Romney's Campaign Slogan Should Be 'War is Good'

Yahoo! had this piece up this morning sparking a little dialogue in me:

Romney has embraced the Paul Ryan budget, which by many factors will explode the deficit by giving the rich and wealthy more tax breaks and cutting essential services that the poor and middle classes depend on, including Social Security, Medicaid, benefits for veterans, environmental regulations (by cutting the EPA), and many, many more. What Romney however has no intention of cutting is the military budget, pledging to expand the Pentagon's budget, even more than most deficit hawk GOPers would do. I think Mitt Romney should unveil his new campaign slogan, 'War is Good,' because that's the only slogan that seems to fit with his campaign plan.

Even though most Americans oppose broad cuts to the above mentioned items, as well as a quick exit from Afghanistan - Romney has been on record several times saying he would stay in Afghanistan and would use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - he still maintains these highly contentious points at odds with public opinion. But for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people still say they'll vote for him.

And it also raises and oft repeated line from the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the Occupy movement in general: "Why is it we have money for War, but nothing for Education?" I'd like to ask Mr. Romney that question some time.

Catholic Bishops Object to GOP Budget Proposal

A group of Catholic bishops have sent letters to Congress over the proposed budget cuts in Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP budget plan, arguing the cuts fail to meet the "moral criteria" of the church. Some excerpts of the letters are as follows:

"At a time of great competition for agricultural resources and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry, poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those who are relatively well off and powerful."

"Just solutions ... must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria."

The demands within the letters are powerful accusations against the GOP, but seem to be falling on deaf ears. Speaker of the House John Boehner, responded by saying the bishops are missing the "bigger picture" of the GOP budget proposal, that without fiscal restraint, the country will be buried in debt and no social safety net programs will survive. Boehner seems to have missed the point where the bishops address "raising adequate revenue" to cover these basic, "moral" needs of the people.

It's also noteworthy that Boehner, and the rest of the GOP, didn't seem to see the 'big picture' last month when Catholic bishops and other religious institutions objected to the ACA's mandate that all institutions requiring employees to purchase health insurance must cover all patient needs, including birth control and contraception.

Budget Woes

Here's an interesting Op-Ed from back on July 23, 2011 in the New York Times. With the release of House Republican's budget today by Paul Ryan, it's important to remind ourselves that GOP initiatives (such as tax cuts and two wars) got us into this deficit mess and that cutting government programs will never balance the budget.

"Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-
defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole..." continue reading here.

Clinton Did It

Yesterday, Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's next up-and-coming cretin released his Republican budget plan to reduce the deficit and reign in government, because government spending is out of control, or at least it has been since 2008 when George W. Bush left office (that's a strange coincidence). It'd be nice to think that Representative Ryan were sincere in his recommendations to reduce spending and balance the budget, but when he marks 2008 as a good point to return and then strictly stabilize spending, it's only political posturing. GWB increased the federal budget by 104%. In comparison, Pres. Bill Clinton increased the federal budget by only 11%. If Rep. Ryan were truly sincere about reducing the government, he might choose a better marker than the notoriously poor fiscal policies of George W. Bush. But besides this glaring omission from Ryan's reasoning, let's examine a few other interesting points, perhaps treating Rep. Ryan to a little history lesson in the meantime.

15 years ago, Pres. Bill Clinton balanced the budget and created a surplus. He did it with common sense fiscal austerity, not the extremely dangerous musings of the Tea Party-elected freshman in the House. Tthese people cry that cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR (just to name two examples) will magically fix our budget crisis it's almost laughable. But then you have polls released that show Americans think the government spends nearly $200B a year on such programs and you have to wonder how dumb this country actually is. But Clinton balanced the budget with those programs still wholly intact. Pres. Clinton did not make sweeping changes to Social Security or Medicare. He did raise taxes, but only 4.6% on the highest earners in the country. And in spite of Republicans' continued arguments that tax cuts lead to more jobs and tax increases lead to fewer ones, the economy boomed. Maybe Mr. Ryan should have just taken up a chair next to the former president to learn a thing or two.

Secondly, piggy-backing off the comment that Pres. Clinton created a surplus prior to leaving office, is that the current deficit was largely created by only two factors: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003. Yet Rep. Ryan likes to talk up that "entitlement" programs have been the main driving force behind our deficit problems, which just makes no sense mathematically.

And lastly, it should be noted that Pres. Obama has increased the federal budget. For a Democrat, that's not terribly surprising. But Rep. Ryan and all the other GOP windbags pout endlessly about some huge socialist agenda implemented by the President. Yet again there selectivist memory about history has quickly forgotten that the President increased spending so quickly because the country was on the verge of a depression and money needed to be poured into the economy or else it would have failed completely. And again, it should be said that George W. Bush watched idly as the housing bubble inflated and burst, without action- except of course to reward the companies that inflated the bubble. It would be nice to take Rep. Ryan's budget proposal seriously, but it'd just fill me with a lot of hot air.