xtcian

I doubt Ron Paul would say Rush speaks for him. Besides Paul, I suppose, aren't there any Goldwater Republicans left? Here in my little town of Lenoir, our county commissioners just saw fit to pass (wait for it all) a RESOLUTION asking for a BILL to provide for a voter REFERENDUM for a constitutional AMENDMENT to prohibit gay marriage. At least the two Democrats voted against such a waste of time, but come on! With the local and national economy the way it is, our three Republican Commissioners saw fit to invest even a little amount of brainpower in such a mean-spirited, useless endeavor? Really?

Excellent. I have been thinking thoughts like these, and you preached it beautifully. I've stopped listening to talk radio during drive-time because I was getting too damned aggravated with all the HATE and mocking and, yes, racism.

In our local paper (Providence Journal), a retired radio guy wrote an op-ed over the weekend about conservative talk radio idiots. I'll put the whole damn long link at the bottom of this; I don't know if it requires signing up, because I was cookie-d there long ago.

Excerpt: "Tune in any weekday as Rush Limbaugh serves up a divisive brew of fact, fiction and hate, the central point of which is that liberals and Democrats hate this country and are engaged in a giant conspiracy against it and its values."

[He then runs down a list of egregious offenders, including the syndicated and hateful Michael Savage and a raft of local sneering Limbaugh-wannabes.]

"Not all talkers are like the ones I have described, but hard-core right wingers unquestionably dominate, selling half-truths, ranting, ridicule, arrogance and hate toward those who disagree with their divisive views. Stations encourage such inflammatory talk because it translates into more calls and higher ratings. Social damage is never a consideration."

Read it:
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_radio2_03-02-09_0NDBO2K_v18.3e641e0.html

I don't disagree with Rush 100%. I think Rush chose his words carefully in an effort to maximize his exposure b/c, if nothing else, he is a ratings-driven entertainer.

But, at its core, I agree with his position. I do not want Obama's philosophy to prevail. Yes, I know he won the election, so spare me the usual helping of "Get over it! He won!" But, as a conservative, I do not want the philosophy of huge taxes and huge spending to prevail.

Does anyone really think that the plan of taxing the dogshit out of business is going to help the economy? I am a small businessman and my CPA now estimates that my total tax burden, when adding all various taxes together, is over 60%. I can not afford to put money into a retirement account this year, give a raise to employees, I must change my health plan to make my premiums lower and my employees' co-pays higher. Does anyone think that making life less profitable for small business is good for the economy?

As the skit on SNL would say . . "Really? Really! Making society's producers less productive? Really?!"

Dean,

Yes.

And, to expand, what we've been doing doesn't work. It has worked for you, and that's great, even if it has just *barely* worked for you. But we need to re-structure, and that means a fair amount of suffering on the part of everyone.

You can't put money into retirement, and that sucks, but you're still better off than the unemployed or the subsistence wage earner. You have to restructure the health care you provide? That sucks, that's bullshit, but our health care system is broken, and your employees are still better off than the millions and millions of uninsured.

The system is broken, we are close to collapse, and you have to bear the brunt. I'm rich, Ian's rich, and we have to bear the brunt. We have to, not because we're our brother's keep, but because we don't want the desperate poor to realize we've been screwing them. I don't want to put bars BACK on my house, I just had them taken off.

This isn't designed to make producers less productive. It's designed to make producers a little less rich. And that sucks, but our backs are against the wall, and we have no choice. You can blame the entire thing on the Democratic party, you can blame the whole thing on Clinton, I don't care, we are where we are, and that means you're gonna have to suck it up a little bit. We are all Americans, we have a responsibility to carry out this experiment, and you should pray desperately that the current attempt to save our country works.

The philosophy of huge taxes coupled with huge spending is simply a more logical approach than tax cuts coupled with staggering spending that has been in place for years. As a business owner, this should make some sense to you. If you were running this country like your business, you'd have two options right now - raise your rates and prices, or fold. And, if I was living in your house, I would hope that you would raise your prices, and that the gamble would work.

First off, nature abhors a vacuum. And Rush can fill a vacuum like no other. A vacuum, a minivan, a houseboat, a full-court basketball arena -- if there's one thing Rush can do it's take up space.

But I'm too fat to be telling fat jokes.

The problem with the Republican Party right now is that for all talk of principles, they haven't demonstrated having any. It's hard to find that 'Republican Obama' because the last administration followed Republican ideology to it's absurd tragic conclusion.

It's fairly easy to say things that makes conservatives feel good. It's harder to say those things, while simultaneously telling the truth. From my admittedly biased point of view, all Republican talk of principle basically comes down to putting a good face on keeping power strictly in the hands of the wealthy.

Dean, I don't get the math of your "60% tax burden." My wife owns a small business, and without going into things that aren't anyone's business, the tax burden is nowhere near 60%. Her net income isn't in the country club/skiing in switzerland range, but we do OK.

I don't understand how you get to 60%. Again, without going into things that aren't anyone's business, how is this happening? Do you need a new CPA? If you're successful enough to be paying that much in taxes, why are you getting no good advice on how to limit your tax exposure?

See the link for Moderate Manifesto by David Brooks.

"Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it."

Your stomping and ranting about Limbaugh accomplishes one thing- the validation of Limbaugh as a very saavy, successful talk show host.

Wait, this isn't about me - I'm not doing anything for Rush. I'm asking about the leaders of the GOP, who are the members of a party that occasionally runs the country. Why are THEY behaving this way?

I'll take up the moderate mantle.

The Republicans abandoned the one core behavoir that I appreciated: Fiscal resposibility. Now they complain that the Obama plan will increase the debt. No shit! The debt has been increasing since we killed the gold standard. At least there is some attempt at doing it for a reason that will benefit the MOST people in our country.

I voted for Obama because of his energy policies. They can work with the economic recovery. They can help the economic recovery. Best of all they can screw Exxon.

Now I sit here and say, "You said you could do it, NOW DO IT!". Make it happen and I'll vote for you again.

Seems so simple.

Ooh, yay! I love Rush! I know almost all the words to every song by heart (that I know of - heh). Much to my husband's embarassment.

I don't even acknowlege the fat m-f'er who is the most racsist, egotistical and thoughtless poor excuse for a human to have walked the planet. His hatred is unfounded and unproductive and, as far as I'm concerned, he does not deserve the air he's allowed to breathe.

One wants to believe in the freedom of music. But glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity...IN UR REPUBLIKKIN LEEDRS!

Bless you Ian, for warming my heart with Geddy this day.

Also? Fan-freaking-tastic blog. Miss you bro.

-Adam Harrington

since when do you hate fat people?

let me get this straight - you love everyone who has been "screwed over" in your mind, except the people who crushed the shoney's breakfast bar? it was $2.99 for chrissakes!

Ian, I am sorry I didn't answer the question. There is a profound lack of leadership right now in the Republican party and it involves the Limbaugh crowd picking on moderates. But in defense of some, speaking out against Limbaugh accomplishes nothing. It legitimizes his bully pulpit and it makes you look stupid (just as you pointed out "He's a TALK SHOW HOST, fer chrissake!").

I am confused as to why so many Democrats care in the first place. Worse- why in the world would Obama et all bother with the demonization of someone who should otherwise be irrelevant? Why the fuss? Why not Levin? Why not Bennett? It is because Limbaugh is telling America what Democrats don't want Americans to hear. That's just my opinion.

Sean- I hear you but you sound a lot like Joe Biden. Time to do your part. Time to bear the brunt. Fine. Good. You have me.

Oops- you lost me. PORR- Pig Odor Reduction Research.

What happened to no earmarks?
What happened to the talk about changing old Washington?
What happened?

I can get on board with Obama- but he has to get on board his own train and start doing what he promised. Change.

I see it coming so let me stop you. 'Much of the current stimulus package was in the works under Bush.' OK Fine. CHANGE IT!

I'm not asking ANYONE to agree with me. I just feel that Obama has been steamrolled by his own party. I would even go as far as betrayed.

If you cannot admit that this current package is laden with pork (8,400 different earmarks), then you are in denial.

I am ready to do my part- I have been for many years. I am ready for Obama to succeed despite my total opposition to his policies. I am willing to give him a chance.

You asked if there is ONE PERSON TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE. I ask you the same. Is there anyone willing to stop this train before it leaves the station. I hope so.

Scultz, by the Republican's definition, every single piece of legislation benefiting some human being is a fkn "earmark". It's typical of the way they butcher the English language in order to turn a perfectly benign word or concept into evil (see "socialism", "liberal", "spreading the wealth", etc.)

It's akin to that moronic jackass holding up a plastic mouse in Congress, or uninformed nimwits crying that the bill commands a "high speed rail line from Disneyland to Las Vegas":

http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_11812088
(Mary Bono Mack = very embarrassing)

8,400 earmarks? I guess, by your side's definition. If money for curing disease and fixing our roads and developing alternative energy counts as earmarks, then you got me. What you really means is "pet pork projects that don't benefit America's recovery", and if so, please show me where those are.

On another point, how does wondering about the conservative/Limbaugh death spiral make ME look stupid? I'm simply asking why Repubs are behaving with such self-destruction. When you've got the head of the RNC groveling to a talk show host, you don't need MY pauper pundit skills to ask the obvious.

I can tell you why the Republicans are scared to death of Rush. Every week, approximately 20 million people tune in to his show, most of whom are (a) predisposed to vote Republican, (b) dumb enough to hang on his every word, and (c) just smart enough to find their way to the polling place on election day without hitting a tree or forgetting why they got in the car in the first place.

And Dean, FYI, dude: you need to hire a real CPA, the kind you pay.

I didn't mean "you". I was referring to Republicans. Sorry about that.

Here are some "stimulus" items. WTF do these have to do with stimulus or America's recovery?

-$650 million for digital-TV coupons
-$90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
-$1 billion for the 2010 Census
-$2 billion for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program
-$1.2 billion for "youth activities" (for "youth" up to 24 years old)
-$5 billion for weatherizing buildings (FWIW-I'm in the RE business...this one is lost on me)

Look- I picked out the easy stuff and we could argue all day about what counts and what doesn't.
You zig, I zag.

Are you telling me it's all or nothing? I simply cannot believe that you accept this at face value.
You're smarter than that.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/spending.earmarks/index.html

In Dean's defense, I think a lot of it is how you define tax burden. If you look at his business income and then look at how much he pays in state and federal income tax, plus FICA and Medicare, plus state and local sales tax, plus federal and state gas taxes for business travel, plus property taxes, all the way down to business licenses and franchise fees (yes, these are taxes - anything you pay to the government is a tax), even down to the federal excise tax on his phone bill. I'm not a small businessman, but I'm sure the burden is sizable.

As for the left's current fascination with Rush Limbaugh - the left needs a boogeyman to be the face of the evil right, and in the absence of true Republican leadership, the Democrats have painted Limbaugh as that figure.

It's been easy for the past 8 years, as GWB filled the role nicely, as did Cheney or Darth Sidious himself, Karl Rove. But now with control of Congress and the White House squarely in the hands of Democrats, there is absolutely no organized opposition on the part of Republicans. There is nobody for James Carville and Howard Dean to rail against in bombastic DNC fund-raising e-mails, so Limbaugh is the surrogate. Limbaugh hasn't been this politically relevant since the mid 1990s, when, coincedentally, there was no evil head of the Republican side after the fall of Newt Gingrich.

The left just may get their 20 years of Roosevelt-esque rule because the Republicans are so inept at politics right now that they will not be able to mount a serious challenge for that long.

To clarify--Schultz is using confusing language here. There are two different spending bills at issue:

1. The stimulus bill, already signed in to law by Obama. This bill contained no earmarks. When Ian is referencing conservatives calling things earmarks that aren't, this is what he's referencing.

2. The FY 09 omnibus appropriations bill. Each year, the congress muss pass a bill to appropriate money to each executive agency so the federal government can stay up and running. When the bills for multiple federal agencies are rolled together, this is called an "omnibus" bill.

This funding appropriated in this bill runs through September '09, when the fiscal year ends. Last year, Congress and the White House could not agree on a new budget, so they passed a "continuing resolution," which keeps the federal government up and running at '08 levels for a short period of time.

The omnibus bill that is soon to end up on Obama's desk includes over 4,000 earmarks worth $7.7 Billion. This is what Schultz is referencing.

Schultz equates these two bills, which is confusing, because there are serious, but very different issues worth discussing in both.

The issue at hands seems to be whether earmarks are the problem, or non-stimulative spending?

If it's earmarks, the stimulus bill passes Schultz's test with flying colors (again, no earmarks in this bill). If it is non-stimulative spending, then each of the problematic expenditures that he lists should be debated on their own merits.

The purpose of a stimulus bill during bad economic times is to take the wasted economic potential of people who are sitting on their couches, unemployed, and make use of it, ideally for things that are probably worth doing anyways. Weatherizing federal buildings, for instance, is a a great use of money. In order to complete the weatherization, a bunch of people have to be hired to install various systems that make buildings more energy efficient. Along with putting people back to work, this has the added benefit of reducing the federal government's energy bill and carbon footprint (both worthwhile goals, even in good economic times). It's also worth noting that these sorts of jobs aren't "government jobs," as the federal government is likely to hire outside contractors to do the installation.

To take another example, the Byrne-Jag assistance program provides federal grants to local police departments to assist with drug law enforcement. This money keeps thousands of cops in work nationwide: it's both a stimulative and useful program.

Now, there are certainly some provisions of the stimulus bill that are neither stimulative nor good ideas. These shouldn't have been in the bill. In Obama's defense, he lobbied to remove some of the provisions the GOP raised major concerns over (e.g. birth control, which he supports, but agrees was not likely stimulative).

As for the Omnibus bill, this issue isn't as easy as it sounds. If Obama vetoes the bill, either the federal government will shut down or congress will pass another continuing resolution to allow the government to at '08 levels. That's problematic, because circumstances have changed dramatically since early '08.

As schultz mentions, the earmarks in this legislation are from versions that passed last year. In order to remove them, Congress would have to restart the legislative process fro scratch in committee. Appropriations legislation is the most intricate and detailed thing that congress does--to start from scratch when we are already halfway through the fiscal year seems like an unacceptable delay.

Let's see what the approprations legislation for FY2010 looks like before we condemn him prematurely. The only reason this legislation is on his desk is that Congress couldn't pass a bill that Bush would sign.

Lastly, what is intrinsically wrong with earmarks? Earmarking is just a method for appropriating money. Earmarking money for a really great after school program that keeps hundreds of kids out of trouble might be a good thing, and likewise money for a useless bridge could be a bad idea if it goes through the normal appropriations process. The earmarking process itself is just that--a particular mechanism for appropriating money. I don't see any explanation from schultz as to why it's necessarily bad.

I absolutely agree with the heart of what you're saying. Why aren't there some smart conservatives (yes, we exist) out there proposing alternative solutions to the problems in our country? It is so frustrating to watch the bitterness and anger in the face of such a great opportunity to cooperate and have healthy debates about the best ideas to get things working again.