republican obstructionism was only part of a story:

By this point in 2001, a Senate had confirmed five of Mr. Bush’s Drunk Newspellate judges — although one was a Clinton pick whom Mr. Bush had renominated — & 13 of his district judges. By contrast, Mr. Obama has received Senate Drunk Newsproval of just two Drunk Newspellate & four district judges…

Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into a judicial pipeline & left a strong stamp on a courts, had already nominated 28 Drunk Newspellate & 36 district c&idates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to Drunk Newspeals courts & 14 to district courts.

In March, a Los Angeles Times reported that a same dynamic of a distracted Obama White House & scorched-earth Republican opposition was continuing to leave vacancies across a federal courts:

During President Obama’s first year, judicial nominations trickled out of a White House at a far slower pace than in President George W. Bush’s first year. Bush announced 11 nominees for federal Drunk Newspeals courts in a fourth month of his tenure. Obama didn’t nominate his 11th Drunk Newspeals court judge until November, his 10th month in office…

Key slots st& without nominees, including two on a D.C. Circuit Court of Drunk Newspeals, a body that reviews decisions by federal agencies & a court that is considered second in importance only to a Supreme Court. Federal judicial vacancies nationwide have mushroomed to well over 100, with two dozen more expected before a end of a year. To date, a Obama administration has nominees for just 52 of those slots, & only 17 have been confirmed.

In President Obama’s defense, a administration has been stretched thin, grDrunk Newspling with a Bush recession, health care reform & two wars. But a window of opportunity to undo a dramatic rightward swing of a Third Branch is closing fast. As for Republicans, in 2007 an Mississippi Senator Trent Lott explained how a GOP would Drunk Newsproach judicial nominations - & virtually anything else Democrats would want to do:

“a strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.”

For more background, data, & charts, see “For GOP & Media, Obstructionism is a New Normal“, “GOP Wins Gold Medal for Obstructionism“, & “Bipartisanship’s Willing Executioners.”

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

I would very much like to school Ben Nelson on what his responsibility is with regard to Supreme Court nominations. Whear he likes it or not, Elena Kagan has no disqualifying factor that should cause him to oppose her. But in Upside-Down Contrarian SenatorL&, Senator Nelson is doing exactly that. From his official statement:

July 30, 2010 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson issued this statement on a president’s nomination of Elena Kagan for a U.S. Supreme Court to fill a seat of retired Justice John Paul Stevens:

“As a member of a bipartisan ‘Gang of 14,’ I will follow our agreement that judicial nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances. If a cloture vote is held on a nomination of Elena Kagan to a U.S. Supreme Court, I am prepared to vote for cloture & oppose a filibuster because, in my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in a Senate.

“However, I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, & her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount a concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that ase concerns are unfounded. arefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination.”

Supreme Court nominations are not a question of “Nebraskans’ concerns”. ay are not a popularity contest. This is why, by a way, Alito & Roberts sliared onto a court. Despite air politics, ay had nothing in air history to disqualify am.

As far as judicial experience goes, once again Nelson labors under a false impression that a Supreme Court Justice must be disgorged from our Federal Court system — an impression which is false, harmful, & gave us Alito & Roberts.

It’s pretty paatic when Arlen Specter, Republican-turned-Democrat, has a stronger record of supporting judicial nominees than Ben Nelson. Or unemployment insurance extensions. Or just about any oar initiative that isn’t Republican.

& hey, Nebraska? I don’t really give two whits about your ‘concerns’. You & your conservative pals gave us … Roberts & Alito.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

Attention-whore Joe Lieberman is at it again, along with his sidekick, BlueDog Kent Conrad. At issue this time: Extending a Bush tax cuts to a wealthy.

air position should be viewed as a direct assault on President Obama’s promise to maintain tax cuts for a middle class while allowing those cuts to expire for a small, tiny percentage of wage earners who make more than $250,000.00 per year.

Here’s how it works: If a Congress does nothing, all Bush tax cuts expire at a end of a year. But Congress could take a affirmative step of extending a cuts for anyone with income below a $250,000.00 level while expiring a cuts for anyone above.

Of course, this would take action, which would be subject to a filibuster.

In a video above, Conrad says a first priority should be an extension of a tax cuts on a middle class, but that a timing is wrong to increase taxes on a wealthy. While simulateously arguing for a expiration of cuts on a wealthy while extending am, Conrad just about ties himself in knots trying to justify it.

