@tsarstepan,
Yeah. He backed off just now and the bill won 78-19. Bunning single-handedly stalled any action, which he has the right to do, for 4 days or so.
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
I don't agree that that's the Senator's real motive. I bet even if the money fell from the sky just to pay this particular program then he'd still balk. He's got some kind of FU agenda against someone ranking in the Senate so he's throwing his little tantrum behind the guise of being a responsible spending politician. Perhaps someone stopped one of his pet big budgeted pork projects for his state.
Can you provide any evidence for your assertions? He said that he'd like the bill to pass and suggested a source for the money which he would support.
Pay-Go provides for exceptions for emergencies, which is what we have in the Easter Bunning situation. Frankly, he could care less about the unemployed, or federal employees being laid off. To him, and other Ayn Rand acolytes, they are parasites who should be allowed to starve. Interestingly, Bunning is a Tea Party hero.
Mother Jones reports:
If you ever wondered what type of candidate the Tea Party movement would like to see elected to Congress, look no farther than Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R), the man who is single-handedly holding up unemployment benefit extensions and health insurance coverage for hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Americans. While the rest of his party is quietly trying to ignore him, Bunning is giving Tea Party activists in Kentucky much to love.
"We're all in support of Sen. Bunning," says Wendy Caswell, the founder of the Louisville Tea Party. She says Tea Party activists believe that Bunning is being fiscally responsible, and that's a core Tea Party value. "He is kind of one of our models of a good representative of the people of Kentucky."
Both of the GOP candidates running for Bunning's seat agree, with Rand Paul even holding a rally outside Bunning's office.
I am getting the same sick feeling in my stomach about this that I got when I watched the torture "debate" unfold. This is yet another unraveling of certain pieces of the already threadbare social contract --- the reflexive moral consensus on cruelty and selfishness that we all teach our children and at least pay lip service to if not always live up to. Things like whether or not it's ok to torture --- or to let people flounder with no income at all during a serious economic crisis. You can tell that this is one of those things by the punch drunk response of so many, even some on the GOP side, who are having a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that this could happen.
It's way outside the normal consensus about what is expected of our government during an economic downturn and it could be the beginning of something really ugly. Up until now there was no question that it would be political suicide, much less morally wrong, to make massive numbers of unemployed, working and middle class workers, pay in order to make an ideological point. But with these incoherent tea partiers and nihilistic libertarians pulling the same kind of out sized influence the neocons did during the Great GWOT scare, this is what happens. We lose our moral consensus.
Here are some more examples:
On the March 1 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said: "Now, who knew? Who knew? But if you look at this story, folks, this is the worst thing that could have ever happened. Two-thousand federal workers are going to be furloughed, and there might be a delay in some unemployment benefits being paid. Oh my God, this is the worst thing that's ever -- who knew, folks, that one lone senator from the minority party could wreak so much damage to our economy?" Limbaugh later said, "Unemployment advocates are calling for Jim Bunning to be removed from the Baseball Hall of Fame."
This is simple Randism, which is the real basis of Tea Party anti-government faux populism. They may not "believe in" Wall Street bailouts, but they don't believe in unemployment insurance either.(And in return for no bailouts, they are ready to lift all regulations and constraints on business, while the average Joe gets the "freedom" to starve.)
The biggest problem is that this foolish tea party ignorance is having the effect of normalizing the adolescent "individualism" of the Ayn Rand cult beyond the boardrooms and estates of the Master of the Universe. The "parasites" are now anyone who has the misfortune to lose his or her job in the worst recession since the 1930s --- a recession that was caused by millionaire con men who are reaping big bonuses these days.
Here's your American ethos 2010:
Update: The pinheaded Chris Matthews is framing this as whether or not we should be borrowing money from the Yellow Peril to pay for unemployment insurance.
We're screwed.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Pay-Go provides for exceptions for emergencies, which is what we have in the Easter Bunning situation. Frankly, he could care less about the unemployed, or federal employees being laid off. To him, and other Ayn Rand acolytes, they are parasites who should be allowed to starve. Interestingly, Bunning is a Tea Party hero
.........
reaping big bonuses these days.
Here's your American ethos 2010:
Update: The pinheaded Chris Matthews is framing this as whether or not we should be borrowing money from the Yellow Peril to pay for unemployment insurance.
We're screwed.
You can't read Bunning's mind and you can't blame him for what other people do and say. What he said in support of his position was completely reasonable. Congress is filled with people who will spend money that doesn't exist so as to get re-elected, and foist the bill on future Americans, something that can hurt people just as much as not signing this bill - but in the future where the impact isn't yet visible. From the start Bunning said he favored the bill, but insisted that Congress actually provide a source for the funds.
@Brandon9000,
Quote:You can't read Bunning's mind and you can't blame him for what other people do and say. What he said in support of his position was completely reasonable. Congress is filled with people who will spend money that doesn't exist so as to get re-elected, and foist the bill on future Americans, something that can hurt people just as much as not signing this bill - but in the future where the impact isn't yet visible. From the start Bunning said he favored the bill, but insisted that Congress actually provide a source for the funds.
Because we can't know someone's internal thoughts, all we can go off of is their past actions, which show Bunning to be a liar and hypocrite. He didn't suddenly 'see the light' on this; he's just being a dick, politically. He was attacking the Stim bill using this bill.
When you say that Congress is full of people who will spend money without worrying about where it's coming from, you should have the honesty to admit that this includes Bunning himself, who has voted to approve trillions of dollars in expenditures over the years without bothering to worry about their funding source - ever.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:You can't read Bunning's mind and you can't blame him for what other people do and say. What he said in support of his position was completely reasonable. Congress is filled with people who will spend money that doesn't exist so as to get re-elected, and foist the bill on future Americans, something that can hurt people just as much as not signing this bill - but in the future where the impact isn't yet visible. From the start Bunning said he favored the bill, but insisted that Congress actually provide a source for the funds.
Because we can't know someone's internal thoughts, all we can go off of is their past actions, which show Bunning to be a liar and hypocrite. He didn't suddenly 'see the light' on this; he's just being a dick, politically. He was attacking the Stim bill using this bill.
When you say that Congress is full of people who will spend money without worrying about where it's coming from, you should have the honesty to admit that this includes Bunning himself, who has voted to approve trillions of dollars in expenditures over the years without bothering to worry about their funding source - ever.
Cycloptichorn
Even if, for the sake of argument, this is assumed to be true, then it means that he did the right thing for the wrong reasons. His position, as enunciated, was valid.
@Brandon9000,
No, they were not valid. In fact, it was anything but valid. What he was trying to do was demand that money be diverted from already-existing legislation to pay for this, because he disagrees with that already-existing legislation - not because he cares about adding to the national debt. His true reason for opposing this bill was not the one he stated.
I don't know why you guys believe in these magical, one-time revelations on the part of your elected officials - it was transparently fake and he simply didn't give a ****. Yet you bunch cheer him on as if he was some sort of hero for doing this.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
AS part of the GOP majority that posed and passed the entire reason that we have the finacial depression, Bunning is doing this to avert our eyes from his hypocrisy.
He was always a nut and a maverick while he was pitching for the Phillies and Detroit. Whenevre he spoke to the media at all, he would only talk in weird parables .
@farmerman,
Too right.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022679.php
Quote:CHUTZPAH WATCH.... David Kurtz ponders a thought this morning that I consider literally every day.
Quote:
One of the truly galling Republican political maneuvers over the last 10 years is to go from squandering a huge budget surplus, wracking up trillions in debt, ballooning the deficit, and leaving the next Democratic administration with an economy in shambles -- then as soon as the Democrats are in charge refashioning themselves as budget hawks. You might even think they're setting the Democrats up to fail. I know, hard to believe.
Why Republicans aren't simply laughed off the stage at this point when they try to argue against budget deficits says a lot about Democratic ineptness, media collusion, and short political memories. But I still find it amazing.
I should be used to it by now, but I find it amazing, too. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently conceded when Republicans controlled the levers of power, "it was standard practice not to pay for things."
Think about that concession. Then consider that the very same GOP lawmakers who believed it was standard practice not to pay for things are now outraged that Democrats -- who aren't relying on deficit spending to finance their agenda -- aren't acting quickly enough to clean up the budget mess Republicans left for them.
Talk about leading with one's chin.
This isn't ancient history; this was just a few years ago -- Republicans turned huge surpluses into huge deficits, they added $5 trillion to the debt, and they embraced earmarks on an unprecedented level. They expanded the government's role in health care (Medicare Part D) without paying for it. They expanded the government's role in education (No Child Left Behind) without paying for it. They cut taxes by nearly $2 trillion without paying for them.
They also became the first governing party in the history of the country to finance a war entirely on deficit spending.
And now, these exact same officials -- Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Kyl, et al -- believe they should be in the majority. Why? Because they're worried about fiscal responsibility.
It's as insane a political dynamic as anything I've seen in a generation.
"Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)
And the Republicans wonder why their anti-deficit and debt rhetoric isn't taken seriously! It is so transparently fake, it's unbelievable.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, they were not valid. In fact, it was anything but valid. What he was trying to do was demand that money be diverted from already-existing legislation to pay for this, because he disagrees with that already-existing legislation - not because he cares about adding to the national debt. His true reason for opposing this bill was not the one he stated.
I don't know why you guys believe in these magical, one-time revelations on the part of your elected officials - it was transparently fake and he simply didn't give a ****. Yet you bunch cheer him on as if he was some sort of hero for doing this.
Cycloptichorn
I already said that even if it were true that he was misrepresenting his motives, it means he did the right thing for the wrong reason. The reason he
claimed, whether it actually represents his thinking or not, was a valid reason.
@Brandon9000,
But the question was "was this mean?" If his real reason was based on spiting Obama at the expense of unemployeed American workers, then he's mean. If it was a principled stand for the overall good of the US with some unfortunate impacts on a small segment of the population, then he's not mean. It sounds as if he's mean.
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
But the question was "was this mean?" If his real reason was based on spiting Obama at the expense of unemployeed American workers, then he's mean. If it was a principled stand for the overall good of the US with some unfortunate impacts on a small segment of the population, then he's not mean. It sounds as if he's mean.
You are still assuming that his statement of a perfectly valid, correct justification for his position is insincere, and you simply cannot read his mind. Also, it's a bit odd to say that when two people do exactly the same thing, one is mean and one is not because of their secret thoughts at the time. The
actions aren't mean because they're justified. Maybe congressmen who will promise the people anything they think will be good propaganda for their next campaigns, and write checks that create bigger and bigger deficits, that others will have to find the money for, are mean. Anyway, who says that congressmen who vote
for the measure don't secretly harbor insincere and selfish thoughts? Bunning's action was in the best interests of the country and, therefore, not mean.
@Brandon9000,
I guess you feel that any behavior can be excused as long as a logical argument can be made in support of it.
Doesn't matter if the argument happens to BE true, it just COULD BE true, so that's good enough in your book.
Quote:Bunning's action was in the best interests of the country and, therefore, not mean.
No, they were not. At all. How can you even say this?
I'll add this, from Kevin Drum - Bunning's ostensible 'point' was in fact stupid and betrays a misunderstanding on the part of him and his defenders as to what 'stimulus' means.
http://motherjones.com/print/47831
Quote:Tying a Rock to the Economy
The whole point of stimulus spending is not to pay for it.
By Kevin Drum | Wed Mar. 3, 2010 11:01 AM PST
Jim Bunning's ostensible reason for blocking the extension of unemployment benefits was one of fiscal rectitude: he wanted the benefits paid for instead of added to the deficit. For some reason I haven't noticed anyone pointing out how dumb this is, but CBPP does the job today: [1]
Quote: The widespread and significant decline in economic activity that defines a recession ended sometime this past summer, and the economy is in the early stages of recovery. That is good news, but it does not mean that the economy no longer needs stimulus. The economy is just beginning to climb out of the longest and most severe recession since the Great Depression. Without additional stimulus, and soon, many economists fear that the pace of recovery will be particularly sluggish " and the economy could even fall back into recession.
....At a time when many people want to work but cannot find jobs and the demand for goods and services falls well short of what businesses are capable of supplying, the key to boosting economic activity and strengthening the fragile recovery is to create additional demand....For Congress to require contemporaneous cuts in federal spending or tax increases so that measures to boost the economy do not increase short-term deficits would be unwise and counter-productive " it would reduce the overall demand for goods and services and thereby partially or fully cancel out the economic boost that the recovery measures were designed to provide.
This is a little bloodless, as befits a policy shop full of economist wonks. So let's translate into bloggish: Bunning is a moron. The goal of stimulus spending is to increase the federal deficit. Paying for it misses the whole point. It's like putting high-test fuel in your car and then tying a lead weight to your bumper so you can't accelerate too fast.1
This is especially noteworthy in light of a recent research note [2] from Joshua Aizenman and Gurnain Kaur Pasricha suggesting that "the aggregate fiscal expenditure stimulus in the United States, properly adjusted for the declining fiscal expenditure of the fifty states, was close to zero in 2009." That is, federal spending went up but state and local spending went down, for a net stimulus of zero. (Via Tyler Cowen. [3])
To sumarize, then: not only is Jim Bunning a cranky old man who held the entire Senate hostage just because he could, he's a cranky old man whose grasp of economics is nonexistent. And even at that, there were at least half a dozen Republicans who actively supported his cranky tirade and virtually none who did anything to actively fight it. Quite a party they have there.
1As CBPP points out, we should be doing something credible to rein in our long-term deficits. But that has very little to do with running short-term deficits to fund emergency stimulus during a recession.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I guess you feel that any behavior can be excused as long as a logical argument can be made in support of it....
Cycloptichorn
Nope, I don't. I support the argument Bunning enunciated, and I'm not going to try to read his mind as to what he was secretly thinking. What he said was correct. He was for the bill, he just demanded that Congress finally say where the money was coming from for one of these big expenditures, instead of just putting people in the future in the untenable position of trying to pay it off. These aren't short term debts. The national debt is wildly out of control. Congress is overflowing with members who will promise anyone anything and pass the bill to those who come later.
@Brandon9000,
"Mean" is all about his thoughts. While I disagree that his actions are best for the country, I can see that some believe that they are and therefore would vote his way on principle. As Cyclo pointed out, in this case the esteemed Senator has a long history of voting for items that cannot be supported by the budget. It seems a huge stretch to believe that he's suddenly found fiscal religion. Therefore the logical conclusion is not that he is voting because of his fiscal beliefs, but because he's willing to hammer thousands (which I believe is more detrimental to the economy that not) to either score political points or best his political opponents. Sounds mean to me.
He's just another dirty ass RepubliCON, no different then any of the others, why is everyone so surprised by this?
@Brandon9000,
Nobody is asking you to 'read his mind.' All they are asking is that you compare his current actions to his past ones. There is a large discrepancy between the two, one that should give pause to anyone when trying to determine whether or not his argument is legitimate.
I also question the same thing from you, Brandon. Did you seriously complain about the deficit or debt when either of Bush's tax cuts were passed, unfunded? When the Iraq war was being paid for - unfunded? I don't seem to recall anything from you along those lines when your party was in control and making the spending decisions. Like others, you have become a deficit hawk when it is extremely convenient for you to do so - when it gives you an opportunity to attack the other party.
@mags314772,
Are all democrats mean? Obama is cutting space program funding and plenty of people are losing their jobs because of it. "To me, this is selfish, small-minded and mean."
@Pillog,
Welcome to A2K! As above, if Obama cuts space program funding to spite another politician, you could call that mean. If it is an unfortunate side effect of not having enough money, then not. You get to decide for yourself, but for me, that particular example doesn't strike me as mean.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nobody is asking you to 'read his mind.' All they are asking is that you compare his current actions to his past ones. There is a large discrepancy between the two, one that should give pause to anyone when trying to determine whether or not his argument is legitimate.
I also question the same thing from you, Brandon. Did you seriously complain about the deficit or debt when either of Bush's tax cuts were passed, unfunded? When the Iraq war was being paid for - unfunded? I don't seem to recall anything from you along those lines when your party was in control and making the spending decisions. Like others, you have become a deficit hawk when it is extremely convenient for you to do so - when it gives you an opportunity to attack the other party.
Bunning's stated position on the unemployment bill was correct, and I am not inclined to look further. Half the people who voted for the bill or for most other bills probably have secretly selfish and base reasons too. Bunning's stated position made sense. What he actually accomplished was to call attention for the need to match some of these big expenditures by cutting other expenditures.
