Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Tea Party Failure: Spending, Deficit and Debt Control Adbandoned, as Unfair and Unbalanced Nework Admits Incompetenced/Betrayal

This blog's audited accuracy rating has now gone up to 99.9% (can't really go any higher, as perfection is impossible), based in part on this blog's CORRECT statements, in foresight, about the Tea Party, GOP and the unfair and unbalanced network. You don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of teh unfair and unbalanced network, the Wall Street Journal (owned by News Corp--Rupert Murdoch--which also owns the unfair and unbalanced network), and theSenate budget office.

This was reported this morning on the unfair and unbalanced network, AFTER all of teh spending/dficit/debt battles in Congress were over. When reporting these FACTS could have made a DIFFERENCE, the unfair and unbalanced network (not to mention the Wall Street Journal, GOP and lately most oft he Tea Party "leaders"/politicians) were MIA (missing in action). This was not an accident :(see below for explanation). What did the Wall Street Journal article say (Tuesday, I believe)? It said what this blog has been telling you for MONTHS: The GOP and the Tea Party have failed to "cut" ONE DIME frrom the current years budget--even ADDING 50 to 1000 BILLION to this year's budget/spending. This is in additon to the fact that the GOP--assuming they do what they say they will do, and get the "payroll tax cut" bill passed for a full year--has ADDED more than 300 BILLON to the current deficit/debt (over the past two years--rally just ONE year of VOTES) with the "deal" at the end of 2010 creating the "payroll tax cut" gimmick, and the present decison that the GOP will cooperate to extend that mistake--both the 2010 bill and the current bill also including extensons of the extended unempoyment benefits to keep paying people NOT to work well beyond the point we have ever done in the past. No, the Wall Street Journaal and the rest did not concentrate on the "payroll taqx cut", but on spending, but the last statement is absolutely true, in any event, and makes a MOCKERY out of the GOP (not just Obama) assertion that all of these things are being "paid for".....................................................Sorry, on the floor luaghing again. The report even noted that the GOP could not even "cut" the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and probably not funding for Planned Parenthood--I did not read the Wal Street Jurnal article itself, but only saw the AUTHOR on the unfair and unbalanced network). If the GOP and the Tea Party cannot even make the case for cutting funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and Planned Parenthood), and the Tea Party lets them get away with that, what good are they? NO GOOD, is the answer this blog has given you. And that was exactly what the reprot said: all of this "drama" over the "debt ceiling", and "shutting down the government", and the GOP (with the tacit approval of Tea Party "leaders" and politicians) failed to cut "ONE DIME from spending. NOT ONE DIME. Even the "promises" of FUTURE "cuts' were hardly worth the "trouble" (theater).

Talk about promises!!!!! Remember what the GOP promised when they made that "deal" at the end of 20110 aDDING 150 BILLION to the deficit and debt? They said: Wait until we get in power in the House, in January, and we are going to cut 100 BILLION from the 2100 spendng bill (a short-erm extension of previious spending being part of that disgraceful "deal" at the end of 2010). What happened? The GOP THREATENED to let Obama and the Democrats "shut down the government" (the proper way to put it, since our system is really set up so that the govenment should HAVE to be raun on those spending items that the House AGREES to fund--the House hainvg a VETO power under the Constitution on all spending) if Obama and the Democrats refused to accept 1200 BILLION in spending cuts for the last half of 2010. Boehner and the GOP then made another one of those "deals' that CUT NOTHING (according to the Congressional Budgetg Office and CONFIRMED in this new report). The GOP SAID that they had made significant "cuts'> They made NONONE. NADA. ZILCH.

Then the GOP was gong to "use" the debt ceiling--despite this blog telling them that it was a MISTAKE, since what they needed to do was CONNECT the debt ceiling with spending, and not engage in a strange battle over the debt ceiling apart from spendin--apart, for example, from the GOP ADDING to the debt with this "payroll tax cut", whichis a "tax expenditure" reather than a true "tax cut"--as a supposed vehicle to FORCE "spending cuts". You will remember the result of that. Everything was left up to this "supercommittee"..................................................Sorry, roling on the floor laughing agian, or was I crying? Sometimes I can't tell. Did I "forget" those "atutomatic cuts" that conveniently don't even START until 2013, AFTER THE ELECTION, and supposedly will take place over ten years?.......................................................Sorry I just can't help these laughing/crying fits. Raise yur hand (media trick) if you believe that these "automatic cuts" will take place as scheduled? No one raised their hand. Good. I would hate to believe you wrere that STUPID, although you have jsut disqualified yourself as EITHER A GOP POLITICIAN OR A TEA PARTY (2011 style) POLITICIAN. Yes, I know. That "debt ceiling deal" was also supposed to "cut" a MINOR amount over ten years, apart from the "atutomatic spending cuts'. It was also supposed to cut 100 BILLIN (remember that 100 billi that NMEVER got "cut' for 2011) from the 2012 budget--the exact "cuts' to be determined by the APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES in Congress...............................Sorrry. This time I was definiely CRYING.

We are back to this report in the Wall Street Journal, as featured this Tuesday (today in El Paso still) on the unfair and unbalanced network. What happened to that 100 BILLION? IT DID NOT HAPPEN. The GOP, AND THE TEAP PARTY, failed to cut AnYTHING from the 2012 budget. Any mall "cuts" they assert were outweighed by the ADDITIOINS elsewhere. If you can't cut the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, you can't really cut AnYTHING. And the GOP did not.

Let us be as clear on this as we can. The COP, and really Tea Party politicians (in the main), have LIED about CURRENT CUTS they were going to make/had made in BOTH the 2011 spending bill and the 2012 spending bills. Do you see the LIE when the GOP claims to have "cut" amounts in the FUTURE? They could not even make ANY "cuts" for 2011 and 2012 STICK (if they ever meant to). Why should AnYONE believe them on 2020. Or 2019. Or 2013? Do you see the ABSURDITY of saying that CURRENT ADDITONS TO THE DEFICIT will be "apid for" with FUTURE CUTS? Not only do we NEED the "future cuts" to pay for the deficit we already have, but tthe future "cuts' WLL NOT TAKE PLACE (at least because of these SAHM VOTES). If they do take place, it will be because this country COLLAPSES (like Grece), which this blog has unfortunately had to tell you now appears to be inevitable. We have not even had the WILl to CUT ONE DIME. How do we avoid becoming Greece? As the author of this article in the Wall sTreet Journal said, we are adding to the defict STILL at more than 1 TRILLIN dollars per year, and it would be MORE except taht the Federal Reserve is ARTIFICIALLY holding down interest rates (interest on that huge national debt)--which has its own COSTS, like in the cost of the FOOD you eat).

Why has the "unfair and unbalanced network"--not to mention the Wall Street Journl--not been reporting on these FACTS (obvious to this blog monts ago, and REPORTED here)? Easy. So long as there was a FIGHT going on about spending ("shutting the government down", or that debt ceiling farce), the AGENDA of teh unfair and unbalanced network, and the Wall Steet Journal was at stake. Thse are ESTABLISHMENT peole. They don't WANT to put out FACTS whhihc support those "radicals" (COWARDS though they have shown themselves to be) in the House, or--even worse--support real radicalslike that gugy Skip. The Wall Street Journal , adn the unfair and unbalanced network, did not want to ROCK THE BOAT as far as really taking these "fights" SERIOUSLY. Now came this "pyaroll tax cut". Again, the establishment desperately did not want to ROCK THE BOAT by "dioing the right thing" (to use Obama's words, which the GOP and the Tea Party can't even CHOKE out of their moughts). Thus, the GOP, ENABLED BY THE TEA PARTY (which took no effective action to stop it), kept saying that they could not POLITICALLY do anyting more than they did, even if they did LIE. It is as if John Paul Jones had said: "I surrender", and I won anyway." Isn't that a stirring battle cry to come down the centuries--NOT. And the GOP and the Tea Party are FAILING to ut out any battle cry that resonates, beyond this LOSER: "COWARDS lieve to fight another day." For the GOP, and the Tea Party "leaders", that is a day that NEVER comes. This is why the unfair and unbalanced network ushed the AGENDA of the estalbihsment that the GOP had to POLITAICALLY refuse to carry these spending and deficit "fights" out SERIOUSLY. And you should be abel to see why they are now WILLING to state the obvious: It is TOO LATE to do anyting. Even on the "payroll tax cut", the GOP is COMMITTED (unless the Democrats won't let them be). These FACTS on the fAILURE to "cut" spending should have been REPOTED as events were happening. That is the only time it MATTERED.

Once the next "crisis" occurs, the unfair and unbalanced network, and the Wall Streeet Journal, will be BACK to CONCEALING what is really going on. It is not too strong to say thatat these "journalists" have BETRAYED their country by simply refusing to report (extensively) the GAMES that were being played.

This is exactly why tihis blog has adopted the position: Defeat ALL members of Congress now in office, including the "Tea Party" politiciians and the GOP. That would logically include defeating Barack Obama, who should be defeated. And I would take that positon if there were a REAL MOVEMENT to DEFEAT THEM ALL (instad of just "polls") As it is, I can't support Mitt Romney, who is the poster child for "politics as usual'. Ys, this is also a good part of the reason I think LES of the unfair and unbalanced network every day--a netowrk that is all about AGENDA rather than about FACTS (when they matter). Plus, the "reporters" are bone-deep stupid, which I think can be said of GOP and Tea Party politicians.

The headline says that the Tea Party has FAILED. Can you dispute that. Look at this latest vote for a ridiculous two-month extension of this "payroll tax cut'. ONE (my understanding, and certainy any significant number) Tea Party plitican could have forced a VOTE on the matter, instead of the summary "unanimous consent" type of procedural device (or whateverfy similar procedural device was used). Michele Bachmann didn't even TRY. No. It is time to make a JUDGMENT. The FACTS show that the TEA PARTY HAS FAILED. It is time to discard its LEADERS, and start over with a rEAL thrid party. Tea Party politicians were ELECTED based on doing someting about the DEFICT, SPENDING and the DEBT They have done NOTHING aobut any of those things, except make them worse. It is one of the biggest BETRAYAYALS by both a political party and a "movement" in American history.

"But, Skip, with a Democrat President and a Democrat Seante, nothing could be done." This is the BIGGEST LIE of all. What has this blog told ou, and tells you again above: Not ONE DIME of taqxpayer money can be spent unless the House of Representatives votes FOR it. The House did not HAVE to approve a single dime of all of this spending. Instead of USING that power, however, they have not "cut" ONE DIME. Why is that nt one of the biggest BETRAYALS in American history? It is no wonder people like me LIKE Ron Paul, even though we know he is NUTS. We BELIEVE Ron Paul would CUT 1 TRILLON dollars from spending in the first year, or at least make a damn good try (like haiving to override a veto). We DON'T BELIEVE a word of what the rest of the GOP says, and this latest report PROVES us right. It proves this blog right yet again, which is why the accuracy rating has gone up again.

"But, Skip, it would have been POLKITICAL SUICIDE for the HOuse of Representtatives to have FORCED tthe Democrats to accept ONLY their spending authorizations, whihc would only have happened after a LONG "governemnt shutdown" for which the GOP would have been blamed."

I am not so sure that the GOP would be worse off politically if they had FORCED limits on government spendng. Again, the GOP had ABSOLUTE POWER to have limited spending to ANY LEVEL. Obama and the Democrats could NOT FORCE the GOP House to approve spending. All the GOP House hasd to do was INSIST, and REFUSE to authorize any spending of which they did not approve. Sure, Obama and the Democrats cold SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. But all they would have to do to OPEN the government again would be to pass the spending that the House was willing to approve. What Obama and the democrats relied upon was PUBIC OPINION (media led) and COWARDICE (GOP and Tea Party). What could Obama and the Democrats hasve done if the House GOP had "just said no"? NOTHING. There was nothing the Democrats could have done. But what about the MILITASRY, and the essential parts of government? Well, the House could pass special bills on that. But even if Obama and the Democrats simply refused to accept keepng a LIMITED government going, the House could have INSISTED. If Obama were willing to SHUT DOWN THE MILITARY, and stop SOCIAL SECURITY, for MONTHS, then that would be on their head. They would HAVE to give way n the end. "But, Skip, that kind of 'extreme' hardball would DESTROY the GOP." That is the conventional wisdom. I doubt it, if the PRINCIPLE could be established that we should only SPEND what BOTH HOUSES agree shoudl be spent. That is what the Constituion says, and it is how it should be.

But look at what this POLITICAL argument really says.. It salys that the Tea Party LIED when it said that the SURVIVAL of this country dependinged on gtetting spending under contol. It says that the POLITICAL SURVIVLAL of the GOP is more important than the survival of this coutnry. Say the GOP lost BIG because it actually carried out a policy of spending restraint, and REFUSED to give in to the threat of "shutting down the government". That would be BAD, but would it be WORSE than what we have--NO "cuts", EVER? I don't think so. At least the Democrats would have to PRODUCE. Sure, the downfal of the country MIGHT come sooner, but it is effectively inevitable now anyway. Sooner may be bettert. And what if the SPENDING RESTRAINT--defict/debt restraint--of the GOP WORKED? What if the country did BETTER (as teh GOP and Tea Party supposedly believe it would)? Wold the people not SEE thatt--once they got over the shock of not getting their Social Security check for a month or two (if that happened)?

