[WARNING: Political ranting ahead, with some profanity. I’m pissed off.]
I’ll be the first to admit that, as a relatively new Coloradan, I don’t pay as much attention to state politics as I should. But tonight, on my commute home, I heard a story on Colorado Public Radio about the current budget debate — and it made me furious with the Republicans in this state. But my reaction was broader than that, because the story perfectly encapsulates, albeit on a local level, the utter irresponsibility and cynicism of so many Republicans and “conservatives” nationally right now — the very sort of thing Andrew Sullivan has been decrying as nihilistic oppositionism. This story is, in a nutshell, why the excitable Sully is, in this instance, absolutely correct.
Colorado, like many states, is in the midst of a huge budget crisis. Many painful spending cuts have already been made, but the shortfall remains huge. Yet, Keynes and Krugman be damned, the budget has to be balanced, come hell or mile-high water. So the Democrats are now pushing bills that would eliminate tax exemptions for various things, from soda to candy to bull semen — yes, bull semen. Republicans and business leaders object on the grounds that these are effectively tax hikes (which is true) and would hurt businesses, thus resulting in the elimination of jobs (and the reduction of other forms of tax revenue, offsetting some of the fiscal gains).
As I listened to the voices of folks criticizing the bills, I found myself feeling pretty sympathetic to the Republicans’ position. I needed to know more details, certainly, but at first blush, this seemed to me like a case where maybe the Democrats are raising taxes when they should instead be cutting more spending. My inner fiscal conservative was awakened, and felt predisposed to oppose the Dems’ plan.
And then they started talking about the Republican “alternative.”
The Republican bill would require that some specified amount of money — I forget the exact number — be trimmed from the state budget through state employee layoffs, pay cuts and the like. Okay, well, as the son of two Connecticut state employees, I wasn’t instantly on board — I know all too well what the misleading siren song of anti-state-employee demagoguery sounds like — but I was willing to listen. Hey, maybe the GOP had found some places where cuts could genuinely be made. I was certainly curious to hear the details.
But there’s the rub. There are no details. The Republican proposal would simply mandate that X amount has to be cut from the budget, and then leave it at that, requiring that the governor decide what, specifically, to cut from state services. “Layoffs and pay cuts,” the GOP would say, without providing any guidance about who or what. So the Republicans would get to take credit for being fiscally responsible and preventing tax increases, while the governor — who, I should add, is a lame-duck Democrat — has to make all the hard choices, and suffer all the blowback from those choices.
Pardon my French, but what fucking bullshit.
That is not a good-faith proposal. It is not policy-making. It is not legislation. It is not governance. It is not even an advancement of conservative principles; a principled conservative would put his money (or lack thereof) where his mouth is, and propose specific cuts that would shrink the size of government in ways that would make Ronald Reagan smile. But that’s not what this is. This is just an absolute, total abdication of responsibility by one of the two major political parties in this state.
Their “proposal” to solve the state’s serious, crisis-level fiscal problems is to proclaim a number from On High, declare their job done, and let someone else — some liberal! — figure out the details?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!? This is the conservative alternative I’m supposed to sign onto, if I think the Democrats are being a little too tax-and-spendy? This utterly irresponsible bollocks is my only other choice? Really?!?!?
The cynical political calculus couldn’t be more obvious, of course. As I said, the GOP gets credit for preventing tax hikes, and the Democrats get the blame for whichever painful cuts they decide to make. That’s if the proposal somehow succeeds. If it fails, as it’s pretty much guaranteed to (you might say designed to), the GOP gets credit for trying to prevent tax hikes, and the Democrats get the blame for opposing the GOP’s brilliant anti-tax proposal. And the public is too stupid to realize they’re being played. Politically, I get it. But governmentally? Good grief! This is our government?!
