Conservatives Just Can't Decide

All this talk of BIPARTISANSHIP. Does anyone think it will work? The Republicans have been saying that the Democrats won't listen or work with them. The President held a health care summit to try to reach a compromise. Here are some opinions on this issue.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly

[A] Politico piece suggests Obama hasn't been willing to entertain GOP-friendly concessions on medical malpractice and insurance sales across state lines.

We already know this claim isn't true. Not only is the inter-state competition provision already a part of the Democratic plan, but President Obama very specifically said he's open to compromise on malpractice if Republicans would be willing to give on something else. They refused.

I've lost track of how many concessions Democrats have made to move this legislation to the middle. At this point, not only are the public option and Medicare buy-in gone, and single payer taken off the table before the discussion even began, but the legislation is loaded with Republican ideas. The package is so moderate, far-right Republicans, by their own admission, agree with 80% of it, and the legislation is almost identical to what moderate Republicans were offering 17 years ago.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation

First this is the sound of one hand clapping. Last I looked, it took two--as in bi--parties to do something bipartisan. Well, Republicans aren't playing. The sentiment at the Tea Party and CPAC conventions on the right was more akin to a lynch mob than a negotiating team. And the right's commissars--led by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-- are intent on purging any Republican legislators who dare stray from the gospel, much less traffic with the other side.

That sentiment is echoed by the Republican congressional leadership, now scrambling to prove their zealotry. Republican legislators championed the idea of a bipartisan commission on deficit reduction--until Barack Obama endorsed it. Then even co-sponsors of the measure joined in torpedoing it in the Senate. House Republican leader John Boehner's initial precondition for attending the bipartisan summit on health care was that the president "scrap" the legislation that has passed the House and the Senate and "start over." His compromise was to agree to come to the summit to expose the Democratic plan and demand that they agree to start over. This is like the Iranians telling the US they are willing to negotiate about nukes with no preconditions, if the US agrees first to scrap its nuclear arsenal.

The intransigence isn't accidental. Republicans bet heavily that Obama's failure would be to their benefit. They've honed obstruction into a political art. And they are winning. A year ago they were lost in the wilderness, now they believe they are on the march.

What to do?

Unless American voters start to punish them for their obstruction, they aren't about to change.

Millions of Americans want action. They want jobs created and the banks curbed. They want leaders who are on their side, and not catering to corporate interests. The President can posture all he wants about bipartisanship. He and the Democrats have to remember one thing: they need to produce--and voters will hold them responsible if they fail.

The best hope for the country and for Democrats is to give Americans a clear choice. Push for a bold jobs bill--let Republicans oppose it, and force them to filibuster against it. And then take the argument to the American people. Push for taxing the bankers and breaking up the big banks and protecting consumers--let Republicans oppose it, force them to filibuster it, and take that to the American people. And stop talking about health care and pass the damn bill. Pass the Senate bill in the House and push the fix through the Senate on reconciliation.

Cut Government Spending/Not

Republicans, the Tea Party and conservative talking heads all agree that government spending needs to be cut. But when asked what they thought should be cut from the budget, they certainly didn't want to cut Social Security.

A recent Salon piece points out that despite opposition to government spending in general, conservatives do not advocate reductions in government spending on particular programs.

About 49% of conservatives want to cut or eliminate foreign aid; 35% want to cut or eliminate welfare. The other programs, however, are again quite popular. The average percentage of conservatives who want to increase spending is unchanged: about 54%.

The broader point does not change: for most programs, the percentage of conservatives who want to cut spending is small. In fact, it's striking that even foreign aid and welfare attract as much support as they do, especially given the long history of conservative opposition to these programs.

Enough Talk of Compromise

It's time to get real! When fact-checking the GOP on healthcare reform, the truth needs to be told.

Senate Democrats have accepted at least 161 Republican amendments to their healthcare reform legislation, they've incorporated core GOP planks, and they've scuttled an aspect of the plan most popular with its base, the public option, because of opposition by Republicans as well as red state Democrats.

But they haven't compromised with Republicans? It seems as though the GOP's definition of compromise and collaboration involves the president and the Democrats dropping all of their ideas and passing the Republican platform. That's OK; it's their job to push their party line. But too much of the media seems to be falling for it.

Enough of this bi-partisan smoke and mirrors. It's time for Democrats to play hard-ball.

Tea Parties Equate to Racism, Ignorance and Hate

Janeane Garofalo tells Keith Olbermann that the Tea Parties are about racism not taxes. The organizers are nothing more than “tea-bagging rednecks.” The organizers claimed that the hate was 'bipartisan'.

WATCH - Garofalo comes on at the three-minute mark:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

From WowOWow:
Comedienne Janeane Garofalo held nothing back while discussing the “tea parties” with Keith Olbermann last night. Though the parties’ organizers claim they’re protesting taxes, Garofalo insists they’re nothing but “tea-bagging rednecks” who are simply motivated by “hating a black man in the White House.” She went on to say that participants “will believe anything you tell them, as long as it’s not the truth.” The truth, she claims, “confuses them.”