A coward dies a thousand times, but a brave man dies but once. The GOP, and the Tea Party politicians/"leadership", seem to be comp9osed of nothing but COWARDS who do not really believe what they say they believe. You CANNOT believe what you say you believe and CUT NOTHING--even if the alternative is to "shut down the government". If you accept this, you CANNOT WIN (not taliking aoub an ELECTION, but about the future of the COUNTRY),.

No. I have put the GOP in my rear view mirror FOREVER. I am now willling to make this sateement: I have also put the Tea Party (in terms of its politicians and "leaders') in my rear view mirror FOREVER. Yep, As I have said, I would votre AGAINST Michele Bachmann FOR CONGRESS, even though I wuld stil vote FOR her for Preisdnetn. That is because she should be DEFEATED for Congrfess, for her BETRAYALS and ineffectiveness, but would SHAKE UP the estalbishment enough t ojustify voting for her for Preisdent (even as we recognize that she has not shown the LEASDERFSHIP to conclude that she would be a GOOD President).

You may well think I am too 'extreme", and to willing to give up hope for this country (because it is too late to turn things around now, with no LEADRER in sight). However, that is OPINION,. The FACT is this: The GOP and the Tea Party politicians CANNOT run on cutting spending, cutting the deficit, and controlling the debt. They have ABANDONED that "issue". They have CUT NOTHING. Yet, that is the basis they WON in 2010. Whqat do they have left? Tax cuts for the "rich"............................................................................................................Sorry, on the floor laughing again. But explain to me how the GOP and the Tea Party EXPLAIN refusing to put a "surtax on billionaires and millionaires'", when they have ABANDONED PRINCIPLE? Isn't that a STRANGE "principle" to which to give your very highest priority? When you can't even make the case for CUTTING SPENDING and DEFICITS that you were ELECTED to make? It is actuallyl DISASTROUS to adopt this "class warfare" view predicted by Ayn Rand that the "rich" and talented should be the SLAVES of the rest of us, and that it is their DUTY to SUPPORT the rest of us. But the GOP is not even making that case. Romney is out there PANDERING to the "middle class', and this "payrlll tax cut' is a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION BBIBE masquerading as a "tax cut".

I see no case for the GOP, or the Tea Party. They have forfeited the case upon which they have supposedly been elected. Of courfse the GOP can still win some electins--maybe even ifn 2012 IF the GOP does not provoke a third party, which I advocate be formed. But the ONLY way the GOP is going to win electins is because the DEMOCRATS get people so disgusted that they turn to the GOPP in desperation. The GOP has FORGEITED all claim to any "philosophy" of government. It has NONE, other than to get elected.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyessight)--especially bad in an article this long fairly late at night, as I get tired. Oh well, as usual the INSIGHTS are worth the effort and frustration of the typos and grabled sentences. Ad I am MODEST tooo. I really don't see, by the way, how the GOP now opposes the Democrat ultimate goal of eliminating the Soecial Security tax ("payroll tax")--tereby ending the FDR concept of Social Security as a self-financing system--and pushing the "burden" on to the "rich" (thereby making Social Seucirty just another government WELFARE system). I would be interested in knowing how you GOP establishment people even THINK you can make a case against that , once you have accepted teh principle of this "payroll tax cut". I couldn't do it, and I am SMART (albeit not so willing to dECEVE)., I don't know how you expect to do it If I were Democrats, I would now make the PUSH to replace the Social Security tax with a more "progressive' tax. The GOP has alreayd acceted the PRINCIPLE, Now it is just a matter of the DETAILS> I have quoted the George Bernard Shaw satiric joke before:

Shaw (to society woman playing up to him): "Madma, would you sleep with me for a millin dollars?"

Woman (simpering): "Oh, Mr. Shaw, of course I would."

Shaw: "Well, would you sleep with me for $10?"

Woman: "Mr. Shaw, what kind of woman do you think I am?"

Shaw: Madam, we have already established that. Now we are negotiating PRICE."

We have already established what these GOP and Tea Party politicans are. Now it is jsut a matter of how far their WHORING will go. I think they are going downhill fast, like a high priced call girl fast heading for the $10 a blow job street. Defat them all.

No comments: