The President's Budget Proposal — Cuts to Spending, Cuts to Medicare

America's Achilles Heel: Withholding from the "Undeserving" Poor

by Gaius Publius

President Obama released his budget recently, and there's a lot in it, both to like and to not like. Rather than give an overview of its many provisions, let's focus on just two. For something of an overview, one person's anyway, see Robert Greenstein at the Huffington Post. His values may not be yours, but he covers the bases.

The budget carries through on Obama's tax proposals, child care proposals, and so on, as previewed in the State of the Union address. Our discussion is here, so I won't review them again. Let's look at just two pieces of Obama's new budget, overall spending and changes to Medicare.

The President's Budget Reduces Federal Spending

From the Greenstein piece mentioned above:

Despite its investments, however, this is not a "big-spending budget," contrary to some claims. Total federal spending over the next ten years would average 21.75 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- identical to the average for the Reagan years. In fact, despite the budget's proposals to ease the sequestration budget cuts, discretionary spending would fall by 2019 to its lowest level on record as a share of GDP, with data back to 1962. So would non-defense discretionary spending.

Is this a good thing? Since I think Obama considers this a "bold" budget (Greenstein's characterization), we can say it reflects his values, in the same way we could say the budget's child care proposals, or Earned Income Tax Credit proposals (he wants to make recent improvements permanent), reflect his values. And those values are and have been Clintonian — less federal "discretionary" spending, with targeted decencies.

Yes, there are sweeteners in the budget, as there were in Clinton's proposals. Less federal spending is one of the unsweets, as I see it, as it both hobbles the non-military good that our government can do and confirms the "frame" that less government is more ... something ... at least as the wealthy see it. Reagan would be proud.

The Budget Hurts Medicare Recipients

That unsweet, less spending, reaches into his Medicare proposals. Greenstein's overview first, then a closer look:

On the fiscal responsibility front, the budget does more than some initial commentary has assumed, in part because some of its proposals -- such as its Medicare beneficiary changes (which are more significant than is widely realized) and its reforms in the tax treatment of unrealized capital gains -- would produce savings that grow after the first decade. ... [S]tabilizing the debt over the next 25 years -- a fiscally dangerous period in which the vast baby-boom generation will enter retirement, driving up costs for Social Security and Medicare -- would represent no small accomplishment.

Ignore Greenstein's values for a moment and just consider the principle. Do you want the debt "stabilized" — in a zero-interest-rate environment no less? Or would you prefer to see our oldest and medically-neediest citizens well taken care of? Only the wealthy, who don't need a dime from the government (but get it anyway) and people like Greenstein want the former. This really is about values.

Now some detail via the New York Times:

Budget Plan Sees Savings in Changes to Medicare
[note framing by the headline writer]

In his new budget, President Obama proposed on Monday to squeeze $399 billion over the next 10 years out of Medicare, Medicaid and other programs run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under the proposals, many Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay more for their care and coverage. The president would, for example, introduce a co-payment for new Medicare beneficiaries who receive home health care services, and he would collect $4 billion over 10 years by imposing a surcharge on premiums for new beneficiaries who buy generous private insurance to supplement Medicare.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s budget would reduce scheduled Medicare payments to teaching hospitals, hundreds of small rural hospitals, nursing homes and health maintenance organizations that care for older Americans and people with disabilities. ...

There's more in the article, but you get the drift. Note that Medicare payment to doctors and hospitals is already too low. As the Times says, "many [hospitals] lose money on their Medicare patients." I can say anecdotally the same is true of many doctors, who complain that they have to overcharge patients with private insurance to cover the net expense of treating Medicare patients.

In addition, the budget accelerates the process of converting Medicare from insurance to welfare by expanded means-testing:

The president’s budget would collect $66 billion over 10 years by charging higher premiums to higher-income Medicare beneficiaries, for coverage of doctors’ services and prescription drugs. A relatively small number of high-income beneficiaries already pay more than three times the standard monthly premium.

If the powerful mainstream "left" — meaning people like Obama, Clinton and the broad swath of "centrists" (corporatists) in Congress — continue to convert social insurance programs into welfare, as this budget proposal does, it becomes far more easy for the right to insist these programs be reduced, privatized or cut entirely because the population they serve is no longer "us," but "them."

The article mentions some good news for Medicare in the budget — small changes to drug pricing policy and continued support for CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), for example. But overall, on the Medicare front, this budget offers more austerity for the many so the few won't have to pay taxes.

See what I mean? In this respect, the president is being true to his values, true to his 2006 self. As he said in the first clip at the link in this paragraph:

"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs the way they were written in 1938."

The dog-whistle reference is to Social Security, but as his new budget shows, he clearly means all social programs. An odd legacy for America's first black president, but there it is. Still, he's true to his values — I will give him that.

Our History of Racism Will Do Us In

As journalist Helaine Olen wrote recently, "Some days I believe that when they write the history of the United States after it is all over, they will say slavery and racism did us in." She's right. This history and its mindset, which lives with us today, is our Achilles Heel, the one place the arrow will always sink deep, the go-to spot for any politician or billionaire wanting to appeal to the "center" of the country.

Unfortunately, here the word "center" properly applies. This doesn't characterize us all by any means, but it's true, one way or another, of way too many. Even some of my kind, intelligent, low-info "liberal" friends are openly uncomfortable with the baggy pants in Ferguson, or on the "other side of Troost Avenue" in Kansas City, which moves them to support the police. (Troost is the "dividing line" there, but I think you got that.)

If we are killed as a nation by our billionaires, this is how they will do it, cynically using our Achilles Heel and appealing to our historical need to punish the "undeserving." Today, membership in the "undeserving" is much more broadly defined. No matter; as a nation we still want to "go there," to do the punishing.

Without saying so, the president's budget does much the same, if in a lighter way — it withholds from the modern "undeserving" to preserve the perqs of the wealthy. Punishing the "undeserving" is an odd legacy for America's first black president. Not a choice I would make if I were him, but there it is.

GP​

NJ Guv Kris Krispy's hard-headed fiscal realism wows the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- or maybe not so much

Garden State voters love Governor Krispy for his unflinching fiscal realism.

"The Center says New Jersey could get on track if the governor and legislature produced forecasts together, worked with outside experts, and opened up those discussions to the public."

-- from a report by WNYC News's Jessica Gould

by Ken

Perhaps the reason we're hearing all this talk about a "comeback" for New Jersey Gov. Kris Krispy is that, rather than going all gooey and apologetic, he has by God stuck to his guns and thereby allowed Garden State voters to remember why they love him -- for his unrelenting fiscal toughness and hard-headed realism.

WNYC News
NJ Budgeting Gets Low Marks


Gov. Christie delivers budget address for fiscal year 2015.

Thursday, August 07, 2014
By Jessica Gould

After facing a series of shortfalls in recent years, a new report gives New Jersey low marks on its revenue forecasts.

The Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities evaluated states on budgeting best practices, and found New Jersey lacking in several areas.

The Center says New Jersey could get on track if the governor and legislature produced forecasts together, worked with outside experts, and opened up those discussions to the public.

"The consequence is we overshoot, and when we overshoot, then we make what are frequently painful adjustments during the budget year," said Gordon MacInnes, president of New Jersey Policy Perspective.

This year, Governor Chris Christie cut the state's pension payment to balance the budget following a nearly billion dollar revenue gap.

Of course the created need to cut the state's pension payment could be cited as evidence of Governor Krispy's excellent fiscal planning.

One note, though, for the benefit of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, with regard to this idea that "New Jersey could get on track if the governor and legislature produced forecasts together, worked with outside experts, and opened up those discussions to the public." Is this budget and policy priorities you're doing, or comedy? Governor Krispy's idea of working with the legislature is having them do what he wants, and this talk of working with outside experts and opening up those discussions to the public? Hilarious! Who's up for holding their breath for that?

And speaking of Governor Krispy's fiscal grit, don't forget the recent report that, as we come up on the second anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey has already managed to distribute a third of the federal funds allocated for storm relief, under the auspices of the state's Friends of Fatso Commission.


You can find a PDF of the report here.

#

Ryan's Paymasters Will Never Let Him Give Up Trying To Enslave Ordinary Americans-- Really

Wednesday the House Budget Committee approved Paul Ryan's latest Ayn Rand Budget, which cuts trillions in healthcare spending and repeals the Affordable Care Act. "His budget," reports Hospital CFO, "would make significant changes to Medicare, reducing program spending by $129 billion over the next 10 years. Starting in 2012, it would convert Medicare to a premium support program, under which beneficiaries would receive funds from the government with which they could purchase either traditional Medicare coverage or private health plans." A report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan policy organization, reports that "Some 69% of the cuts in House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s new budget would come from programs that serve people of limited means." While Ryan claims to want to strengthen Medicare, the CBPP report said $2.7 trillion of the cuts will come from Medicaid and at least 40 million Americans would become uninsured by 2024. None of the popular parts of the Affordable Care Act would survive the Republicans' meat cleaver. He's says they're too expensive and have got to go.

The committee vote to approve Ryan's drastic budget was 22-16. All the Republicans voted for it and all the Democrats voted against it. Several Republicans not on the committee said they will vote against it next week when the full House takes it up. Walter Jones (R-NC) said he will oppose any budget with foreign aid in it and is one of the few Republicans who agrees with the Democrats that Ryan's scheme to convert Medicare into a partially privatized insurance system would be a catastrophe for American seniors. Other likely Republican "no" votes next week include Jack Kingston (R-GA), Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Raúl Labrador (R-ID), Tom Massie (R-KY), and Rick Crawford (R-AR). These are the Republicans on the Budget Committee"

• Paul Ryan (WI-01), Chairman
• Tom Price (GA-06), Vice-Chairman
• Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
• John Campbell (CA-45)
• Ken Calvert (CA-42)
• Tom Cole (OK-04)
• Tom McClintock (CA-04)
• James Lankford (OK-05)
• Diane Black (TN-06)
• Reid Ribble (WI-08)
• Bill Flores (TX-17)
• Todd Rokita (IN-04)
• Rob Woodall (GA-07)
• Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
• Alan Nunnelee (MS-01)
• Scott Rigell (VA-02)
• Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
• Jackie Walorski (IN-02)
• Luke Messer (IN-06)
• Tom Rice (SC-07)
• Roger Williams (TX-25)
• Sean Duffy (WI-07)

Meanwhile, House Democrats have been furious about Ryan's slash-and-burn Austerity approach to programs that provide services and benefits to the middle class and those least able to afford the cuts. Barbara Lee (D-CA) pointed out yesterday was the 46th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, and that Ryan's Godless budget cuts are “exactly the opposite of what Dr. King stood for.” Ryan's adolescent ideas, straight from his favorite school girl Ayn Rand novel, have already failed in Europe; he wants to implement them here anyway. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who would become Budget Chairman if Nancy Pelosi removed Steve Israel as head of the DCCC and allowed the Democrats to win back the House in November, said that the Ryan cuts approved by the Republicans on the committee "tells the American public exactly what Republicans in Congress would do to the country if they have the power to impose their will."

"It's the budget that ransacks the future of America's children," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during a press briefing in the Capitol. "Education is the best investment that a person, a parent, a country can make in its future... This is key to employment, to growth, to innovation and for the success of our economy.

"I view the Ryan budget as an ideological manifesto," she added.

Other Democrats piled on.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the Ryan plan would cut $18 billion in early education programs, $89 billion in K-12 programs and $205 billion in higher education initiatives over the next decade, versus the levels established by December's budget deal between Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, said the GOP budget would eliminate more than 170,000 spots for early education benefits-- "and it gets worse every year after that," he added.

"These are the exact children that we know, if they have an opportunity in early childhood education, they will do much better in school, they're more likely to graduate, they're more likely to get a job, they're less likely to go to jail and they're more likely to earn a higher income than children who don't get that opportunity," Miller said.

"Clearly they [Republicans] don't care about these children."

President Obama doesn't think so either. In his weekly address to the nation this morning, he contrasted his own budget with the Ryan document. "[T]he budget I sent Congress earlier this year," he said, "is built on the idea of opportunity for all. It will grow the middle class and shrink the deficits we’ve already cut in half since I took office. It’s an opportunity agenda with four goals. Number one is creating more good jobs that pay good wages. Number two is training more Americans with the skills to fill those jobs. Number three is guaranteeing every child access to a great education. And number four is making work pay-- with wages you can live on, savings you can retire on, and health care that’s there for you when you need it." He has a very different view of what Ryan presented on April Fool's Day.

This week, the Republicans in Congress put forward a very different budget. And it does just the opposite: it shrinks opportunity and makes it harder for Americans who work hard to get ahead.

The Republican budget begins by handing out massive tax cuts to households making more than $1 million a year. Then, to keep from blowing a hole in the deficit, they’d have to raise taxes on middle-class families with kids. Next, their budget forces deep cuts to investments that help our economy create jobs, like education and scientific research.

Now, they won’t tell you where these cuts will fall. But compared to my budget, if they cut everything evenly, then within a few years, about 170,000 kids will be cut from early education programs. About 200,000 new mothers and kids will be cut off from programs to help them get healthy food. Schools across the country will lose funding that supports 21,000 special education teachers. And if they want to make smaller cuts to one of these areas, that means larger cuts in others.

Unsurprisingly, the Republican budget also tries to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- even though that would take away health coverage from the more than seven million Americans who’ve done the responsible thing and signed up to buy health insurance. And for good measure, their budget guts the rules we put in place to protect the middle class from another financial crisis like the one we’ve had to fight so hard to recover from.

Policies that benefit a fortunate few while making it harder for working Americans to succeed are not what we need right now. Our economy doesn’t grow best from the top-down; it grows best from the middle-out.  That’s what my opportunity agenda does-- and it’s what I’ll keep fighting for.

Did you know Blue America has a special page set up for the sole purpose of defeating Paul Ryan. This isn't to "send him a message" by electing some Blue Dog with values not so different from his in some backward red district. This page is dedicated to defeating him and replacing him with a progressive Democrat, Rob Zerban. Rob on Ryan's budget: "Ryan and his Republican colleagues fail to honestly account for their own policies. Free trade deals that have hollowed out our manufacturing industry, giveaways to Wall Street that have let billionaires accumulate all the benefits of our economy-- these are the things that cause poverty, not food stamps or early education programs. I agree with the New York Times that Ryan's report distorts the facts and that his ideas are ‘small and tired.' As the Times says, ‘most successful programs, including the (earned income) tax credit, Medicaid and food stamps, have been those that are carefully designed, properly managed and well-financed.’ I am a shining example of how smart programs can work. My single mother raised us in poverty, and we needed federal nutrition programs to have enough to eat. I needed Pell Grants and Stafford Loans to go to college, but I used all that help to get an education, and then build two successful businesses and employ dozens of people. The truth is that many of these programs are extremely successful, but years of budget cuts, free trade deals, refusal to increase the minimum wage, and giveaways to Wall Street resulted in the Great Recession and driven more and more people into poverty.”

The GOP "Budget": "Poopy Paul" Ryan's no April Fool -- he's the year-round kind

Oh no, is it really "Poopy Paul" Ryan's last cartoon budget? (Yes, he's term-limited out of the House Budget Committee chairmanship.)

"On net, we estimate that the House budget resolution would decrease GDP by 0.9 percent and decrease nonfarm payrolls by 1.1 million jobs in fiscal year 2015, relative to CBO’s current-law baseline. The following fiscal year, the “Path to Prosperity” would decrease GDP by 2.5 percent and cost 3.0 million jobs. And if the recovery remains sluggish, large job losses could continue under the Ryan budget in 2017 and beyond."

-- Congressional Budget Office

"Ryan's #GOPbudget would cut 3 million jobs in FY 2016. That's akin to firing the entire workforce in his home state: http://goo.gl/JegBYd" -- tweet from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

GOP-Ryan Radical Budget Would Slow Recovery, Cost 3 Million Jobs
Posted on April 1, 2014 by Leader's Press Shop

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the GOP-Ryan budget released this morning would have a devastating impact on American workers and the larger economy.

From EPI [Joshua Smith, Economic Policy Institute]: By Ignoring Economic Reality, Ryan Budget Would Slow Recovery, Cost Jobs

. . . On net, I estimate that the House budget resolution would decrease GDP by 0.9 percent and decrease nonfarm payrolls by 1.1 million jobs in fiscal year 2015, relative to CBO’s current-law baseline. The following fiscal year, when Ryan’s cuts to discretionary spending kick in, “The Path to Prosperity” would decrease GDP by 2.5 percent and cost 3.0 million jobs. And if the recovery remains sluggish, large job losses could continue under the Ryan budget in 2017 and beyond.

Losing 3 million jobs in FY 2016 is like:

Firing Wisconsin’s entire workforce

Firing Missouri’s entire workforce

Firing the entire working population of Indiana

Firing the entire population of Iowa or Mississippi

A budget is a statement of our values as a nation. Today, Chairman Ryan and House Republican leaders have shown, yet again, what they value most is protecting loopholes for the wealthy few and corporations that ship jobs overseas without concern for hardworking American workers, seniors, students, and our nation’s economic competitiveness.

Americans want action on jobs, strengthening the middle class, investments in infrastructure and education and a responsible path toward reducing the deficit – not another replay of Ryan’s radical partisan budget pathways to nowhere.

by Ken

I know a lot of people are referring to it as "Paul Ryan's April Fools' budget, that pile of poop he delivered to his adoring fans today. But I say this is terribly unfair. I'll bet Poopy Pauly didn't even realize it's April Fools' Day. When you devote as much effort as Poopy P does to being a Year-Round Fool, you probably don't have much patience for the damned amateurs who come rollicking out of the woodwork once a year doing their silly jokes and generally giving a bad name to the serious practitioners who toil in the trenches of foolery the whole bloody year.

• Let's say you were stuck in traffic and a squeegee guy came up to your car and started to smear the windshield with his rag. Would you ask him to propose a national budget?

• Let's say you went to open-mike night at a comedy club and there was a guy there doing a ventriloquist act. Would you go up afterward and ask the ventriloquist's dummy to propose a national budget?

• Let's say the circus has just come to town and you've come to watch them parade through the streets to the arena. Would you interrupt the guy who's following the elephants shoveling up their shit to propose a national budget?

Probably you're thinking you'll say, "Of course not," and then I'll say, "Then why would you pay any attention to a national budget proposed by Paul Ryan?" Not at all. What I'm going to say is, "Why not go ahead and ask the squeegee guy and the ventriloquist's dummy and the elephant-poop guy for their thoughts on the budget? It makes more sense than asking Paul Ryan." And the elephant guy, after all, already has professional experience shoveling shit.


Really now, when we hear Poopy Paul yammering about souls, we have to know we've somehow slipped into the Twilight Zone. And when he calls his budget gibberish a "Path to Prosperity," all he really means is: The rich get richer and the poor get fucked -- yeah, baby!

Of course the headline that's supposed to come out of Poopy Paul's comedy budget proposal is about how he's "slashing" $5 trillion over the next decade, but even he knows that's not gonna happen; it just gives him a chance to preen about how savagely he's prepared to attack most Americans -- the kind who don't matter to him. And of course he's going to save gazillions of $$$ by repealing Obamacare, though what he really means is "I'm OK health-care-wise; fuck you, jerkwads!" Thee is no human being on the planet who knows less about health care than Poopy Paul; you might as well talk to your goldfish.

You might as well ask your goldfish about health care.

If you want to read a sober Village account of the unveiling of the "Path to Prosperity," washingtonpost.com's Ed O'Keefe can oblige with"Ryan’s last budget proposal would slash $5 trillion over next decade." As Ed O points out:

But any fighting between Democrats and Republicans on spending will not result in the deadline-driven battles of recent years. That's because the House and Senate agreed this year to a spending plan that runs through the end of fiscal 2015. While the GOP-controlled House is expected to debate and pass Ryan's plan, it will serve only as a political show vote since Democrats controlling the Senate do not plan to propose or vote on a budget plan.

Poopy Paul sez: "Hey, kids, let's put on a budget show!"

So what it is, is Poopy Paul and the other kids, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, putting on a budget show. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and do some serious vomiting.

#

Do Cruz, Rubio, Paul And Senate Right-Wingers Have what It Takes To Crash The Budget Deal Today?

The do-nothing House is on vacation already, again. But the Senate is still working. It still haven't approved the awful Paul Ryan-Patty Murray "compromise," in which the plutocrats compromise nothing (as usual) and all the compromise is on the backs of working people. Amazingly, though, it's Senate Republicans threatening to kill the whole thing. There are probably only 3 progressive Democrats in the Senate willing to vote no today. (32 voted no in the House last week.) NBC's Chuck Todd says the budget will pass with little fanfare, even though Reid has to cobble together a cloture vote to shut down the de factor right-wing filibuster against it-- 60 votes. He's counting John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Susan Collins (R-ME), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) as sure votes and Rob Portman (R-OH), John Hoeven (R-ND), and Bob Corker (R-TN) are probable votes to shut down the filibuster. That will be enough without more Democratic defections-- which isn't likely. CBS is reporting it differently however and assert, based on a Dick Durbin appearance on Face the Nation Sunday, that the GOP may kill the deal.

“A handful of members of the Senate are vying for the presidency in years to come and thinking about this vote in the context. And others are frankly afraid of this new force, the tea party force, the Heritage Foundation force, that is threatening seven out of the 12 Republican senators running for re-election,” Durbin said.

Indeed, many Republicans have come out against the deal, ranging from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, to lawmakers like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who are up for reelection in 2014, to the handful of Republicans eyeing the White House in 2016, including Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida.

…Outside conservative groups came out aggressively against the deal but still found themselves shut out when the House passed it with a solid bipartisan majority that included more than half of the Republican conference. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, publicly lashed out at the groups, saying they had “lost all credibility” and were just using Republican lawmakers and the American people.

House GOP leaders came to the floor to voice support the deal before their members voted last week, and Durbin said they are also reaching out to some of their Senate colleagues to persuade them to go along.

Yesterday the National Memo made an important point that is routinely overlooked by the mainstream media. The Republican civil war is real but it's fueled more by careerism-- and cash-- than by ideology. Ryan thinks he can get to the presidential nomination by compromising. Cruz, Paul and Rubio hope to get it by demagoguery and obstructionism. Cruz "is publicly opposing the Wisconsin congressman’s budget deal, which eases the pain of the automatic sequester cuts while increasing some fees and asking military personnel and federal workers to contribute more to their retirement." (We covered that from a Cruz-free perspective Sunday evening.) It shines a light on "a rift everyone knew existed in the Republican Party had gone public and Ryan and Boehner were now willing to take on the extremist wing of their party to make sure actual governance gets done. But what’s really happened is that the Tea Party movement and the outside groups that fundraise and lobby on behalf of it have lost their usefulness to the Republican Party-- at least temporarily. But are there actual divisions in policy between Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz?"

Both want to repeal Obamacare and gut the federal budget. Both oppose abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Both support ALEC’s effort to make state legislatures a place where multinational corporations get their whims rubber-stamped.

They currently disagree on one thing-- tactics.

Cruz led the movement that made October’s government shutdown possible. Ryan is currently trying his best to avoid another shutdown.

But in 2011 the congressman was behind the debt-limit hostage situation and reportedly rejected a “grand bargain” that would have actually cut benefits to Medicare and Social Security.

Having voted for everything George W. Bush wanted-- all the spending, tax cuts for the rich and unfunded wars and expansion of government-- Paul Ryan is a verifiable hypocrite. If he actually cared about balancing the budget, he wouldn’t have voted to get rid of the first balanced budget we had in generations as soon as he got the chance. He could have forever eliminated any deficit/debt concerns we have now by simply agreeing to get rid of tax breaks for the rich and corporations.

You know Paul Ryan doesn’t actually care about the deficit.

He is a boilerplate conservative who believes in cutting government to stymie its effectiveness when a Democrat is in the White House. He’s also for cutting taxes and spending profligately when there’s a Republican president, ensuring that the economy grows and there will be even more to cut when a Democrat is back is in power.

This hypocrisy may enrage Democrats but it’s made him one of the most popular members of the Republican Party-- and a serious frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.

Cruz is part of the opposition that can declare it’s for cutting even when a Republican is in the White House-- because he’s never had to prove it. His claims of conservative purity and willingness to oppose the party establishment has made him a hero of the base, who have opened up their wallets to rain down their support.

But its not the grassroots money that wins majorities for the GOP.

Its the Chamber of Commerce and billionaire funders who give Karl Rove hundreds of millions to spend each cycle. These funders saw what happened when Speaker Boehner and Ryan went along with the Tea Party in October-- and they don’t like what it did to the economy or the GOP brand.

John Boehner and Paul Ryan cannot afford another government shutdown. Ted Cruz can.

These men will agree on policy 9 out of 10 times. They disagree on this budget deal and they’ll probably disagree if Boehner and Ryan do the bidding of funders who would actually want to win the presidency again and pass immigration reform.

Ronald Reagan used to say, “Somebody who agrees with me 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”

But in today’s GOP, the best way to soak the base for scads of cash is to call your enemy a traitor, even if he’s a Republican.

Speaker Boehner is just returning the favor on behalf of his funders.

UPDATE: Reid Gets Cloture

Looks like the Republicans won't be able to stop the budget deal. They just voted on shutting off debate and a dozen Republicans defected-- Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Saxby Chambliss, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Orrin Hatch, John Hoeven, Johnny Isakson, Ron Johnson, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman and John McCain. That means when the final vote comes tomorrow, Reid will only need a simple majority to pass it. Piece of cake

I'd Vote No, What About You?

There's a last minute, rush/rush-end-of-the-world vote scheduled for Thursday in the House, presumably Friday in the House of Lords, for the Frankenstein's monster of a "compromise" that Establishment shills Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Patty Murray (D-WA) reached Tuesday. The Budget Deal sucks. Can progressives stick to their values and principles and defeat it? Probably not. It's either this or the Republicans will shut down the government again. The discussion Tuesday night between Chris Hayes and Bernie Sanders about the deal was depressing. Bernie found solace in the fact that at least the Republicans didn't get to cut Social Security and Medicare-- which is why so many of them actually will vote NO.

I don't think there are many in Congress on the Democratic side of the aisle who will stick with Raul Grijalva's expression of principle. (I would.) He said right after Murray and Ryan get done with their circus act Tuesday night “I strongly oppose a budget deal that asks federal employees to endure another pay cut, ends an important economic lifeline for out-of-work Americans, and preserves unfair corporate tax giveaways. Congress should pass a budget deal that invests in jobs and the economy. American families should not be hurt in the process.”

I guess the best deal progressives can get out of this shit deal is to somehow force a vote on extending unemployment. Pelosi seems to have signaled she'll do that, although, who knows where she really is on anything anymore! Murray didn't get that into the deal with Ryan but it's wildly popular with voters-- even with Republicans-- and I imagine there are at least a couple dozen Republicans who would cross the aisle and vote for it rather than hand the Democrats a potent campaign issue next year IF those Members weren't lucky enough to get free re-election passes from Steve Israel this year.

I was sickened yesterday when I tuned in MSNBC and saw one of the richest Members of Congress, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal-- net worth over $53 million dollars-- talking about the need to compromise away the lives of the millions of working families who will be hurt by this budget agreement among the wealthy political elites on behalf of their even wealthier financiers. 1.3 million unemployed workers-- who are treated by conservatives as if they chose to be unemployed rather than forced into unemployment by the ideologically-motivated conservative economic agenda. "If," say conservatives, "there are no more benefits, they'll take lower paying jobs than the ones we killed.' Except they don't admit their policies killed those jobs and they are wrong about lower paying jobs even being available.

This map shows you which states those 1.3 million unemployed workers are who will lose benefits if Congress goes home without extending them. Are there enough Replublicans in political jeopardy that predicts a House majority were Pelosi to offer a motion to recommit that forces a vote of extending unemployment. The simple answer is YES. If every Democrat-- even the fake ones like Barrow and Matheson and McIntyre-- stick with the caucus, there will be more than enough House Republicans who would be too scared to vote against the wishes of their districts. So, basically, this isn't true in the real low-info Confederate districts where they get all their opinions from Hate Talk Radio and Fox, but it is true in districts where you can't win without independent voters. Right-wing crackpots like Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Diane Black (R-TN), Doug Collins (R-GA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), and Tom Graves (R-GA) are among 28 Republicans, for example, mostly in the South, with PVIs of between R+20 and R+32. They don't need one single independent or Democrat to win reelection. I would estimate, very conservatively that there are 75 Republicans in that live-boy/dead-girl-category. They don't care what Democrats or independents think, not nationally and not even in their own districts. As long as they keep the Limbaughized base happy, their careers are safe.

On the other hand, there are around 50 Republicans in districts where they have no choice but to appeal to independents and even Democrats in they expect to be reelected. Many of these Republicans are the ones with the safe passes from Steve Israel promising that the DCCC will not challenge them (very convenient for Israel who sits in the unsafest of districts himself and needs the same protection from the NRCC for himself. In any case, here are two dozen Republicans-- more than enough-- who would be in jeopardy of losing their seats next year if they voted against extending unemployment insurance. Next to each name is the percentage of votes Romney won in their district last year:

• Gary Miller- San Bernardino, CA- 41%
• David Valadao- Central Valley, CA- 44%
• Frank LoBiondo- Atlantic City, NJ- 46%
• Chris Gibson- Northern Hudson Valley, NY- 46%
• Mike Coffman- Aurora, CO- 47%
• Rodney Davis- Champaign, IL- 49%
• Tom Latham- Des Moines, IA- 47%
• Joe Heck- Las Vegas suburbs, NV- 49%
• Peter King- Long Island, NY- 47%
• Michael Fitzpatrick- Bucks County, PA- 49%
• Fred Upton- Kalamazoo, MI- 50%
• Jeff Denham- Modesto, CA- 47%
• Dave Reichert- Seattle suburbs, WA- 48%
• Ileana Ros-Lehtinen- Miami-Dade, FL- 47%
• Erik Paulsen- Minneapolis suburbs, MN- 49%
• Scott Rigell- Hampton Roads, VA- 49%
• John Kline- Minneapolis suburbs, MN- 49%
• Michael Grimm- Staten Island, NY- 47%
• Richard Hanna- Utica, NY- 49%
• Tom Reed- Southern Tier, NY- 50%
• Jaime Herrera Beutler- Vancouver, WA- 50%
• Patrick Meehan- Delaware County, PA- 50%
• Frank Wolf- McLean, VA- 50%
• Sean Duffy- Wausau, WI- 51%

Down The Rabbit Hole With Paul Ryan And Ayn Rand

Remember when Canter and McCarthy screwed up on the Farm Bill and Boehner had to pull it? It just happened again-- this time with the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development funding bills. The House of Representatives is now officially an out-of-control madhouse. Boehner is just another Member with an agenda, who some Republicans follow and others ignore. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), as far from a "moderate" as you'll find in their crazy caucus, issued the following statement concluding that the conservative sequestration scheme is wrecking the economy and ruining the country and must come to an end.

“The Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development funding bill that was pulled from floor consideration today was the first major attempt by the House to consider and pass an Appropriations bill that funds domestic programs under the austere level delineated under the Budget Control Act and the House budget resolution.

“The bill today reflected the best possible effort, under an open process, to fund programs important to the American people-- including our highway, air and rail systems, housing for our poorest families, and improvements to local communities-- while also making the deep cuts necessary under the current budget cap. In order to abide by sequestration budget levels, this bill cut $4.4 billion below the current, post-sequestration total to a level below what was approved for these programs in 2006-- over seven years ago.

“I am extremely disappointed with the decision to pull the bill from the House calendar today. The prospects for passing this bill in September are bleak at best, given the vote count on passage that was apparent this afternoon. With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very [Ryan] budget it adopted just three months ago. Thus, I believe that the House has made its choice: sequestration-- and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts-- must be brought to an end. And, it is also clear that the higher funding levels advocated by the Senate are also simply not achievable in this Congress.

“This Congress must now deal in a productive way to address the nation’s crippling deficits and debt to put our budget back on a sustainable and responsible path. This means that all government programs-- not just those on the discretionary side of the ledger-- must be reduced. Spending reductions in mandatory and entitlement programs, which are the drivers of our deficits and debt, are the most effective way to enact meaningful change in the trajectory of federal spending. The House, Senate and White House must come together as soon as possible on a comprehensive compromise that repeals sequestration, takes the nation off this lurching path from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis, reduces our deficits and debt, and provides a realistic topline discretionary spending level to fund the government in a responsible-- and attainable-- way.”

This was a worse mess than the Farm Bill fiasco. The Republicans, as a party, are incapable and/or unwilling to fund anything other than the Military Industrial Establishment that the last plausible Republican President warned them about. They've followed Paul Ryan down a rabbit hole where there is no Social Security, no Medicare and no Medicaid and where everyone worships Ayn Rand. These people are not in the real world-- and they control, more or less, the House of Representatives... and half the state governments, not just in the crazy, secessionist South, but in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. On the federal level, when the House Republicans try using Ryan's fantasy budget to draft actual budgets for actual functions of the government, they fall flat on their faces and... well impossible situations like what happened on Wednesday happen. It's pure nihilism in the real world and if it isn't stopped by the American people at the ballot box next November, or children and grandchildren will curse us to eternity-- and with good reason.

The House Republicans don't have the political will-- even without taking the House or Senate Democrats into account-- to pass any of this Ryan-ordained Randian garbage. There's no way to fund the rest of the government outside the military while keeping faith with Ryan's crackpot budgetary constraints. Even Hal Rogers understands that now. "Unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts must be brought to an end." He's talking about the whole insane edifice Ryan and his Wall Street pals have imposed on America through blackmail and threats. From the Associated Press report on the mess:

As the House measure faltered, a companion bill in the Senate seemed likely to be killed by a GOP filibuster on Thursday for the opposite reason. It breaks the budget limits of sequestration, the automatic cuts required by Washington's failure to strike a bipartisan budget deal.

The twin developments reflect the broader dysfunction in Washington over the budget. All sides want to reverse the crippling sequestration cuts but a partisan impasse over tax increases sought by President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies and cuts to so-called mandatory programs like Medicare and food stamps demanded by Republicans shows no signs of breaking.

Congress leaves Washington this week for a five-week vacation; the battle will be rejoined in the fall.

Cuts in the House transportation measure were made deeper by a Republican move to cut an additional $40 billion-plus from domestic programs and transfer the money to the Pentagon. That left the transportation measure $10 billion, or about 18 percent, below the Senate's bill.

...A spokesman for GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California said the Republican majority's top vote counter was confident he would have been able to round up enough votes to pass the bill if there were more time for debate.

The move comes as companion legislation in the Senate may be filibustered to death on Thursday by Republicans because it exceeds budget levels called for under the automatic budget cuts.

"Voting for appropriations legislation that blatantly violates budget reforms already agreed to by both parties moves our country in exactly, exactly the wrong direction," Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

"The collapse of the partisan transportation and housing bill in the House proves that their sequestration-on-steroids bills are unworkable, and that we are going to need a bipartisan deal to replace sequestration," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., chief author of the Senate bill. "And while we work toward that, we should pass the bipartisan Senate transportation and housing bill and show our constituents that we are putting them and their communities above partisanship and political games."

Paul Krugman has a message for policy-makers: "Where we are is not O.K. Stop shrugging, and do your jobs"

Patrick Chappatte [click to enlarge]

"For more than three years some of us have fought the policy elite's damaging obsession with budget deficits, an obsession that led governments to cut investment when they should have been raising it, to destroy jobs when job creation should have been their priority. That fight seems largely won -- in fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like the sudden intellectual collapse of austerity economics as a policy doctrine.

"But while insiders no longer seem determined to worry about the wrong things, that's not enough; they also need to start worrying about the right things -- namely, the plight of the jobless and the immense continuing waste from a depressed economy."

-- Paul Krugman, in his NYT column "The Big Shrug"

by Ken

Howie and I were talking the other day (or the other week?) about what is, I now gather the talk of the blogging community: the death of politics. Or rather, that fewer and fewer people seem interested in the stuff.

Which I understand completely. Things aren't bad enough to drive us into open revolt, or even vaguely mutinous disgruntlement, as might have been the case in the first year or two of the economic meltdown -- the vaguely mutinous disgruntlement, not the impulse to open revolt. We have learned enough about the corruption of our system, and the way in which it is controlled by our power elites, as to leave most of us throwing our arms up, saying, "WTF can we do anyway?"

And there's a tendency to answer: fry up some more bacon, and watch the new episodes of Game of Throw-Up.

Imagine Paul Krugman, then, trotting out the quaint idea that there are people in policy-making positions whose job it is to do something about the state of the economy.

"I've been in this economics business for a while," he begins today's NYT column, "The Big Shrug." "In fact, I've been in it so long I still remember what people considered normal in those long-ago days before the financial crisis."

In those ancient times, he says, "normal" meant:

* "an economy adding a million or more jobs each year, enough to keep up with the growth in the working-age population";

* "an unemployment rate not much above 5 percent, except for brief recessions";

* and "very few people out of work for extended periods."

"So how, in those long-ago days," he wonders, "would we have reacted to Friday's news" --

that the number of Americans with jobs is still down two million from six years ago, that 7.6 percent of the work force is unemployed (with many more underemployed or forced to take low-paying jobs), and that more than four million of the unemployed have been out of work for more than six months? Well, we know how most political insiders reacted: they called it a pretty good jobs report. In fact, some are even celebrating the report as "proof" that the budget sequester isn't doing any harm.

Krugman credits the Fed with at least -- once upon a time, which is to say last fall -- signaling a "willingness to do whatever it took to get unemployment down." But that passed, and now, he says, "sometimes it seems as if nobody in Washington outside the Fed even considers high unemployment a problem."

He wonders why this isn't "a major policy priority," and ventures three answers:

(1) "Inertia"

[I]t's hard to get policy changes absent the threat of disaster. As long as we're adding jobs, not losing them, and unemployment is basically stable or falling, not rising, policy makers don't feel any urgent need to act.

(2) "The unemployed don't have much of a political voice"

Profits are sky-high, stocks are up, so things are O.K. for the people who matter, right?

(3) "The monetary hawks"

[W]hile we aren't hearing so much these days from the self-styled deficit hawks, the monetary hawks -- economists, politicians and officials who keep warning that low interest rates will have dire consequences -- have, if anything, gotten even more vociferous. It doesn't seem to matter that the monetary hawks, like the fiscal hawks, have an impressive record of being wrong about everything (where's that runaway inflation they promised?). They just keep coming back; the arguments change (now they're warning about asset bubbles), but the policy demand -- tighter money and higher interest rates -- is always the same. And it's hard to escape the sense that the Fed is being intimidated into inaction.

"The tragedy is that it's all unnecessary"

Krugman allows that "you hear talk about a 'new normal' of much higher unemployment," but insists that "all the reasons given for this alleged new normal, such as the supposed mismatch between workers' skills and the demands of the modern economy, fall apart when subjected to careful scrutiny."

If Washington would reverse its destructive budget cuts, if the Fed would show the "Rooseveltian resolve" that Ben Bernanke demanded of Japanese officials back when he was an independent economist, we would quickly discover that there's nothing normal or necessary about mass long-term unemployment.

#

This Post Is Only For Californians-- Unless You Also Live In A State That Gets Wildfires

It's wildfire weather in L.A.-- temperatures in the 90s and very dry. There are plenty of reasons to be angry about the irresponsibility of Members of Congress who voted for the Sequester-- and inconvenience at airports is the least of them. The possibility of losing homes and lives to wildfires is far more serious. Monday Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who's in charge of the U.S. Forest Service, and Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell were in Idaho were in Idaho explaining that Congress' Sequester had tied their hands in terms of using prescribed burns for fire prevention and that 500 fewer firefighters and 50 fewer engines will be available to fight fires in the dry West this summer.

Idaho has two congressmembers, both Republicans. Mike Simpson is a GOP Establishment shill and a lockstep ally of Boehner's. He voted for the Sequester. Raul Labrador is a bit of a rebel with a libertarian streak and he was one of the 66 Republicans who joined with 95 Democrats to oppose Boehner's sequester bill on August 1, 2011. Tuesday, the editors of the Great Falls Tribune in their state sent them a message: voters are watching:

Cutting federal dollars for firefighting would seem to be foolish on its face.

Unless Congress wants to see the West go up in flames this fire season, federal dollars for fighting fires should be restored to last year’s levels.

It’s an easy thing to suggest whacking the heck out of the federal budget. But it’s not such an easy thing to find federal programs that don’t affect people in small or large ways. Even chemotherapy to cancer patients has been delayed by cuts.

Last year, wildfires burned 9.3 million acres of land and destroyed more than 4,400 structures. It was one of the worst wildfire years in since most Americans were born. This year could easily be worse. A bad year for Congress' meat ax approach to ideologically-inspred budget cuts. And it isn't just Idaho that is worried, of course. New Mexico and Oregon were both hit very hard last year. Much of Texas, whose Republican-dominated congressional delegation is Austerity-mad, has been a tinderbox. Washington is another state under severe threat-- and so is Florida, another state where senior Republican congressmembers like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John Mica, Bill Young, Vern Buchanan, Tom Rooney, Mario Diaz-Balart, Anders Crenshaw, Jeff Miller, Richard Nugent and Gus Bilirakis helped push the Boehner-Cantor-Ryan wing of the party's pro-Sequester position.

But no state is in greater jeopardy than California from the $115 million cuts to the federal wildland fire program budget. Fires have already begun and the outlook is grim. The games they play back in Washington are grim too and Members of Congress-- regardless of party-- who voted for the sequester should be held accountable. My own congressman, New Dem Adam Schiff, voted for the sequester. I won't be voting for him in 2014. This is the list of California congressmembers still in Congress who voted for the Sequester:

• Karen Bass (D)

• Howard Berman (D)

• Ken Calvert (R)
• John Campbell (R)
• Lois Capps (D)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog)
• Susan Davis (New Dem)
• Jeff Denham (R)
• Anna Eshoo (D)
• John Garamendi (D)
• Darrell Issa (R)
• Kevin McCarthy (R)
• Buck McKeon (R)
• Gary Miller (R)
• Nancy Pelosi (D)
• Dana Rohrabacher (R)
• Ed Royce (R)
• Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog; her sister, Linda Sanchez, had the sense to vote NO)
• Adam Schiff (New Dem)
• Brad Sherman (D)
• Jackie Speier (D)
• Mike Thompson Blue Dog)

The California members with the good sense to vote against Sequester: Xavier Becerra (D), Judy Chu (D), Janice Hahn (D), Mike Honda (D), Duncan Hunter (R), Barbara Lee (D), Zoe Lofgren (D), Tom McClintock (R), George Miller (D), Grace Napolitano (D), Devin Nunes (R), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D), Linda Sánchez (D), and Maxine Waters (D).

On election day, few people just vote on a single issue. If your house burns down this summer and there are no firefighters there to help, you might want to at least take this one into consideration.

FDR Is Rolling In His Grave Today

Yesterday Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mark Takano (D-CA), and Mark Pocan (D-WI), along with folks from AARP and a broad coalition of progressive organizations, reiterated their NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid stand by presenting petitions with 2.3 million signatures on them to the White House. That didn't stop Obama and Boehner from moving forward with their plans to destroy the idea that Social Security is the third rail of American politics. Their plan to cut benefits to seniors and vets through their Chained CPI scheme was part of Obama's budget today. And it's why Boehner has a twinkle in his eyes. Not only is he going to get the cuts in Social Security the GOP and their corporate backers demand, he's going to get it with mostly Democratic votes because of the inept negotiating skills of the most lightweight president in our lifetimes. And he gets the first breach in the unbreachable: Social Security is forever on the chopping block if this goes through. The head of the NCRR, Greg Walden (R-OR) already attacked Obama for cutting Social Security. This will be the fate of any Democrat in Congress stupid enough to support this. They will lose their base of the left and be attacked from he right. Just say NO.

Mark Pocan, the progressive champion who took Tammy Baldwin's old Madison, Wisconsin seat after voters statewide elevated her to the Senate, explained what the hubbub was all about: "I and many others in Congress, 107 of us, signed a letter that said we do not support cuts to Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid-- and we do not support the Chained CPI. And I am here to say that if we do any chained CPI to Social Security, that we will break our promise that we made to our seniors and others who rely on Social Security. I will not support that. I will not vote for any bill that includes that. And I stand with the 2 million-plus people who say that here today." Bernie-- God bless his soul-- was a little more bellicose, the Green Mountain Boy in him coming out: "Anybody in the Congress who believes in cutting these important benefits, we’re going to give them a political choice they can’t refuse. And that is: If they vote to cut Social Security, they may well not be returning to Washington."

But, in the end, the best response to Obama's decision to break his promise to the American people and cut Social Security benefits to the elderly and to veterans came in the form of the Grayson Takano No Cuts letter. Key phrase: “we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits-- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”

Several Members of Congress have released their own statements aligned with the letter. (Be careful of fakes. New Dems and other conservatives have put out statements with plenty of wiggle room to worm out of any commitment if they feel pressure. Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), for example, put out a statement that says he won't vote against benefit cuts but then refuses to say whether or not he considers Chained CPI a benefit cut. Disappointing freshman Annie Kuster (NH) has pulled the same trick. Jared Huffman released a decent statement, but not one that says he will "vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits." Here's what Huffman put out yesterday:

“I am disappointed to hear that the President’s budget will include a chained CPI. Quite simply, chained CPI means reduced benefits for seniors who have paid into the system, earned those benefits, and are counting on them.

My 83-year-old mom is like millions of seniors around the country. She worked hard all her life and paid into the system, and when she retired she counted on the government to honor its end of the bargain. I intend to make sure our government keeps its promise. We can reduce the deficit without forcing extra costs on the middle class, seniors, and the most vulnerable in our society.

While there is much in the President’s budget to admire, I strongly oppose chained CPI, and I will vote against these benefit cuts should they come before the House.”

Not bad... but not quite what Chellie Pingree (D-ME) put out the day before: "No matter what you call it, a chained CPI is a cut to Social Security benefits. For someone who retirees today, that cut would mean they would be getting $650 less a year when they are 75 and over $1,100 less a year when they reach age 85. Seniors shouldn't be facing cuts to the benefits they have earned while millionaires and billionaires are getting a tax break. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are vital to the economic security of Maine people and I will vote against cuts to benefits in these programs." See the crucial difference?

What's Wrong With The Confused Republican Position On Sequestration? Stockman, Bachmann, Isakson

Bachmann: all pearls, no meat

Monday I noticed that far right-extremist-- some would say domestic terrorist-- Steve Stockman (R-TX), who keeps changing his twitter handle as though he's trying to hide from the FBI again, tweeting away about how Obama is responsible for the Sequester's painful impact on people in his poverty stricken, backward district northeast of Houston. No one who knows squat about Stockman's virulently anti-family ideologically-driven voting record could possibly think he gives a damn about Texas special ed students or poor students-- even if he is a former vagrant who spent years sleeping under a highway underpass. And as much as he would like to spread the GOP myth that Obama owns the sequester, this is the warning the White House put out, for residents of Jasper, Vidor, Lumberton, Silsbee, Liberty and Livingston before Republican nihilists like Stockman forced it into existence:

If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Texas this year alone are:

• Teachers and Schools: Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately280 fewer schools would receive funding.
o Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Texas will lose approximately $51 million in funds for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

• Work-Study Jobs: Around 4,720 fewer low income students in Texas would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 1,450 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college.

• Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

• Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Texas would lose about $8,467,000 in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Texas could lose another $2,235,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

• Military Readiness: In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.
o Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $233 million in Texas.
o Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Texas would be cut by about $27 million.
o Navy: Reduce procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter from Texas, and cancel scheduled Blue Angels shows in Corpus Christi and Fort Worth.

• Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

• Job Search Assistance to Help those in Texas find Employment and Training: Texas will lose about $2,263,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 83,750 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment.

• Child Care: Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

• Vaccines for Children: In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $665,000.

• Public Health: Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And Texas’ health departments will lose about $1,146,000 resulting in around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.

• STOP Violence Against Women Program: Texas could lose up to $543,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served.

• Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Texas would lose approximately $3,557,000 in funds that provide meals for seniors.

Not that Stockman is the only right-wing hypocrite forcing Boehner's and Cantor's sequestration down everyone's throat and trying to blame it on the Democrats.

The sequester passed on the evening of August 1, 2011. 174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it. 95 Democrats also opposed it (as did 66 Republicans). Boehner, as Speaker, wasn't expected to vote. But he did. He wanted to make a point. He voted YES. So did all his top lieutenants: Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Whip Kevin McCarthy, NRCC head Pete Sessions, Party Conference Chair Jeb Hensarling, Budget chair Paul Ryan, Armed Services Committee chair Buck McKeon, Ways and Means Committee chair Dave Camp, Energy and Commerce Committee chair Fred Upton, Financial Services Committee chair Spencer Bachus, Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers, Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen... Boehner's entire inner circle of elite GOP leaders voted for the sequestration.

Leading the opposition were progressive Caucus leaders Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Donna Edwards, Chellie Pingree, Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, John Lewis, Jerry Nadler, Barney Frank, Jan Schakowsky, Xavier Becerra, Judy Chu, Ed Markey, John Yarmuth, Brad Miller, Yvette Clarke, Barbara Lee... and the Republicans who voted with them against this? Outliers like Ron Paul, Tom McClintock, Michele Bachmann, Todd Akin, Louie Gohmert, Paul Broun, Joe Walsh, Jeff Duncan, Mo Brooks, Lynn Westmoreland, Steve King, Quayle's kid, Mick Mulvaney, Justin Amash, the freaks and loons that the GOP Establishment would like to muzzle and neutralize.

Yes, Bachmann originally voted against it-- though she has since come around to a Boehner perspective. That hasn't stopped her from whining about the consequences for her own constituents. I looked again to see if she had signed the simple "end the Sequester" bill that John Conyers and Alan Grayson introduced. In fact, as I look down the list of cosponsors, the closest thing I see to a Republican on the list is California ConservaDem Juan Vargas... no actual Republicans, not even Stockman or Bachmann. Greg Sargent Monday:

Michele Bachmann has taken a fair amount of heat lately for various over the top statements about the evils of government spending, from her false claim that 70 percent of food stamp money goes to “bureaucrats” to her false claim that President Obama and his family enjoy $1.4 billion in personal “perks and excess.”

But there’s nothing like a few spending cuts in your own district to concentrate the mind. Bachmann is, understandably, upset to hear that the Federal Aviation Administration-- as part of its move to close air traffic control towers across the country due to sequestration’s spending cuts-- will be closing two towers in Bachmann’s district. And she’s suddenly making sense, putting out a statement decrying the sequester cuts and calling for a more “responsible” approach:

“I am deeply disappointed with the FAA’s decision to close the air traffic control towers at the Anoka County-Blaine Airport and St. Cloud Regional Airport. Throughout this decision-making process, I have been in touch with FAA and DOT officials urging them to focus first on eliminating waste and trimming non-essential items in the FAA’s budget before they even consider shutting down essential safety operations. Today’s decision shows a troubling lack of priorities-- closing control towers should be a last, not a first, resort.”

She added: ”While I certainly agree we need to balance our budget, it must be done in a responsible way that sets priorities, not in an arbitrary way.”

As the Star-Tribune’s headline aptly put it: “FAA tower closings bring sequester home for Bachmann.”

Now, presumably Bachmann would insist that the sequester cuts must be replaced only with other spending cuts, and no new revenues. But the point here is that, with some Republicans trying to cast the sequester as a “victory” for the GOP, not even the ardently anti-government-spending Bachmann can maintain this pretense when it comes to cuts that are hitting her district with particular force. Instead, she’s forced to distance herself from them by positioning herself as an advocate for replacing them with something more “responsible.”

Then you have ole Johnny Isakson, the right-wing Georgia senator who isn't retiring next year. He says Georgians are so happy to see Congress cutting the budget that they don't care about the impact of the Sequester. Except he's wrong. Sam Stein writes that "a survey of local news reports in Isakson's home state paints a very different picture, with Georgians in all sectors of society-- the military, education, health care and transportation-- worried about how they will grapple with the $85 billion in federal spending cuts to programs across the country."

Across the country, stories are emerging about the dramatic ripple effects of sequestration, from air traffic towers being closed to scientific research being slashed, from tuition assistance for military personnel getting suspended to Head Start programs being gutted.

The White House estimates Georgia will lose around $28.6 million in funding for primary and secondary education, meaning the jobs of 390 teachers and aides will be at risk.

This will probably come as a total surprise to Senator Isakson, the wealthiest Georgian in Congress, all of whose social acquaintances are stinking rich and unaffected by anything touched by the sequester-- unless the local airport where their private planes are kept have to shut down. No one knows exactly how much Isakson is worth-- he guards that carefully-- but his public financial statements show the reported figure somewhere between $6 million and $17.7 million-- so, in all likelihood something north of $10 million. The sequester was designed to hurt people whose net worth is considerably south of $10 million-- like in the $1,000 to $10,000 range, like many Georgians whose interests Isakson has never shown the slightest interest in.

The Republican Party of Stockman, Bachmann, Isakson and the rest have a vision for a dark dystopian future. Paul Ryan summed it up best: