Monday, February 25, 2013

The big lie: Republican governors edition.

Per Politico: "Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said it’s Obama’s responsibility to come up with alternative options for government cuts."

Not true at all:

  • Media Matters informs us that Obama has, indeed, a plan.
  • And if you wanted to, you can take the time to read the White House plan from September 2011, to avoid sequestration cuts.
  • We've known the basic outline for years, that he'd like equal tax increases combined with spending cuts.  We know this, because this was the same theme used to deal with the fiscal cliff, which was the same theme he used during the campaign season, and was the same theme that he first tried to use in the original debt ceiling talks during the Summer of 2011.

(An aside: The option that the Republican House came back with last Spring (2012), was to force Obama to come up with his own cuts that would total the $1.2T (over a decade) in cuts, or otherwise face the prospect of the elimination of cuts to defense and an immediate cut of $19.1B (1.8%) to discretionary spending.  Well, that died quickly with Senate Democrats identifying the trap that Republicans were trying to set.

Republicans thought they'd win majorities in the House, Senate and take back the White House, so they didn't bother to compromise on anything.  Well, they lost.  Now they're back to trying to pin the tail on the donkey.)

In that same Politico piece, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said that Republicans are "for growing the American economy".  If that's true, then why did they support Cut, Cap and Balance, which, in the words of John Boehner, "makes spending cuts that exceed the debt increase"?  Or are deeper, faster cuts supposed to help the economy grow?

We're being given a series of rhetorical lies.

They (Republicans) don't want less and slower cuts; they want faster, bigger cuts, and they are trying to repackage that as drivers of growth.

Not since George Orwell's 1984, have I read this much double-speak.

No comments: