Weatherdem's Weblog

Bridging climate science, citizens, and policy

Leave a comment

Obama & The 2011 Budget

Digby: (emphasis mine)

The government is not like a family figuring out how to cut back on expenses. (If it is Dad is a real deadbeat because he decided to give up half his income last December to some rich frat boys.) And this isn’t really about programs President Obama “cares about” or about how “tough” it is for him. President Obama will not have to personally worry about these things and neither will his children, so the idea that he “cares” is just a tiny bit abstract in this context. This is about actual human beings and their ability to survive now and build a decent future.The main problem with all this, of course, is that he willingly signed a tax cut extension for the wealthiest people on the planet just two months ago even as they are making money hand over fist as it is, so any talk about “shared sacrifice” rings just a little bit hollow now. If he wants to be honest about this and admit that he’s catering to spoiled plutocrats and Wall Street Demi-Gods because he truly believes that he needs to sacrifice ordinary Americans on the alter of their egos, that’s one thing. But blowing smoke about how this hurts him just as much as the college kid who has to drop out in a terrible labor market — but he’s willing to make the sacrifice and so should we — well, it is too cynically cheap for words.

I’ve been emphasizing the part in bold for months now.

Politicians want to pretend like they’re treating the federal budget like they would their family budget.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

It really comes down to something this simple: if you are looking at a huge family budget debt, would you demand less income from your boss while you continued to give away cash to your rich friends from an account your family members contributed to and you promised they could withdraw from in a few more years?

Hell no, you wouldn’t.  But that’s exactly the game the D.C. crowd is trying to play.


1 Comment

Bill Passed Quietly (Very!) To Make Foreclosing People’s Homes Easier

The passage of  the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 happened very quietly.  Perhaps too quietly, given the number of critical measures the Republican Teabaggers have refused to allow any progress on this year.  As BTD says,

Given the suspicious circumstances of the passage of this bill, the intent seems clear – to make it easier for people to be denied their due process in foreclosure actions.

What suspicious circumstances are we talking about?

Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.
Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Sep 27th was immediately prior to the Senate’s decision to take another month-long break.  With 400 bills the House has passed waiting for consideration.  With over 100 official nominees waiting months for their 98-0 Senate confirmations.  With the economy continuing to teeter on the edge of another collapse.  With the climate continuing to warm.  And on it goes.

I can’t think of an acceptable reason why Representatives and Senators would want to keep their names off the record.  This is an example demonstrating all their sweet talk to voters about transparency is utter b.s.  We deserve better.  Of course, if anyone is still wondering why Congress has such low approval numbers or why the Democratic base is unmotivated to vote this year….  This isn’t change we can believe in.

Leave a comment

Bushies interfere with states’ rights

Republicans today again demonstrated their hypocrisy regarding states’ rights.

California and 17 other states wanted to impose stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions on cars and light trucks. The EPA, under massive pressure from the profit-riddled energy corporations, rejected that request. How did they justify this?

“…the energy bill signed into law by the president earlier that day was a “better approach” on fuel efficiency than “a confusing patchwork of state rules,” and that the Bush administration was “moving forward with a clear national solution.””

But when it comes to abortion, states’ rights have to be upheld. The difference is obvious: conservative states have enacted laws that restrict access to abortions for years while it benefits the corporations to not implement stricter emissions standards, technological capability and climate effects be damned.

I realize this is comparing Corporatecons and Theocons, and they are motivated by different things, but the end results speak for themselves. One is left wondering why Republicans are the party of states’ rights when there is ample evidence to dispute the meme.