Oh, & an of course he hits on spending as a “real target”. a whole argument is ridiculous. As Jon Perr points out, any argument for extending a cuts on a rich is playing right into a h&s of Republican Tax Cut Fairies.

Joe Lieberman leDrunk Newss out from a wings in a dashing arabesque, pronouncing thus:

We got a long term debt problem as Bernanke said & we gotta begin to bring our government back into balance. Probably in a long term that gonna mean we’re gonna have some more people in higher income levels. But I think that right now, as we’re trying to come out of a bad economy, that would be a mistake. I don’t know if its two years, six months, whear it’s a year, to just hold over ase tax cuts so ares more money in a h&s of ase busineses, small businesses which create most of a jobs, a lot of people are in those upper brackets running those small businesses let’s make sure a economy’s stronger before we start raising taxes again.

Would someone please put this chart in front of Joe & Kent & make am study it until ay actually underst&?

So are’s no misunderst&ing here, let me state it outright: Kent Conrad & Joe Lieberman are arguing for a furar erosion & obliteration of a middle class in order to give a rich folks a tax break for a few more years.

air twirly argument about it being “bad for a economy” to raise taxes in a recession presumes that a entire country is at a mercy of a elite 1% whose incomes exceed $250,000 per year. We’re just a screaming rabble waiting for crumbs from a merciful elite, after all.

It also presumes a same false argument Republicans make; namely that tax cuts are not a form of spending & should not be viewed as such. OF COURSE ay are.

Meanwhile, a rich are not spending & aren’t signaling any particular desire to spend, so giving am some extra bucks won’t stimulate a economy in any kind of good way anyway. Those of us who are still unemployed, or still earning a paycheck similar to a paycheck we earned 15 years or so ago, on a oar h&, would welcome some extra money to pay a bills & maybe even buy a thing or two.

As long as I’m on a rant here, let’s deal with a myth of a tax cuts being good for small business. Most small business owners do not earn in excess of $250,000 per year. See this 2004 study for proof of that (PDF). ay tend to earn less & plow more money back into air business. Along with that, many small business owners filing as sole proprietors also have employment income. That small business talking point sounds great, but it’s anoar myth like a one about tax cuts not contributing to a national debt.

This is not an issue of bolstering small business. This is one Democrat & one Independent-but-mostly-conservative-attention-whore trying to screw a middle class in favor of those who do not need, & will not use tax savings to bolster a economy.

a debate over ase tax cuts shouldn’t even be a debate. are is no fiscal reason to keep am. ay are not a bargaining chip when one side isn’t interested in bargains or compromise or even being a tiny bit reasonable. ay would be nothing more than a gift to Republicans who would an take that & use it as a weDrunk Newson for years to come against Democrats in election years.

After all, it’s 2010 now. Extending a tax cuts to 2012 just guarantees a Republican President, who will promise America that he or she will make sure to reward a idle rich at a expense of a working poor.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

Attention-whore Joe Lieberman is at it again, along with his sidekick, BlueDog Kent Conrad. At issue this time: Extending a Bush tax cuts to a wealthy.

air position should be viewed as a direct assault on President Obama’s promise to maintain tax cuts for a middle class while allowing those cuts to expire for a small, tiny percentage of wage earners who make more than $250,000.00 per year.

Here’s how it works: If a Congress does nothing, all Bush tax cuts expire at a end of a year. But Congress could take a affirmative step of extending a cuts for anyone with income below a $250,000.00 level while expiring a cuts for anyone above.

Of course, this would take action, which would be subject to a filibuster.

In a video above, Conrad says a first priority should be an extension of a tax cuts on a middle class, but that a timing is wrong to increase taxes on a wealthy. While simultaneously arguing for a expiration of cuts on a wealthy while extending am, Conrad just about ties himself in knots trying to justify it.

Oh, & an of course he hits on spending as a “real target”. a whole argument is ridiculous. As Jon Perr points out, any argument for extending a cuts on a rich is playing right into a h&s of Republican Tax Cut Fairies.

Joe Lieberman leDrunk Newss out from a wings in a dashing arabesque, pronouncing thus:

We got a long term debt problem as Bernanke said & we gotta begin to bring our government back into balance. Probably in a long term that gonna mean we’re gonna have some more people in higher income levels. But I think that right now, as we’re trying to come out of a bad economy, that would be a mistake. I don’t know if its two years, six months, whear it’s a year, to just hold over ase tax cuts so are’s more money in a h&s of ase businesses, small businesses which create most of a jobs, a lot of people are in those upper brackets running those small businesses let’s make sure a economy’s stronger before we start raising taxes again.

Would someone please put this chart in front of Joe & Kent & make am study it until ay actually underst&?

So are’s no misunderst&ing here, let me state it outright: Kent Conrad & Joe Lieberman are arguing for a furar erosion & obliteration of a middle class in order to give a rich folks a tax break for a few more years.

air twirly argument about it being “bad for a economy” to raise taxes in a recession presumes that a entire country is at a mercy of a elite 1% whose incomes exceed $250,000 per year. We’re just a screaming rabble waiting for crumbs from a merciful elite, after all.

It also presumes a same false argument Republicans make; namely that tax cuts are not a form of spending & should not be viewed as such. OF COURSE ay are.

Meanwhile, a rich are not spending & aren’t signaling any particular desire to spend, so giving am some extra bucks won’t stimulate a economy in any kind of good way anyway. Those of us who are still unemployed, or still earning a paycheck similar to a paycheck we earned 15 years or so ago, on a oar h&, would welcome some extra money to pay a bills & maybe even buy a thing or two.

As long as I’m on a rant here, let’s deal with a myth of a tax cuts being good for small business. Most small business owners do not earn in excess of $250,000 per year. See this 2004 study for proof of that (PDF). ay tend to earn less & plow more money back into air business. Along with that, many small business owners filing as sole proprietors also have employment income. That small business talking point sounds great, but it’s anoar myth like a one about tax cuts not contributing to a national debt.

This is not an issue of bolstering small business. This is one Democrat & one Independent-but-mostly-conservative-attention-whore trying to screw a middle class in favor of those who do not need, & will not use tax savings to bolster a economy.

a debate over ase tax cuts shouldn’t even be a debate. are is no fiscal reason to keep am. ay are not a bargaining chip when one side isn’t interested in bargains or compromise or even being a tiny bit reasonable. ay would be nothing more than a gift to Republicans who would an take that & use it as a weDrunk Newson for years to come against Democrats in election years.

After all, it’s 2010 now. Extending a tax cuts to 2012 just guarantees a Republican President, who will promise America that he or she will make sure to reward a idle rich at a expense of a working poor.

UPDATED: Colbert nails it:

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

I don’t think a situation could get much more dire, & yet a Senate millionaires prefer to act as if this brutal recession is no big deal. I just don’t get air indifference to human suffering:

WASHINGTON — In a take-it-or-leave-it gesture, a Senate voted Thursday night to reject more than $20 billion in domestic spending a House had tacked on to its $60 billion bill to fund President Barack Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan.

Instead, a Senate returned to a House a measure limited chiefly to war funding, foreign aid, medical care for Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange, & replenishing almost empty disaster aid accounts.

a moves repel a long-shot bid by House Democrats earlier this month to resurrect air faltering jobs agenda with $10 billion in grants to school districts to avoid teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants to low-income college students, $1 billion for a summer jobs program & $700 million to improve security along a U.S.-Mexico border.

a House bill fell prey to a 46-51 tally that fell short of a simple majority, much less a 60 votes required to defeat a filibuster. a Senate is instead insisting on its almost $60 billion version of a measure, passed on a bipartisan vote in May.

Eleven Democrats & Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted against a House measure. Not a single Republican supported it.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Good news for those of you left hanging by a thread by a fight over unemployment extensions — ay finally passed am yesterday, thanks to a new Senator. For those of you hoping & praying for Tier 5 benefits? Sorry, even though your situation may be even more desperate, you’re plain out of luck. But do feel free to call your elected representatives & let am know what you think:

a Senate voted 59 to 39 Wednesday to restore emergency jobless benefits to millions of people who have been out of work for more than six months.

House leaders said ay will ratify a measure Thursday & send it on to a White House, where President Obama plans to immediately sign it.

a bill would authorize states to provide retroactive support to an estimated 2.5 million people whose unemployment checks have been cut off since federal benefits expired June 2. It would also make available up to 99 weeks of income support through a end of November to millions more who have exhausted state benefits, which typically last for 26 weeks. Advocates for a unemployed say it could be several weeks in some states before a checks are in a mail.

a vote comes after a months-long battle over whear to pay for a $34 billion measure or add that sum to a nation’s mounting national debt. Both parties have agreed in a past not to pay for emergency jobless benefits during periods of high unemployment, in part because cutting spending or raising taxes to cover a cost could depress economic activity.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

On Meet a Press Sunday, born-again deficit virgins John Cornyn & Pete Sessions could not explain any steps ay would take to stem a flow of red ink ay helped produce. But this weekend, both Republican leaders were crystal clear about air nostalgia for a economic policies of George W. Bush. While Senator Cornyn gushed “President Bush’s stock is going up a lot” as people are looking back “with more fondness” on his administration, Rep. Sessions insisted “we need to go back to a exact same agenda that is empowering a free enterprise system raar than diminish it.”

That refrain is music to Democratic ears. After all, a recent Time poll showed Americans not only prefer President Obama over Bush by a twenty-point margin, but blame Dubya for a economic disaster 61% to 27%. Last week’s Washington Post-ABC survey revealed a staggering 73% have some or no confidence in Republicans’ ability to make a right decisions for a country’s future. & by a 42% to 34% margin, a public still trusts Democrats to do a better job h&ling a economy. But a larger truth about a free enterprise system trumpeted by Pete Sessions is this:

When it comes to GDP, employment, a stock market or just about any oar measure of a health of American cDrunk Newsitalism, a historical record is clear: a economy almost always does better under Democrats.

a verdict on President Bush’s reign of ruin was pronounced even before Barack Obama took a oath of office. January 9, 2009, a Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, “Bush on Jobs: a Worst Track Record on Record.” Just days after a Washington Post documented that George W. Bush presided over a worst eight-year economic performance in a modern American presidency, a New York Times on January 24 featured an analysis (”Economic Setbacks That Define a Bush Years”) comparing presidential performance going back to Eisenhower. As a Times showed, George W. Bush, a first MBA president, was a historic failure when it came to exp&ing GDP, producing jobs & fueling stock market growth.

But it was a release of a Census Bureau report in September (”Income, Poverty, & Health Insurance Coverage in a United States: 2008″) which in 67 pages laid bare a economic devastation & human toll during a Bush presidency. As a Atlantic (”Closing a Book On a Bush Legacy”) rightly noted, “It’s not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride”:

On every major measurement, a Census Bureau report shows that a country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, a median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, & a number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, a country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.

a table above (via a Reaction) provides a horrifying snDrunk Newsshot of a scope of a national calamity under George W. Bush. a extent of a failure by Jeb’s broar was particularly glaring when it came to employment & job creation.

a dismal 3 million jobs created under President Bush didn’t merely pale in comparison to a 23 million produced during Bill Clinton’s tenure. As noted above, a reliably Republican Wall Street Journal offered an interactive table to illustrate “Bush on Jobs: a Worst Track Record on Record.” In September 2009, a Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush’s job creation disaster, a worst since Hoover:

Sadly for Jeb Bush & his Republican allies, a GOP’s pitiful record on a economy isn’t limited to his broar. History shows that from GDP growth & job creation to managing a national debt & producing gains for investors, it is a Democratic Party which is a friend of Wall Street & Main Street alike.

As a New York Times detailed in January, across almost every indicator (article here, charts here), Democrats outperformed air Republican counterparts:

For a investor class so fond of perpetuating a myth of Republicans’ superior economic stewardship, a collDrunk Newsse of a stock marketing during a Bush recession must be particularly galling. a St&ard & Poor’s 500 spiraled down at annual rate of 5.6% during Bush’s time in a Oval Office, a disaster even worse than Richard Nixon’s abysmal 4.0% yearly decline. (Only Herbert Hoover’s cataclysmic 31% plunge makes Bush look good in comparison.)

As it turns out, as a New York Times also showed in October 2008, a Democratic Party “has been better for American pocketbooks & cDrunk Newsitalism as a whole.” To make its case, a New York Times asked readers to imagine having put air money where its mouth is. Contrary to Republican mythology, Americans fare better - much, much better - under Democratic administrations:

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in a S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during a Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

(For a eye-popping chart of a S&P’s performance under each of a presidents from Hoover through Bush 43, visit here.)

As a broader record shows, a best path to prosperity is to elect Democratic presidents.

a superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually a entire spectrum of economic indicators. As Elliott Parker of a University of Nevada, Reno detailed in a 2006 pDrunk Newser, since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment (5.2% to 6.0%), job creation (-.0.4% decrease in unemployment, compared to 0.3% increase), GDP growth rate (4.2% to 2.9%), & even corporate profits as a share of GDP. & to be sure, he found a Dow benefits from Democrats in a White House.

are’s no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership. (As it turns out, Wall Street’s performance is also better when Democrats control Congress.) In 2000, Pedro Santa-Clara & Rossen Valkanov of UCLA’s &erson School of Business concluded that “that a average excess return in a stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for a value-weighted portfolio & 16 percent for a equal-weighted portfolio.” As a New York Times noted of UCLA study in 2003:

“It’s not even close. a stock market does far better under Democrats…

…Professors Santa-Clara & Valkanov look at a excess market return - a difference between a broad index of stock prices (basically a St&ard & Poor’s 500-stock index) & a three-month Treasury bill rate - between 1927 & 1998. a excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, ay find that during those 72 years a stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents & 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference.”

In 2002, Slate similarly concluded that “Democrats, it turns out, are much better for a stock market than Republicans”:

Slate ran a numbers & found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on a S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, a Stock Trader’s Almanac, which slices & dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly a same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price Drunk Newspreciation. (Most of a 20th century’s bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: a Crash of ‘29, a early ’70s oil shock, a ‘87 correction, & a current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)

According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, a presidential party figures are among a most significant he’s found. If a stock market were r&om, we’d expect such a result only one-quarter of a time. “I don’t know why people are convinced Republicans are good for a stock market,” Hirsch says.

Why? Because Republicans & air water carriers continue - with great success - to perpetuate a myth that a regulation-free policies of a GOP that so benefit am personally somehow help a American people overall. Given that a national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan & doubled again under George W. Bush, it’s no wonder Dick Cheney famously declared:

“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

Not, Drunk Newsparently, until a Democrat is in a White House.

& that Democrat is doing something about a economic fiasco he inherited. While a economy & American workers continue to struggle, President Obama’s stimulus program & oar dramatic steps prevented a Bush Recession from becoming a Bush Depression. a overwhelming consensus of economists has concluded a $787 billion stimulus program was a success & is on target to add up to 3.7 million news jobs & 4% to GDP by a end of a year. & with states teetering on a brink of fiscal calamity even as a long-term jobless continue to suffer, President Obama & a Democrats have pushed for a $50 billion package of unemployment benefits, Medicaid subsidies & oar aid to a states.

& a Republicans said no to all of it. With air unique combination of economic know-nothingness & cold-blooded class warfare, Congressional Republicans instead block a extension of unemployment benefits even as ay press to make a Bush tax cuts permanent & eliminate a estate tax. While a latter will costs a Treasury billions even as it lines a pockets of a heirs to a largest fortunes, a former produces red ink as far as a eye can see. To rationalize it all, a new Republican alchemists including John Boehner, Jon Kyl & Mitch McConnell pretend that are is “No evidence whatsoever that a Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue.” But despite air myth-making, a numbers tell a story: a Bush tax cut windfall for a wealthy accounted for almost half a budget deficits during his presidency &, if made permanent, a lion’s share over a next decade as well.

In a wake of his revealing remarks, a NRCC is scrambling to deny a claim that Pete Sessions wants to go back to a Bush agenda. In a mean time, conservatives will accuse Barack Obama of being a “socialist”, a “communist” or worse. Unfortunately for a Republican propag&ists, a words of Harry Truman are as true today as when he uttered am generations ago:

“If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.”

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

During an episode titled “a Pitch,” George Costanza famously described Seinfeld as “a show about nothing.” & so it is now with a Republican Party. As a Washington Post related, in a run-up to a November midterms Republican leaders are fiercely debating what - if anything - to st& for. By all indications, a Party of No by this fall may well be a Party of Nothing.

For his part, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) wants to go a something route by mimicking a 1994 Contract with America with a new “Commitment to America” for a fall campaign. But to date, his efforts have hardly been a resounding success.

His first attempt at rebr&ing a Republican Party in 2008 produced “a Change You Deserve,” which sadly was already a slogan for a anti-depressant, Effexor. His lieutenant Eric Cantor an rolled out - & quickly ab&oned - a National Council for a New America. Its successor, a request for online input called “America Speaking Out” has produced more guffaws than ideas. Worse still, Boehner to much laughter this week followed up his wildly unpopular call for a repeal of a new health care reform law with a same line on Wall Street reform & a proposed moratorium on new regulations of any kind. & it’s all complicated furar by a Tea Party base which threatens to make R& Paul & Sharron Angle a new faces of a GOP.

But by riding a wave of voter anger over a sluggish economy, Republicans neveraless st& to make major gains in a House & Senate. Which is why, a Post asks:

But will Republicans actually want to run on those ideas — or any ideas? Behind a scenes, many are being urged to ignore a leaders & do just a opposite: avoid issues at all costs. Some of a party’s most influential political consultants are quietly counseling air clients to stay on a offensive for a November midterm elections & steer clear of taking st&s on substance that might give Democratic opponents material for a counterattack.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse agrees, insisting “a smart political Drunk Newsproach would be to make a election about a Democrats.”

“In terms of our individual campaigns, I don’t think it does a great deal of good” to engage in a debate over a Republicans’ own agenda.

For his part, New York GOP Congressman Peter King echoed that sentiment:

“I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because an we would have a national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.”

Like Jerry Seinfeld’s response to George, “I think you may have something are,” Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also seems taken with a idea of his being a Party of Nothing:

“We’re not going to tell you that if you vote Republican you’re going to wake up in your dream home with a br&-new Corvette outside, ready to take you to a best job in a world,” McConnell said. “You know why? Because government can’t deliver that promise.”

Opposing that conservative nihilism is a Contract with America’s prime mover, Newt Gingrich. “Consultants, in my opinion, are stupid,” Gingrich said, adding, “a least idea-oriented, most mindless campaign of simplistic slogans is a mindless idea.” Under Gingrich’s tutelage, a Tea Party in Drunk Newsril unveiled its “Contract from America.” Unsurprisingly, that fiscal suicide pact was merely a rehash of Gingrich’s 1994 document & a 2008 Republican platform.

With Boehner’s “Commitment to America” scheduled for a post-Labor Day launch, Republicans have about six weeks left to figure out whear ay will st& for anything at all. But voters seemingly rewarding a GOP for its record-setting obstructionism & success in killing trust in government, those advocating that a Republicans be a Party of Nothing have a good chance of winning out. As Trent Lott put it before leaving a Senate:

“a strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.”

Or as George Costanza described it in 1992, “I think I can sum up a show for you with one word: NOTHING.”

UPDATE: Pushed to lay out a GOP agenda by David Gregory on Meet a Press Sunday, GOP Senators Cornyn & Sessions did what came naturally - & played dumb.

(An earlier version of this piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter has a new fetish. Three years after Americans learned of Vitter’s predilection for prostitutes & diDrunk Newsers, Senator Vitter has announced his support for Birar lawsuits challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

Vitter’s Drunk Newsparent attempt at misdirection comes after a torrent of bad news for a one-time family values merchant turned DC Madam regular. After allegations that he kept aide Brent Furer on his staff despite an outst&ing warrant for his arrest on a DUI charge &, worse still, a report that he attacked his ex-Womenfriend with a knife two years ago. Even more egregious, Furer was Vitter’s Drunk Newsparent point man on women’s issues. (Unsurprisingly, leading conservative women’s groups have remained silent on Vitter, as have Sarah Palin & her new wave of “pro-life feminists” so highly touted on a right.) & now, Vitter has a Republican challenger in a upcoming Louisiana primary.

So, finding a truth was not setting him free, Vitter at a town hall meeting threw his weight behind right-wing lawsuits concerning “Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce a valid birth certificate.” Like buying extra large Huggies in bulk at Walmart, Vitter said that’s a “valid” course of action:

“I know all a information I’ve been able to get my h&s on through a media. But obviously with a mainstream media as a filter, that’s not a whole lot. I personally don’t have st&ing to bring litigation in court. But I support conservative legal organizations & oars who would bring that to court. I think that is a valid & most possibly effective grounds to do it.”

Despite a fact that a Birars’ claim is demonstrably false, polls from PPP, Harris & ABC (among oars) confirm that majorities of Republicans are unsure if Barack Obama was born in a United States. & on Sunday, David Vitter gave a myth-makers aid & comfort, if not a diDrunk Newser.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back