I missed this earlier. It’s unfortunate the amount was a set dollar amount rather than some percent of gas prices to mitigate against inflation. I’d be fine with adjusting these types of taxes that are meant to fund specific activity so if we must have them, they are at least pegged to inflation.
Or barring that, at least keeping constant spend dollars in nominal terms would force more efficient resource allocation. I have no problem with the strategy of starving the beast in principle.
Anyone care to address this?
And, to clarify, it’s not a query only as to what the Republicans will do, it is a query about what we can expect out of Washington in general from 2014 to 2016.
Hopefully, very little.
Nothing like a little goalpost moving. There’s a huge difference between “government sometimes grows and sometimes shrinks, but overall it grows more than it shrinks” and “government is constantly growing.”
I’ve addressed this repeatedly. I acknowledge that some legislation actually could reduce the number of laws or regulations and I would support that.
It’s not complicated.
Gun laws are a problem at all three levels of government. There are too many local laws, too many state laws and too many federal laws.
But that’s exactly the problem: Big government is what happens in Columbus or Topeka. Or, for that matter, in Cleveland, or Olmsted Falls, or in your local HOA. The more local a government, the more intrusive it is, and one of the primary functions of the federal government is to keep the Big Government of states and municipalities in check. If you work to weaken the federal government, the inevitable result will be more government intrusion into your life, not less.
It’s not goalpost moving in the slightest. It’s a little bit of hyperbole, and barely even that.
“PS: I am not a crank.”
That’s a different argument. The intrusiveness of a thuggish local government in a town of 2000 somewhere in, say, the western Great Plains, may be serious indeed for the locals who’ve gotten on its bad side (or are inherently that way due to race, religion, or whatever), but it ain’t Big, and you don’t have to move far to get out from under its thumb.
Still non-responsive.
If that happened, I expect that a law passed soon afterward would just so happen to select the ‘retire four laws’ law itself to be one of the four laws retired.
That’s a goofy stance. Some legislation is needed.
This comparison seems to insult insane people. Some of my best friends had psychoses. Please take it to the Pit.
You aren’t from around here, are you?
Maybe because the more power they have, the more difficult it is to distance themselves from this country’s problems. For the first two years it was Obama/Reid/Pelosi vs. America, the last four years it’s been John Boehner valiantly protecting us from Obama/Reid Fascist/Nazi/Marxist attempt to take away our god given right to school shootings and overpriced healthcare. The next two years will be Boehner/McConnell vs. a lame duck president that many prominent Dems will likely try to subtly distance themselves from in anticipation of the 2016 primaries - the more power a political faction has the more proactive they need to be about addressing the voters concerns in order to hold on to it.
I think things will look a lot as they did from 2007-2008 when the roles were reversed. The GOP will pass what they want and Obama will either sign or veto, and whatever he does can and will be used against the Democratic nominee.
They will not shut down the government. The time for such battles, if there ever is a smart time, is right after a resounding midterm victory in a President’s first term. Doing it when the public is primarily focused on a Presidential race that if history is any guide, the GOP should win, would be a nice way to sabotage the Republican candidates. Since at least a couple of those candidates will probably come from the Senate, I suspect they’ll be telling their colleagues, “Please, don’t mess with my campaign.”
The next two years will involve nothing much going on in terms of domestic policy.
Paul Krugman predicts that if the Pubs take control of the Senate, they will revive the discredited supply-side approach to economics – by requiring the CBO to use “dynamic scoring” (a method which assumes the validity of supply-side) in its forecasts.
I would care to address that. I think the Republicans would see gaining control of the Senate as well as the House as a chance to advance their agenda and/or give Obama, and by extension Democrats generally, a real black eye.
I think they will do this by voting through some of the whackadoodle Tea Party bills that will surely come up and force Obama to either veto them or sign them into law. He’ll probably veto the whackadoodle stuff giving the base plenty to complain about.
Meanwhile they’d offer “reasonable” bills which would attack Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, further deregulate the finance industry, weaken unions, further weaken environmental protections, cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, all in the name of helping the economy chug along. And of course they’ll seek to further limit the right to vote.
Obama and the DLC “centrists” who are more or less Reagan Republicans on financial issues, will probably sign some or even all of these bills into law. They might put up a fight on voter registration, but expect the social safety net to get seriously frayed, if not outright destroyed, in the next two years.
Obama won’t allow the safety net to be touched. He might be compelled to sign a border security bill however.
He was DYING to make concessions on Social Security for his “Grand Bargain” and was only stopped by a revolt among Congressional Democrats.