McClintock = Doolittle Redux ??? (updated 14apr2011)

George Rebane

At Tom McClintock’s 22mar11 town hall meeting our congressman 1) acknowledged my characterization of the spending cuts and related continuing resolutions as being insignificant pinpricks on the country’s fiscal gangrene, and 2) politely stated that my assessments were in error.

Now that the mother of all CRs, citing $38.5B spending cuts, has been trumpeted across the land by both parties, it turns out that I, and others who take a more careful look behind the curtain, were right and continue to be so.  The cited amount is nothing but feathers and hot air composed of accounting gimmicks that in their most hopeful application still wind up showing that we are spending more this year than last, and that the long-term benefits – if any, since the jury is still out – will be less than $20B annually.  (For a quick summary of the “hokum” see the editorial in the 13apr11 WSJ.)  Talk about flys#%t.  (Apologizies for my more crude characterization of congressional output that bespeaks of its backwater origins.  But then, we do communicate a bit more clearly here in the mountains.)

I strive with all the hope and reasoning power within me to believe that our congressman has not been turned by the Washington cesspool in which he now labors.  His predecessor was weak and became just another posterboy for the Democrats making fun of Republican hypocrites on spending.  In a private meeting Doolittle personally handed me a shovelful of BS on how congressional pork was dispensed.  We all have our moments and areas of ignorance, and that is what I will chalk up Tom McClintock’s misunderstanding of what he was describing and voting for, and not that he intended to deceive us.

So, now as the battle on the debt limit and the FY2012 budget shapes up, we have the Republicans under Boehner’s leadership having in the main caved on spending reductions for FY2011 and their effective shadow into the future.  If Congress passes last Friday night’s bamboozle then we have essentially achieved nothing.  And President Obama’s mendacious speech today is beyond my willingness to refute; let the national commentators who are paid for their labors dissect that septic tank.

As a tea party member, I cannot yet put anything that we support, in principle or substance, into the congressional Win Column.  Paul Ryan’s FY2012 budget proposal remains in the Hope Column.

[14apr2011]  Congressman Tom McClintock's NO vote on the FY2011 budget travesty restores my long held view of Tom as a man of principle.  The compromise budget turned out to be even more putrid than originally advertised.  The actual FY2011 spending reductions reduced down to the order of $300 million and change.  The Democrats won this one walking away.  Boehner knows how to wear a suit pretty well, but he doesn't negotiate worth a crap.  Add to that Paul Ryan's YES vote, and then we really have a picture of a confused Republican Party.  Thank God for Tom's vote, he is not a Doolittle. Complete vote tally here.

Comments

[Mikey McD]

I am hopeful that Tom was having an 'off day.' As long as the entitlement programs are not reformed and Obamacare is still growing in scope and size there is absolutely no hope; save Paul Ryan’s FY2012 budget proposal.

George, your consistency (the antithesis of hypocrisy) is one of your most enduring virtues.

[Bob Hobert]

Concur with the hokum sentiment. Let's hope that Tom McClintock turns out to be more than just another pretty boy Republican overwhelmed by the enormity of it all. I'm not buying the dodge that they'll draw the battle line just a little farther on down the road, where the "real" fight is. The House owns the purse strings. They must find the conviction to draw them shut. Maybe he'll reassure us Saturday at Cal Expo.

[RL Crabb]

George, you would probably consider Attila the Hun a failed congressman, given that the Pope sweet talked him out of sacking Rome. Looks like you'll have to wait a little longer to torch Washington.

[Todd Juvinall]

I am confident Tom will do the right thing. He has been fairly consistent all thee years. In my view though, the budget has to be balanced ASAP and the debt reduced to release-us from our slavery.

[Michael Anderson]

"In my view though, the budget has to be balanced ASAP and the debt reduced to release us from our slavery."

Todd, you should seriously consider paying for a professional editor to read your wit before you post. This is nothing more than over-the-top rhetoric. Slavery? Show me the chains.

All the Ryan and TPP graphs show the debt growing into 2075. That's a ridiculous time line. As we all know, by then the robots will rule the world and we will simply be their humble janitors.

As you were...smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[George Rebane]

"... torch Washington." ??? Bob, be merciful with your metaphors; remember you are talking to an Estonian peasant whose futile pretensions are one generation removed from the farm.

[Paul Emery]

My observations from the bleachers

Your disenchantment with Tom McClintock foretells the next scenerio. They Repub establishment handlers are about ready to release Romney from his pen. He'll be there as Mr Moderate waiting to pull the party back to the middle. He's rested, his hands are clean he's ready to go. Pallin, Bachmann and Trump have had their cameos and the general public gives them a 30% yawn as far as presidential preferences go. The Huckster has a nice personality but I don't think he can hold up once the diggers start looking around at his history. Don't expect Romney to carry the torch for the TP's. He'll expect them to follow him as the loyal Republicans that most of them are. Pragmatic middle of the roaders usually win the day. Ryan's budget is dead in the water and the Republican establishment knows it. It cannot win the majority popular support and will be a pork chop in a dog pack once things get rolling.

[Todd Juvinall]

If confiscatory taxes don't spawn the Robin Hoods anymore then yes MichaelA, we will all be janitors, even you unless you are part of the oligarchy. Have another toke dude.

[Bob W]

Paul,

Your vision of Romney pulling "the party" back to the middle suggests that your position in the "bleachers" may not be very well centered.

[paul emery]

Look Bob
Do you really think the country will swing hard right? the TP's are good at making noise but only representative mid 30% following at best.
Politics is all about winning, nothing else. Do you really think the American people are going to embrace the Medicare and Social Security plans in the Ryan budget? Once that becomes obvious the party will get back to it's main business which is to preserve it's slight right of center position. You know the old Compassionate Conservative thing Bush 2000. The Repubs are on a limb but I don't think they'll saw.

[Todd Juvinall]

So Paul, hard right to you is a balanced budget and living by the Constitution eh? How then do you describe your hard left philosophy?

[Bob W]

"hard right"

"mid 30%"

"slight right of center"

I think everyone can get their right and left momentarily mixed up once in a while.

[paul emery]

Todd

You are confusing two things. My observations of the political landscape that I have described from the bleachers so to speak and my own political perspective. Branding me as hard left is something you need to do for your own personal clarity but hardly serves any other purpose. As for the budget mess it's quite likely that we will not escape from the consequences of our excesses. As far as living by the Constitution goes I didn't hear much from you or your playmates about our illegal war in Iraq and our unconstitutional use of military in Nicaragua, Panama Grenada Vietmnam etc. It seems we all interpret the Constitution to match our ideology so you can't tell me what is Constitutional unless you fess up to your own inconsistency.

[Todd Juvinall]

Wow, Paul, and I thought I was cynical.

Iraq war. Bush had a Resolution from Congress to proceed. All but Barbara Lee voted for it. So, cry me a river. Grenada, we kicked the Cubans out to save the medical students from the USA. A police action. Panama, sent in the troops to stop a drug dealer who was a middleman to the poisoning of our children. Vietnam, we honored our SEATO treaty, something the left weasels out of unless it is their war or action, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Santa Domingo. Yeah, there is enough of this to go around but sometimes the real adults have to do their job.

[Mikey McD]

I do not believe the term "slave" to be "over-the-top rhetoric."

Those whom value personal liberty, the successful (read over taxed) and entrepreneurial (read navigator of gov regulations, bureaucracies, corruption and collusion) are on multiple levels "slaves" to The State.

Though, to those whom do not value personal liberty, pay excessive taxes or compete successfully in the business world the term "slave" would sound too harsh.

I have to call a # to get permission to burn brush on my property (FDA has to approve all the food I eat, no choice in education, etc), I worked every day between January 1st and June 14th in 2010 JUST to pay federal and state income taxes, and I spend weeks a year in gov mandated continuing ed classes, registration gauntlets, overbearing audits and testing in hopes of opening my doors for business. My employees have far more rights than I, I am made tax collector for the IRS (I pay to have a service withhold/forward my employees taxes by law), etc etc.... Slavery? Sure feels like it some days.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Can you describe to me where in our Constitution it gives us the right to invade a foreign country to bust a drug dealer (Noriega) Are you claiming that this was Constitutional? And do you really believe we invaded that country to save our children from drugs? At the same time the CIA was importing Cocaine to finance our illegal war in Nicaragua. One of my good friends was a Lt Colonel in the Marine Corps in Panama at the time and you should hear the stories he has to tell about the CIA and how they worked with Noriega in his dealings till they pulled out the rug because he was getting too big. One day he was our partner in illegal drug dealing and the next our declared enemy. I'm astounded by your naivety in this matter. Save our kids from drugs? Really.

[Bob W]

Paul,
You forgot. To finance our illegal war in Nicaragua we also, sold surface to air missiles to Osama Bin Laden, pimped underage children to Gaddafi, and supplied human meat to Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
I bet you have a lot of friends in the military!

[Paul Emery]

Bob

You may choose not to accept my description of the background of our invasion if Panama and yes it was a full invasion with air strikes in Noriega friendly neighborhoods and Marine occupation until we had a friendly government and although I can provide you with factual documentation which is pretty much accepted today it will probably be a waste of time so unless you ask me to I won't bother other than to provide this link.
http://books.google.com/books?id=MxHqD3V0zTYC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Authority+for+panama+invasion&source=bl&ots=Pe64LwfgrY&sig=s2DnCH0rbdf97YdpJs28aKmi154&hl=en&ei=iFmnTci0K5C4sQOYisn5DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Authority%20for%20panama%20invasion&f=false
.
However the point I was making is that the Constitution is widely interpreted depending on your predetermined political slant so when Todd starts waving Constitution at me I expand the discussion to make the point that Constitutionality is widely ignored for convenience by both sides and those in the middle.

Invading an independent country to create regime change is as much an act of war as can be imagined and it was done with no Congressional approval that can be interpreted as constitutional.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Kinda like Lybia huh, except were still there

[Paul Emery]

We're still in Panama too. I don't claim to have any lofty idealism about the Constitution like some people I know. I'm starting to have some upchucks over my support for Libya. It may have prevented mass slaughter yet created a long war and involvement for our military.

Did you know we killed by bombing several hundred civilians in Panama and displaced around 15,000 mostly desperately poor folks? But we got our guy.

[Martin]

FYI, heard on Mark Stein this PM that Congressman McClintock voted today against the 2011 budget bill. Considered the right vote although it passed.

[D. King]

Here is what Tom thinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYPbQLqMdLk

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, sorry man but you are a hypocrite. Sure I wave the Constitution but I am proud to do so. You feel an upchuck I guess? Also, I would dare say you are a person who believes Social Security, Medicare and money for NPR and the NEA are Constitutional? You were right on one thing, who is on power at the time is the arbiter of constitutionality.

[Mikey McD]

Imagine the free fall the US Dollar would be on if we did not put our military out for hire. The fact is "we" need the industrial military complex to insure the US Dollar remains the reserve currency. It should not surprise anyone that I agree with Ron Paul's "top gun" foreign policy (don't fire unless fired upon); "Defense", as the name suggests should be used for.... defense. I was against the Libya invasion before it was cool (Iraq too).

[George Rebane]

The US military-industrial complex supports more than just the USD in international finance, it equally supports the euro, etc. No matter how you argue it, we live in a time of (pseudo) peace extended by the force of arms. Wait until a real war starts and watch what happens to the currencies.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

My upchucks over Libya notwithstanding I suppose I am hypocritical on this and I may be wrong in advocating that the greater good may be served by our military action.
The Constitution you are proud to wave is certainly a different one that Libertarians such as Ron Paul support. I suggest you read Why We Fight by Ron Paul to get more of a fundamentalist view of the Constitution when it comes to use of American force abroad.
http://www.todaysamericandream.com/rp_whywefight.html
Your consistent support of use of our military abroad when proposed by Republican Presidents certainly puts you at odds with that view of the Constitution. I am using this example of how partisan party allegiances seem to rule when it comes to constitutional interpretation.

So when you say "I would dare say you are a person who believes Social Security, Medicare and money for NPR and the NEA are Constitutional?" This implies that you believe they are unconstitutional. I say they are constitutional because they were passed by Congress and signed into law by various Presidents and have been unchallenged by the courts. It it the function of the courts to preside over challenges to the constitutionality of federal law. So go at it. Support legal action challenging the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare and see where it leads.

[Paul Emery]

Breaking news

The pork chops are being distributed now that now that the Repubs are officially branded with the Ryan budget. Let the dog packs loose. This is going to be fun. That's an astounding mistake that implies to me the Republicans have no leadership experience in national politics.

[George Rebane]

Might not future historians studying America's downfall conclude that the nation fell from within because it had strayed bit by piece a long way from its founding principles? Using the criterion that whatever the courts allow is by definition constitutional since constitutionality was their charge, does not help much. The courts, by their very nature, are political, and change their stance and make-up as the political winds change. When going crossways to such winds, eminently qualified candidates are simply borked.

[Paul Emery]

Well spoken George. I don't know any other way to define constitutionality though. We can all have our opinions but unless the courts challenge laws things stand as they are and therefore are are indeed constitutional. Good examples are some of the State laws that may be contrary according to some to the opinion offered in Rowe v Wade. Supporters of Rowe v Wade don't want to challenge the State laws because they are afraid the current Supreme Court will not rule in their favor and they may want to wait for a more favorable court to make a challenge. Politics? Sure is. However, that's the way our system was set up and isn't that......Constitutional ?

Empires such as ours fall because they cannot adopt to change or become fat and decadent. The Roman Empire became fat and decadent but adopted to change when they became the Holy Roman Empire to pacify the Northern hordes munching at their borders. That bought them a little time and allowed them to remain fat and decadent by wearing priests and monks robes . How we adopt to change and still maintain our founding principles is a challenge indeed something that you recognize when you try to reconcile the constitutionality of our foreign policy with the pragmatic reality that you perceive as our necessary posture in the world. Our conversations re Rebane v Ron Paul support this friction.

With this reality in mind the U.S. Constitution is a lot like the Bible. You can go to it with almost any preconceived opinion and you will find scripture or passages to support your opinion. So I close with this.

"Men come and go but earth abides?

[George Rebane]

Good thoughts Paul. My vintage of constitutionalist keeps hearkening back to the Founders prescience and prescription on the disposition of the Constitution they left us. And that was that we use the built-in mechanism that they provided for its change, instead of the insiduous bit by piece approach that can lead us over the precipice before we even know that we are in danger.

[William Martin]

Paul, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, as the saying goes, and has scarcely anything to do with Rome.

I've decided that here's what people know about the history of Rome.

1. That it was a democracy with arguing guys in togas.
2. That it then became a military dictatorship under a Caesar.
3. That it then was made up of orgy and food festival participants who were then overthrown by 'barbarians'.

None of these have a lot of truth to them, but it's too tempting to use Rome as an analogy.

In the final analysis, Rome is whatever you want it to be.

[Mikey McD]

Drum roll...and Rep Ryan turns out to be the 'piker'; I did not see that coming. Back to the consistent and loving arms of Ron Paul (Ron Paul 2012).

[George Rebane]

Neither did I Mikey. I invite us all to try and discover a rationale for Paul Ryan's vote on the FY2011 fiasco - then let the rest of us know. But if he's playing 'go along to get along' and believes he's banking support for his FY2012 budget proposal, I think he's making deposits where there will be no withdrawals.

[John Galt]

Tactical negotiation is a complicated task. The Republicans need to hire a professional to aid them. This isn't the time or place for amateurs.

[Bob Hobert]

I attended the TPP rally at Sacramento today, and promptly checked in at the Nevada County booth. Many thanks to you fine folks. The venue at Cal Expo was great with ample room for all - perhaps 1500 people, maybe many more as I'm a poor judge of crowd numbers. My prime interest was in hearing Tom McClintock speak on the events in Congress this past week. I will allow that he requited himself fairly well. The spending reductions in the current-year budget (already half over) were a disappointment to him, and he was critical of Speaker Boehner for not calling the Dems on a government shutdown. That said, he fully endorses Rep. Ryan's 2012 budget plan as an a commanding point from which to move forward. Interesting times ahead. The momentum is favoring meaningful fiscal change.

[Bob Hobert]

Stats from national sources and polls today show 58% of respondents view the Tea Party(s) favorably. Better than either party or Congress. Paul, get updated info.

[George Rebane]

Bob, thanks for the good and helpful summary of the day's proceedings. Especially glad that TomM corroborated his reported sentiments, and those of the conservatives who frequent RR. As stated in this post, I am most concerned about Boehner's inadequate performance and his continued suitability as Speaker.

I am on travel this weekend, else we would have shared some shade at the gathering.

[Paul Emery]

Bob

Can you provide a link to those poll's. That's different than what I've been tracking.

Wall Street Journal-NBC poll March 30-April 4

"Do you consider yourself a supporter of the Tea Party Movement?" Among registered voters.

Yes 25% No 67% Depends 3% Unsure 3%

[Paul Emery]

Oh yes the source
http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm