GOP Obstructionism

Roy Blunt has pretty much accepted that nothing will be done in the United States Senate to create Jobs in Missouri in the near future. Hopefully, many of the over 260,000 Missourians who are unemployed will let Senator Blunt know their thoughts about his position. 

Yesterday, Senator Roy Blunt voted against the American Jobs Act. Watch video of his comments on MSNBC here:

Progress Missouri is circulating evidence that Congressional Republicans’ stance on debt reduction is definitely outside of the mainstream in many polls. Check it out:

Bruce Bartlett, former advisor to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush:

[P]eople support raising taxes as part of deficit reduction by a 2-to-1 margin over the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth/Tea Party position that the deficit must be reduced only by spending cuts without a penny of higher taxes. In light of President Obama's new budget plan, which includes higher taxes, I am posting an updated table, including a poll on Friday showing that three-fourths of people support higher taxes and only 21 percent support the doctrinaire right-wing position.

Andrew Sullivan via Political Wire:

"Every single poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly supports higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a package to cut the deficit. The margins are staggering: the NYT poll shows a majority of 74 - 21; even Rasmussen shows a majority of 56 - 34. What the president proposed this morning is simply where the American people are at. If he keeps at it, if he turns his administration into a permanent campaign for structural fiscal reform, I don't see how he loses the argument."

A breakdown of 20+ polls showing public support for a balanced approach is available online.

Roy Blunt is saying that the Obama administration is scaring businesses with all these crazy regulations about cusory issues like pollution. 

Meanwhile, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri and 13 other Republicans introduced legislation this week labeled the "Regulatory Time-Out Act." It would impose a one-year freeze on significant new regulations with over $100 million in compliance costs.

"They're not in hyper speed, they're in ludicrous speed when you look at regulations coming out of this administration," Blunt asserted to reporters recently.

Actually, to the surprise of many in the environmental advocacy community, the Obama administration has already walked back some clean air rules.  

Some would call a United States Senator who quotes the Mel Brooks classic Spaceballs, with no humor injected, to make a point that is not in line with reality ludicrous. 

When asked about his willingness to work with the President on a jobs plan, Billy Long dismissed the need for a job creation plan and proceeded to make up at least one word.

President Barack Obama next week is to unveil a new jobs plan. Long said the nation “doesn’t need a jobs project. We need to make it easier for American companies to do business.

“Now, we over-regulate, over-tax-ate and over-litigate.”

I guess Billy Long is taking partisanship gamesmanship as far as it will go, but only at the expense of unemployed Missourians.

In the aftermath of the devastating tornado in Joplin, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor created controversy and unrest when he said federal money to aid the recovery in Joplin wouldn’t come without corresponding cuts.

Specifically he said: 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else.

“If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental,” Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending.

Now, Cantor’s home state of Virginia is suffering after Hurricane Irene caused damage up and down the east coast, and he says the same test applies – money for hurricane relief has to be offset by spending cuts.

Cantor told Fox News that while “we’re going to find the money,” “we’re just going to need to make sure that there are savings elsewhere to do so.”

This news also comes as money for the Joplin recovery is shifted to aid in the recovery from Hurricane Irene.

I guess their unwillingness to work with Democrats isn’t paying off with the electorate:

Voters are more unhappy with the Republican Party now than they were when the Republican-led House voted to impeach then-President Clinton, according to a new CNN poll released Tuesday.

Fifty-nine percent of voters polled said they had an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 33 percent calling their opinion favorable. The Tea Party did not poll well, either, with 51 percent saying they have an unfavorable opinion of the movement.

Unsurprisingly, Republican politicians like Ed Martin and Vicky Hartzler see the S&P downgrade of the United States’ credit rating as nothing more than reinforcement for the stubborn stance on fiscal policy. However, the S&P’s statement on the debt downgrade suggests that a more aggressive debt reduction plan, similar to the one advocated for by President Obama, could help stabilize our country’s debt situation. 

Here is what Ed Martin had to say in a statement, which disregards all the spending during the Bush administration and the call for an end to outrageous political posturing: 

The reckoning is on its way, and congress did nothing more than what it always does – spend money today, promise cuts tomorrow. For decades this has been the case, and the President's party's intractable desire for more spending destroyed an opportunity to take appropriate action.

And Vicky Hartzler took to Twitter to provide some spin about why her vote against a deal to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending is exactly what S&P wanted: 

S&P's decision to downgrade our credit rating is no surprise: the debt ceiling package wasn't big enough--one reason I voted 'no'.

UPDATE: It seems Billy Long didn't look too closely at S&P's downgrade justification either. 

In reality, S&P suggests that letting the Bush tax cuts on the highest earners expire would be a step that could help stabilize the United States’ debt situation.

On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.

If only Republican Congressional leaders like Eric Cantor didn’t take revenue increases off the negotiating table, maybe we could have avoided a downgrade all together. 

Billy Long got a pretty good (and deserved) earful about his refusal to support raising the debt ceiling from the Springfield News-Leader Editorial Board today. Thankfully, it sounds like he has brought his rhetoric more in line with reality. He even admitted, "We need to get it done."

The last few paragraphs of the editorial make it obvious that Billy Long's "fed up" act is starting to wear thin. 

Common sense tells you we should not play games with the country's credit rating by defaulting on our obligations.

Common sense tells you we should pay our bills -- and not just the priorities that Long has suggested: Social Security, Medicare, troop payments and other funds for national security.

Common sense tells you it's time to make a deal with Obama and the Democrats, and we think Long's job is to work toward the best possible compromise, not take an absolutist position.

Being "fed up" is wearing thin.

The lastest national poll from Gallup finds wide-ranging support for a debt ceiling compromise. According to the survey, there is strong support across the board for a compromise plan to come out of the debt ceiling negotiations. 

Even 57 percent of Republicans surveyed want lawmakers to work out a compromise.

h/t The Plum Line

The Columbia Daily Tribune’s Hank Waters seems to be landing in the same spot that many rational thinkers are in regards to the debt ceiling drama in DC:

Nobody knows what voters will decide when they next have a chance to let us know, which is why some pols are talking about temporary debt-ceiling increases, postponing the day of reckoning until after November 2012.

Obama is against this, and he is right. The debate over excessive deficits is necessary, but the solution is not the program Republicans insist must be adopted by Aug. 2. Revenue enhancements must be part of the mix, and the necessary tax system changes can be modest.

A recent poll from CBS News shows that 71 percent of respondents disagree with the Republican approach to the debt ceiling negotiations. However, Republican members of Congress seem to be gambling our economic future and their GOP’s political future on this unpopular plan.

Representative Billy Long is playing a dangerous game with talk of not raising the debt ceiling. He told the Springfield News-Leader that there is no way he will vote to raise the debt limit:  

"We are not going to raise the debt limit and they need to know that now instead of August 2nd," Long said, accusing Geithner of picking that date "out of the clouds.”

As a lawmaker, Long certainly has the right to take a stance against a proposal that he views as wrong or unnecessary. However, it is clear that not raising the debt limit would have a serious negative impact on our economy – according to credit rating agencies like Moody’s and S&P:

Two major ratings agencies -- Moody’s and Standard & Poors -- publicly announced that they were reassessing whether U.S. Treasury Bonds merited the top possible credit rating. These ratings, issued by agencies that are independent of the government, provide guidance to investors about how secure bond investments are.

Political gamesmanship is standard practice in Washington, but here’s hoping that cooler heads prevail in this situation. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, and the American people will remember who refuses to come to the negotiating table.

If recent polling holds true, the American public would blame the Republicans in Congress should the the government fail to raise the debt limit. This makes sense given that Republicans have failed to seriously discuss any compromises put forward.

The Huffington Post has a good breakdown of the numbers (emphasis added): 

When asked to whom they would assign responsibility should the limit not be raised, 48 percent of respondents chose the congressional Republicans; 34 percent said they would blame the Obama administration.

These results echo a Pew Research Center poll conducted from June 16-19 which asked the same question as the Quinnipiac poll. According to that survey, 42 percent of respondents said they would blame Republicans in Congress if the debt ceiling were not raised; 33 percent chose the Obama Administration.

Editorial Boards at the state's two largest newspapers recognize that the blame for the floundering debt ceiling negotiations rests squarely on the shoulders of GOP leadership. It is hard not to blame them when they refuse to negotiate any kind of compromise. 

It is  because of their political extremism that Republicans refuse to compromise or move outside of the small piece of turf they occupy. Sooner or later they will realize this puts them at odds with many Americans. Hopefully, they will come to their senses before our economy is put in any more danger. Hopefully...

St. Louis Post Dispatch Editorial: Main Street to Republicans: Wise up.

It's astounding that the economic health of the nation is being held hostage by people least willing or able to comprehend the issues, many of them swept into office last year by people with only the vaguest notions of reality.

It's as if NASA had stopped the countdown for the space shuttle launch, pulled some guy off the street and asked him if he wanted to drive.

Kansas City Star Editorial: Voters Must Remember GOP's Ploy Over Debt Limit

The meaning is simple: Congressional Republicans have to stop playing games. The debt ceiling, which pays for past expenses, has to be raised, and should be boosted enough to quiet fears in financial markets around the world. Long-term spending cuts and tax increases (including closing loopholes) have to be part of the solution. 

Ever wonder if one major political party is truly more willing to compromise (i.e. the debt ceiling negotiations). Well, it seems like your feelings might be correct:

The St. Louis Post Dispatch Editorial Board points out another example of a Missouri State Senate Republican who prefers obstruction to actual governing.

This time it is State Senator Jane Cunningham and her filibuster of a bill that would set up a health insurance exchange in Missouri. Setting up this exchange would let businesses and individuals find a health insurance plan that best fits their needs and their budget: 

Ms. Cunningham was a sponsor of the initiative voters passed last August that purports to strip Missouri of the power to penalize people who fail to purchase health insurance when required by federal law. Ms. Cunningham now links HB 609 to Proposition C, arguing that state health insurance exchanges run afoul of the "will of the people."

Never mind that HB 609 won near-unanimous, bipartisan approval in the House. Never mind that if Missouri fails to create an exchange, the federal government will step in with its own solutions.

Ms. Cunningham seems to prefer a federal intervention. She shows little interest in the complexities of practical governance. She prefers disruption and sloganeering, leaving it to others to pick up the pieces.

Greg Sargent reports this afternoon that "even right-leaning commentators and political operatives are growing mighty uncomfortable with the Senate GOP's stance" against legislation to provide health benefits for 9/11 first responders.   Earlier this month, Sen. Kit Bond voted to continue a Republican filibuster of the bill.  (Yes, we're talking about the same Kit Bond who very recently advised his Senate colleagues to to "work together, play nice.")

Here's video from this morning's Joe Scarborough show:

From ABC News: "The House has just passed final congressional approval of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health & Compensation Act, which provides medical care for persons exposed to harmful toxins from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. First responders, cleanup workers and those living within the terrorist attack areas are eligible for care. The bill passed easily 268 to 160. Seventeen Republicans supported the measure, while three Democrats voted against the bill. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke out on the House floor in favor of the bill, saying it will help those who jeopardize their health to rescue others, secure necessary medical treatment especially for the unique exposures suffered at Ground Zero, and ensures survivors and victims’ families can attain compensation for their losses."

Because why not, GOP Reps. Jo Ann Emerson, Sam Graves, Blaine Luetkemeyer and Todd Akin voted against the bill.   Roy Blunt was absent. 

The Washington Post: "Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic plan to encourage companies to bring jobs back from overseas, as a united GOP caucus voted against a motion to debate the measure on the Senate floor. The motion failed 53 to 45. The legislation would have raised taxes on corporations that shift operations overseas, costing U.S. jobs. It also would have awarded companies that bring jobs back from abroad by offering a two-year hiatus from payroll taxes for those positions."

Sen. Kit Bond voted against the cloture motion, which requires 60 votes before the full bill can be brought up for a final vote.  Sen. Claire McCaskill supported the motion.

via Ezra Klein