In a sense, this is precisely why our system is broken — but you know what, that’s not good enough. This isn’t a structural problem; this is a problem of cynical individuals, acting of their own free will, making indefensible choices. The Republicans could act like grown-ups, and participate in the political affairs of the state (and the nation) like partners in governance — or at least give the majority Democrats the opportunity to accept or reject such a partnership. But they’ve chosen not to do that. They’re not offering an actual partnership. They’re not offering anything real. They’ve chosen instead to be purely cynical obstructionists, with nothing to offer but transparent bullshit. That was and is their choice; they could have chosen differently. And so they don’t deserve to have me, or anyone else, make excuses for them. Pointing out that liberals also do irresponsible, cynical things at times is letting the Republicans off the hook much too easily for this particular abdication of the job we, the people, elected them to do. Next time the Dems do something similarly shameless, get back to me and I’ll consider the facts of the specific situation. But right now, it’s the Republicans who are doing it, and you know what? The sort of cynical, irresponsible jackasses who would make such a transparently political, hopelessly useless, shamelessly demagogic “proposal” — in the midst of a serious, extraordinarily difficult-to-solve crisis — have no business governing a homeowner’s association, let alone a state or a nation. These people should be voted out of office, every last one of them.
And until they are — until someone makes the “conservative” opposition in this state and this country understand that being a loyal opposition requires making some attempt at proposing constructive solutions to the problems we face instead of merely opposing the Democrats’ proposals, calling them liberals, hippies and socialists, and making transparently bad-faith counterproposals that are intended solely to score political points — is it any wonder I’ll be voting Democrat, and supporting the leaders, like Ritter and Obama, who are at least trying to grapple with the insanely intractable and difficult problems we face? Not because I agree with them or their proposed solutions, necessarily, but because they are the only functioning political party in this country right now whose actions reflect any intent or desire to actually govern.
Brendan – now that you have ventrally vented, a few questions …
1) In Denver/CO politics, how much input has the GOP been able to have in the past decade or more ? Or have GOP specifics been treated like Reagan’s budget proposals – “Dead on arrival!” ?
2) What reasonable suggestions can *you* make, in keeping with GOP principles ? An across-the-board cut isn’t elegant, yet it does have the potential to be as fair as pretty much any other method, since it lessens potential bias/patronage inequalities …
3) What happened to the rational Brendan who could discuss things to replace him with the emotional current version who no longer questions obvious inconsistencies like our current federal unemployment report, wherein, in the *same* report, as I understand it, unemployment went down from 10.2% to 9.7% at the same time as the US lost some 10s of thousands of jobs ?
Interestingly enough, on the Emplyoyment side of the BLS numbers for January, 2010, (Table A-7) foreign-born unemployment was 11.8% and native-born unemployment was 10.3% … I wonder how one manages to average those two numbers to get less than 10.3% result ?
1) I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter: “The Republicans could act like grown-ups, and participate in the political affairs of the state (and the nation) like partners in governance — or at least give the majority Democrats the opportunity to accept or reject such a partnership.” If the GOP was offering real proposals, and the Dems were refusing to consider them, your point would be valid. But that isn’t what’s happening. The GOP is offering naught but nonspecific nonsense, so there’s nothing for the Dems to either consider, or refuse to consider. Nothing is “dead on arrival” because nothing has arrived. And pre-emptive anticipation that the Dems might not take actual proposals seriously is not a valid excuse for failing to offer actual proposals. Each party is responsible for its own behavior.
2) Um, why am *I* tasked with coming up with principled GOP proposals? That’s the GOP’s job, not mine!! I’ve never claimed to hold “GOP principles”; the GOP does. Also, I wasn’t elected to govern the state of Colorado; its government officials were. It’s their JOB to come up with real proposals. … Meanwhile, an “across-the-board cut” isn’t an actual proposal, it’s a statistical gimmick. Real spending cuts affect specific agencies and people, not just numbers. If you aren’t proposing cutting spending in any specific areas, you aren’t proposing spending cuts.
3) I’m the same Brendan I’ve always been, I’m just reacting to changed circumstances. (You, meanwhile, are also the same Alasdair you’ve always been — and the changed circumstances don’t seem to affect your positions one iota. That’s not a compliment.) You liked my commentary when it agreed with your preconceptions; you even liked it when it was occasionally “emotional,” so long as my angry emotions were directed against liberals. … As for the unemployment report, are you suggesting there’s a conspiracy in the data? That’s pretty far out there, you realize that, right? If Obama was going to cook the books, why did he let unemployment get to 10% in the first place? But I digress. As I understand it, there are two separate reports, once based on government data and one based on a household survey, or something, and the inconsistency you’re alleging is actually just based on the different results of those separate data sets. Or something. But I’m not an expert on government employment statistics and have never claimed to be, so I’m not really sure what you’re driving at.
It has becoming increasingly clear to me that Republicans are more concerned with abstract theory than actual results. They are against taxes because they are supposed to be, because thats what the theory they subscribe to says. They are against health care reform because they are supposed to be, their theory says privatization is always best. Actually the best example I have of this is the bank bailouts, conservatives i’ve talked to were against it because you are supposed to let the market fix itself, thats just what you do. What none of them seemed to take into account, or care about, even when I pointed it out, was that if we did what they wanted us to the real world consequences would have been terrible. Real people would have lost their jobs, their homes, their lives. Same with health care reform. Even in the face of evidence that contradicts their theories, such as the fact that health insurance companies allready HAVE death panels and that instead of going down health care costs are going UP despite the fact that they are run by private companies, or that government run health care systems work, they stick to their beliefs with religious fervor. Its no wonder religious fundementalists are drawn to the GOP, they share the same unquestionable belief that they are right, the other side is wrong, there is no in between.
Either your with us, or your against us. Thats the mentality they have embraced.
I’m reading the Denver Post article, and at least on the surface I don’t see much difference from what happened in Iowa, where the Democratic governor ordered a 10% across-the-board cut for the current(!) fiscal year while the Legislature was not in session. This was back in October and he refused to call a special session; he can order across-the-board by himself but specifics would’ve required the Legislature. In Iowa’s case, the department heads were ordered to come up with the plans.
http://www.kcci.com/news/21240812/detail.html
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_5604c480-c442-5881-8564-f07efa85b268.html
Or do you perceive that as a gimmick equal to what the Colorado Republicans just proposed, but by a different branch of government and party?
The next step in Iowa is that the governor hired consultants to come up with ways for the state to save money for FY11, and is asking the Legislature to act on those recommendations. Maybe the Colorado Republicans need to hire consultants like Iowa’s governor did. (Ha.)
Next question: Does proposing anything more specific in the realm of services run afoul of contracts? Maybe the Republicans CAN’T offer anything more specific because of state employee contracts. See, for example, here, where AFSCME had to vote on furloughs in Iowa:
http://www.qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_14c37570-cd62-11de-ac49-001cc4c03286.html
Although I expect the unions would have a vote on a pay cut, too. Get the Legislature to throw in some early retirement packages too.
I do agree with closing certain tax exemptions, though. Except pop and candy. Those I will fight. 🙂 While technically yes, this does raise taxes, ideally such moves would get things more unified on what’s taxed and what isn’t and straightens up a patchwork quilt that can itself cost money to keep figured out. It could be worse – you could be Phoenix, which just voted to tax all food.
This article addresses the issue at a national level rather than at the Colorado state level, but I believe it is directly on topic:
This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda — which couldn’t get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts — is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush — from Iraq to Social Security reform — constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is “one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”
No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. “They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” — a perfect expression of liberals’ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, that their failure is therefore the nation’s.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403623_pf.html
Well, given the Republicans offer no guidance, they could accept the proposal and then cut the pay of all Republican representatives and eliminate all staff positions for republicans. Though I suppose that would be the same type of behavior you were just complaining about, but it would be funny…
When a bloated entity like the Colorado state budget needs to be pruned, as a practical matter some things will have to, by necessity, be cut more than others. And by necessity, those decisions will be painful, practically and politically. As an example, suppose the State budget for sanitation and the State budget for food stamps have both been cut to the bone, and now 10%, net, needs to be cut from both. Is it as bad to have people starving in the street as to have sewage flowing in the street? Which negative outcome is more easily avoidable once the bone is cut into? Ceteris paribus, whichever outcome is easier to avoid should get relatively more than 10% cut, while the other should get relatively less to net to 10%.
And whoever has to make that decision runs the risk of paying for it politically. Alasdair’s argument from fairness for the across the board spending cut misses the obvious CYA motivation for the Colorado Republicans. Something is going to have to be cut more than something else. Someone’s going to have to make that decision, and that someone is going to have to run the risk of paying for whatever they decide. The Republicans are purposely avoiding the political consequences of necessary, painful choices.
Though I think perhaps Brendan is being too negative toward Republicans, as if the chickenshitted behavior of Colorado Republicans is indicative of Republicans in general. As all state budgets melt down, it would appear from JD’s post that a Democratic governor in (at least) Iowa has followed the same buck-passing path. For me, the point is not that the Republicans in Colorado are so dishonorably cowardly, the point is that they can so easily get away with it.
Its this lack of internal controls that sucks so badly in American politics today, across the spectrum really. This lack of internal controls is driven to a large extent by the vapidity of political discourse that the mass of voters consume from stations like Fox or MSNBC. Vapidity in, vapidity out, and you get hideous politicians like (apparently) the Colorado Republican congress or (apparently) Iowa democratic governor.
And another thing: while it was positively inspired for Gahrie to evoke John Derbyshire in that other post, and while Alasdair is certainly correct that “true” conservatives care more about what Derbyshire thinks than the dimwits on Fox News…if the vast voting base is getting riled up with Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon at how his enemies are such retards, and then getting riled up with Sarah Palin that night because Rahm Emanuel should be fired for calling his enemies retards, the depth of processing of that vast voting base is going to be reflected in the effort of elected officials. Which in the case of Colorado, at least, is going to be a pretty unimpressive effort indeed.
One other thing – there’s a delightful sort of irony in Alasdair saying “Well, if you had such great ideas, why don’t you share them, Brendan Loy?” I am pretty confident that if the Colorado Republicans – or Iowa Democrats – or any other elected state officials, could get the erstwhile journalist and blogger and attorney from Denver to make these tough decisions, and have it stick on that journalist/attorney/blogger – and not on the politicians – Lord knows they would, in a heartbeat.
Someone’s going to have to make that decision, and that someone is going to have to run the risk of paying for whatever they decide. The Republicans are purposely avoiding the political consequences of necessary, painful choices.
Who made the choices that put Colorado’s budget in the position where it is today?
As all state budgets melt down
Not all of them. Texas for instance is doing well. It has no state income tax and fairly conservative fiscal policies. (Yes, Texas does make oil money…but California could too…but the state lawmakers would just spend the extra money)
if the vast voting base is getting riled up with Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon at how his enemies are such retards, and then getting riled up with Sarah Palin that night because Rahm Emanuel should be fired for calling his enemies retards, the depth of processing of that vast voting base is going to be reflected in the effort of elected officials. Which in the case of Colorado, at least, is going to be a pretty unimpressive effort indeed.
1) See my article cite above on the theme of the “stupid, emotional electorate”.
2) You completely ignored the rising force of the Tea Partys. These people are Democrats, Republicans and independents who are rejecting both political parties and politics as usual.
Gahrie,
That’s actually a pretty interesting comment regarding the Tea Party movement. To the extent that the Tea Partiers “won’t get fooled again”, they are a pretty important force on the political landscape. The OIbermann/Maddow axis would have you believe that they are nothing more than buffoons who don’t know what tea bagging is, but if they’re working to break the cycle of unaccountable vapidity that dominates political life, theirs is quite an important mission.
Its almost like the American political landscape has been redefined in terms of a depressing sort of dance; the Fox Republicans lead with Palin/Limbaugh buffoonery, and then the MSNBC Democrats mock them, and back and forth and forth and back, while neither of em, none of em, are accountable for anything. I may have to rethink this tea party stuff.
I should add, Gahrie, that one reason I am skeptical of the Tea Partiers (being a dour pessimist) is that I am not convinced that many or most Tea Partiers are opposed to the proverbial trough, rather than simply unhappy that other people or special interests get to feed there more than they do. I base this in part on the generally significant popularity of entitlements and other giveaways in the US (though not sure how self-appointed tea partiers shake out in these polls).
I base it even more on the fact that the tea partiers’ hero is a governor whose major claim to popularity came from socking a historic tax on her state’s primary industry, and passing those funds back to all her citizens.
(All the citizens. Not just some of them. Palin’s giveaways and goodies don’t discriminate!)
I base it even more on the fact that the tea partiers’ hero is a governor whose major claim to popularity came from socking a historic tax on her state’s primary industry, and passing those funds back to all her citizens.
That is a state law, in fact I believe it is in their constitution. Instead of paying income taxes every state citizen receives a share of the state’s oil income.
Oh..You are talking about the windfall profits tax.
OK..I agree with you. Bad tax.
But the legislature, including the Democrats had as much to do with it as she did.
the Democrats had as much to do with it as she did.
Those Democrats are definitionally not icons of the tea party movement! 😉
Jazz #7 …
Small problem … you say “you get hideous politicians like (apparently) the Colorado Republican congress or (apparently) Iowa democratic governor.” – which sounds fair enough …
Except that, while in Iowa, the Chief executive of the State of Iowa *is* a Democrat (and thus has the political power and responsibility to do things – in Colorado, the “Colorado Republican congress (by which I would guess you mean the Colorado legislature) just happens to actually be the Colorado Democrat legislature wherein the Republicans are the minority party in each house … so it’s sorta difficult for Republicans in Colorado to make anything stick … the Republicans in Colorado didn’t get Colorado into its current budget mess, and yet Brendan is comfortable being significantly harder on the Republicans in Colorado that he chooses to be on the Democrats in Colorado who messed things up …
I’ve been silent (although it’s been tough at times, I follow the comments via Google reader and there’s been some rather amusing things said) due to being busy with work and other personal projects and haven’t had the time to get involved in the inevitably long threads that spawn here, but I wanted to respond to this:
I wasn’t elected to govern the state of Colorado
Well. One way to remedy that. 🙂
And until they are — until someone makes the “conservative” opposition in this state and this country understand that being a loyal opposition requires making some attempt at proposing constructive solutions to the problems we face
What’s the point? Do you honestly think these constructive proposals will be given a fair shake by Obama and the Democrats?
What you see as bitter, nihilistic obstruction, I see as many elected representatives (finally!) realizing that the road we’re on is simply unsustainable — a point which, if I’m not mistaken, you agree with, at least conceptually — and that which path to take is a secondary argument to slamming on the brakes RIGHT NOW.
Obama’s way is the wrong way. It’s becoming painfully obvious to more and more people. I don’t give him an A for effort, considering that his response to the failure and/or rejection of everything he’s enacted thus far appears to be doubling down.
instead of merely opposing the Democrats’ proposals, calling them liberals, hippies and socialists, and making transparently bad-faith counterproposals that are intended solely to score political points
Andrew Sullivan’s new hero has made several counterproposals, and he seems to be serious.
Obama and the Democrats like to pretend that the Republicans’ opposition is the same as indifference. It isn’t. If a GOP plan is proposed and no Democrat is around to hear it, I guess it doesn’t exist.
If a GOP plan is proposed and no Democrat is around to hear it, I guess it doesn’t exist.
Almost right — Democrats hear them, they just ignore them. Which is a perfectly valid thing for the majority party to do, I hasten to add. But what grates is hearing their sycophants blabber on incessantly about obstructionism, the party of no, etc. for no apparent reason other than that the minority party’s plans have no hope of being adopted so they must therefore be unserious, “petulant” made in bad-faith, etc.
Moreover, sometimes all the minority can do is say no when the majority is enacting an agenda that the minority views as dangerous and bad policy (and sometimes that isn’t even enough). There is nothing FRIGGIN’ wrong with that from a procedural, policy, or good gov’t POV. The Constitution makes it hard to do big things by design. For instance, the Senate rules facilitating obstructionism allow the GOP to drag out the health care reform debate so that voters get a good long look at what Obama and the Dems are trying to so expeditiously sell them. In addition to this tactic being PERFECTLY DEFENSIBLE on good gov’t grounds, it has the added benefit to the GOP of being politically advantageous because the more people hear about Obamacare, the less they like it. The carping about OMG OBSTRUCTIONISM!! is just a bullsh*t talking point.