Olbermann basically agreed.

Crooks and Liars quotes Sam Donaldson from his conversation with George Will on This Week's Roundtable discussion about the teabaggers. Sam totally disagreed with George saying the protest wasn't about taxes. He agreed with Janeane that tthe demonstrations where really directed against President Obama.

DONALDSON: Oh, they weren't saying that, George. What they were saying is, we don't like Obama. And this is a proxy way to say that. Because it's true, he's going to lower taxes on 95% of the American public, and the rest are going to have higher taxes. You were quite correct, it's not about the level of taxes. Those rallies were mainly, it seems to me, organized to say, "We don't like Obama" across the board.

Business as Usual

Bipartisanship - NOT!

It's nice to see that when the public gets sufficiently angry about something, Congress responds. In a rare show of bipartisanship, members are eagerly registering shock and outrage at AIG's bonus payments by coming up with an assortment of ways to reclaim the bonanza, including taxing them away retroactively. Who says democracy is dead?

But much of this is for show. When the public isn't looking, Congress reverts to its old ways. The Obama-supported plan to allow distressed homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages under the protection of bankruptcy has run into a Wall Street wall.

~snip~

Meanwhile, Obama's plan to limit itemized deductions for the richest 1.2 percent of taxpayers (including the top 1.9 percent of small business owners) to 28 percent, starting in 2011, is also in trouble on the Hill.

The G.O.P Governors Backing the Stimulus

Backing the stimulus were governors from left, Jim Douglas of Vermont; M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut; Charlie Crist of Florida; and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

The National Governors Association sent a bipartisan letter of support to Congressional leaders of both parties, signed by its Democratic chairman, Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Douglas, its Republican vice chairman. “The combination of funds for Medicaid, education and other essential services is critical for governors as they work to manage the downturn in their states and improve government for the long term,” it said.

Look Who's Yelling Foul?

The Disconnect

Example of Bipartisan!

Democrat: Here's the bill. What do you think?

Republican: You didn't ask for our opinion till now?

Democrat: We're asking you now. Here's the bill. What do you think?

Republican: Cut funding for family planning.

Democrat: Done. Now that is working together.

Republican: Not!!! We will ALL vote against YOU!

Democrat: We want to help get money to the people who have lost homes, health care and city services. We need to fix the infrastructure to create jobs. Work with us.

Republican: We will cut money to cities, law enforcement, education, childcare, health services, science. We want job creation. These services do not create jobs.

Democrat: OK we agree to all of those cuts. We need a stimulus package now.

Republican: More cuts! More cut! More cuts! We need more tax cuts!!

Good Idea or Bad Idea?

The Real Cost of the Compromise!

The bipartisan team of Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are responsible for trimming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act up to $86 billion in programs.

Are these cuts truly bipartisan? How will these cuts in programs and policies effect the American people?

Political Animal finds that cutting state aid from the stimulus bill is a very bad idea.

These cuts specifically targeted $40 billion in proposed aid to states. The consequences of this mean drastic cuts -- which in turn make the effects of the recession worse...The result, as the LAT noted, will be massive layoffs at the state level and huge cutbacks in services: "Parks will close. Environmental programs will be scaled back. Bus and ferry routes will shut down, possibly sending more drivers onto clogged streets and highways. Schools may go without school nurses, and classes may become more crowded. Sick people who rely on state health programs may instead getsicker."

Christy Hardin Smith questions whether "children be the losers in this publicly played out farce? "

CQ reflects on the differences between the House and Senate bills regarding education and school programs.

Another major difference between the House and Senate bills involves school construction. The House allocated $14 billion to renovate, repair and build public schools. The Senate zeroed out the $16 billion its original bill set aside for that purpose.

The compromise also eliminates $3.5 billion for higher education facility modernization and purchase of instructional equipment. The House voted to provide $6 billion for higher education.

The compromise would cut additional funding for Head Start and Early Head Start, programs to prepare children to succeed in school, from $2.1 billion to 1.05 billion. That’s half of the $2.1 billion in the House bill.

The reduction in funds for healthcare is also noted:

The Senate substitute eliminates $5.8 billion in the original measure that would have been spent on grants and contracts to prevent illness through health screenings, education, immunization, nutrition counseling, media campaigns and other activities. The House has set aside $3 billion for prevention and wellness.

Funds to expand the use of electronic record keeping in health care are cut from $5 billion to $3 billion in the substitute, still more than the $2 billion in the House plan. Under the new Senate plan, a national coordinator would distribute the money to pay for technology, planning and training.

The compromise eliminates funding for pandemic flu preparedness, a prominent target of critics who said figuring out how to increase the supply of vaccine would not create jobs. The House bill includes $900 million for flu, and the original Senate proposal had $870 million.

It is true that the Senate's stimulus plan does bring money to education, health services, local governments. However, these changes fromm the House bill seem to cut at the heart of the problem.