You must be proud..

[Rigs11]

..for voting for these clowns. How many posts did we get around here about obama's broken promises?Hey righties can you please hold your party to the same standards?

House Republicans dial back on promises
By: CNN's Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh


Washington (CNN) – Even before House Republicans took control of the chamber Wednesday, there were at least three areas where they appear to be backtracking on promises made: Cutting $100 billion in the first year, allowing opportunities for the minority party to offer amendments on bills, and making public attendance records for committee hearings.

The Republicans ran for office in 2010 on a platform they titled "The Pledge to America," which states they would reduce government spending to 2008 "pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels" and cut "at least $100 billion in the first year alone."

House GOP aides are now backing off that $100 billion figure. They insist they will still cut spending back to 2008 levels, but it won't add up to $100 billion. They insist the reason is because they made the $100 billion calculation based on the budget that President Obama offered, and that budget was never enacted. Therefore, the government is currently running on lower, 2009 spending levels and that will make the dollar figure of the GOP cuts smaller.Republican aides confirm the "back of the envelope" number they will now use is about HALF the original estimate - $50-60 billion in cuts.

"House Republicans remain committed to fulfilling their Pledge; this has not changed," said Conor Sweeney, spokesman for the House Budget Committee.

"House Republicans will continue to work to reduce spending for the final six months of this fiscal year – bringing non-security discretionary spending back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels – yielding taxpayers significant savings and starting a new era of cost cutting in Washington," he said.

Being generous to those in the minority was always an objective of the new majority, as articulated by the incoming GOP Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy back before the election:

"Bills won't be written in the back of the room, where the bills have to be laid out for 72 hours, where bills actually have an open rule, where people can bring amendments up on the floor, which any freshman congressman that's sitting there today has never even seen that happen under the rule of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats," McCarthy said on CNN "State of the Union" on October 10, 2010.

BUT – the health care repeal legislation, the first major bill that will move through Congress, will be a closed rule – meaning no one will be able to offer an amendment.When asked about the this contradiction Tuesday night, Boehner said, "it's not like we haven't litigated this for years."

And, finally, the initial rules package that House Republicans will pass Wednesday had a provision to make committee attendance public. But the House GOP conference voted last night to strip that out (a move by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas). The goal had been transparency – who is at these hearings? But making that public will no longer be a requirement.

The reason? Some GOP lawmakers say they were concerned about getting slammed for missing hearings when they may have extenuating circumstances, like a death in the family.http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...k-on-promises/

[TailgateNut]

Are you surprised?

Did Boehner weep again?

[Garcia Bronco]

You are gonna need more bullets than that.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

You are gonna need more bullets than that.

Nice. It is only day one

[cutthemdown]

I'd be impressed if that bunch of losers could even cut the 50 billion they are setting as the new goal.

I didn't vote for any of them though so I am off the hook. The Calif repubs never win.

[cutthemdown]

Until we can somehow get the liberal calif to send some sane people to DC you are all doomed. Just wait until they do the big calif bailout. Well they already did sort of with the 10 billion or so for a high speed train in the middle of nowhere. Cool.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Until we can somehow get the liberal calif to send some sane people to DC you are all doomed. Just wait until they do the big calif bailout. Well they already did sort of with the 10 billion or so for a high speed train in the middle of nowhere. Cool.

We need to let California fail.

For a state that likes to dictate policy to the rest of the country, that place needs to get the plank out of its own eye before it starts telling everyone else what to do.

Californians need to learn the hard lessons or theyre never going to contribute to the overall health of the nation.

[bronclvr]

Obama has been de-nutted-mission accomplished-

[Rigs11]

much like G dumbya you have claimed victory prematurely.

[Obushma]

No Rigs, you must be proud

[chadta]

meet the new rat bag administration, its the same as the old ratbag administration.

[Rigs11]

The Republican Party's Next 5 Problems

DailyBeast, Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 6:49pm (PST)

By Matt Latimer

This Friday, two days after the swearing-in of a new GOP congressional majority, the Republican National Committee will select a chairman to guide the party through the 2012 elections. At first blush, the lofty post might sound like the political version of a "Yogi Bear" movie: No thinking required. After all, aren't

we fresh off an election where Republicans, despite massive unpopularity, delivered a thrashing so thorough that they won everything but both showcases on The Price Is Right?

Related story on The Daily Beast: Rush Limbaugh's TV Nemesis

Then again, just ask President Bob Dole how quickly political fortunes can turn. If the new GOP chairman is savvy, he or she will see ample reasons to be nervous this year, for signs are aplenty that 2011 might be for the GOP what college football has been for University of Michigan fans: a baffling, dream-crushing headache that makes you wish the whole thing would end early.

Headache #1: The Obama Rebound. When Republicans gaze upon Barack Obama, we know who they see: one-term wonder Jimmy Carter, the in-over-his-head know-it-all who suffered through a bad economy, international turmoil, domestic malaise, and bouts with killer rabbits before the voters sent him home. This time it may not turn out that way.

Republicans managed to win seats by simply saying "no" to the Democrats. But can they really govern that way?

While Republicans have been choosing color palettes for their plush new offices and dreaming about where they will sit at Mitt Romney's Cabinet table, their written-off political nemesis has pulled together a string of impressive political victories. Obama lifted the ban on gays in the military when Republicans said it couldn't happen. He got a nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia through the Senate, when that was supposed to be tricky. And he extended the Bush tax cuts when Republicans said he was too ideological to make a deal. The economy is showing signs of life: The Dow is rising; the U.S. automotive industry is reporting robust sales; and Americans are growing more optimistic about their economic futures. Even Obama's personal approval rating, never as disastrous as advertised, is moving into lukewarm territory, hitting 50 percent in the Gallup poll for the first time since April. (Obama's predecessor considered the support of half the electorate a rousing mandate.) Depending on which poll one believes, Obama is either tied or well ahead of most of his likely Republican rivals-not bad for a man who is supposedly about to be sent back to Hawaii, Chicago, or wherever it is the Birthers think he came from this week.

Related story on The Daily Beast: John Boehner's GOP Headaches

Headache #2: Between Barack and a Hard Place. It is easy to see what a smart White House will do this year: Put forward a host of popular-sounding initiatives and shake their heads sadly when Republicans oppose them. From childrens' health insurance to education spending to environmental protection to regulations on Big Oil, Democrats will come off as Sandra Bullock to the Republicans' Jesse James. Shrewdly Obama will go out of his way to work with the GOP on these initiatives offering all sorts of tempting inducements. But, as Admiral Ackbar might say, "It's a trap!" Each time Republican leaders compromise with the Democrats, the Tea Party will stand ready to blast them for abandoning their principles on spending and smaller government, just as GOP leaders did before. This makes staying on issues offense a top priority for the party. The trouble is that when it comes to issues, the party doesn't appear to have any.

Related story on The Daily Beast: The Liberal Case for Stonewalling

Headache #3: The "What Now" Problem. Ask voters what Republicans stand for and they likely will mention two things: tax relief and war fighting. For the moment at least, the Obama White House has preempted both. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the president has ended the Iraq War and endorsed a military "surge" in Afghanistan, winning praise even from his fiercest critics.

With war and taxes off the table, the GOP faces a far less popular issue agenda for the next two years. Their top priority-the repeal of Obamacare over a certain presidential veto-looks impossible on a good day. Aside from that, what major issue does the GOP tackle next? Immigration reform tore the party in two in the last election. The GOP has shown no capacity for meaningful spending cuts, and no interest whatsoever in trimming one of the government's biggest spenders: the Pentagon. No effort appears on the horizon to revive the Reagan-era proposal of eliminating Cabinet departments. Few in the GOP, and certainly none in its cautious retread leadership, show any interest in tackling the real fiscal problems facing the country-massive entitlement programs. Without advancing a substantive conservative philosophy, that leaves the Republicans little to do other than manufacture issues-whatever happened to the "ground zero mosque," by the way?-or play defense. Republicans managed to win seats by simply saying "no" to the Democrats. But can they really govern that way?

Headache #4: The Palin Peccadillo. It is time to face facts.There is only one Republican able to garner international attention with an offhand utterance or sway any political debate with a single posting on Twitter. You betcha: Sarah Palin is now the party's top spokesperson, whether Washington likes it or not. (They don't.) Party leaders have tried ignoring her, belittling her, laughing at her, whispering about her, rolling their eyes, and stomping their feet. It has only made her stronger to her supporters, who think the GOP leadership is a bunch of crusty, out of touch, K Street elitists. (Now that you mention it...) Here's a thought for the RNC chairman: Why not take Palin seriously? Treat her as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Ask her to serve as spokesman on high-profile issues. Fire anyone found to denigrate her. Let the Alaska governor sink or swim: You don't have much of a choice anyway.

Headache #5: The Comeback Couple. Perhaps the most worrisome sign for the GOP is what they've let slip right past them. Yes, the political Brangelina of our times, the Clintons, have pulled a fast one on their old rivals yet again. While Republicans have trained all their fire on Barack Obama-plastering his face on magazine covers, accusing him of coddling terrorists, and hating America-they have allowed their far more dexterous political opponents to rebuild their standing. It was not long ago that Bill Clinton was considered a disgraced former president who collected scandals like they were antique cars. Now he's hailed as a "hero" by Time magazine and hugged by the Bush family as a surrogate son. Meanwhile the once-polarizing Hillary not only survived the WikiLeaks scandal, but beat out Oprah Winfrey to become the most admired woman in the United States. AGAIN. (Oprah, call your agent: Sarah Palin beat you, too.) Now Republicans not only face a reviving Obama in 2012, but the likelihood of running against an even more popular, statesmanlike Hillary in 2016 (if not sooner). That is a prospect that should cause any RNC chairman to reach for the aspirin bottle.

Matt Latimer is the author of the New York Times bestseller, SPEECH-LESS: Tales of a White House Survivor. He was deputy director of speechwriting for George W. Bush and chief speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld.

http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/...-1671034.story

[bronclvr]

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with Obozo being in there (as long as the Repugs are in Congress)-in fact, I like it-

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by bronclvr

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with Obozo being in there (as long as the Repugs are in Congress)-in fact, I like it-

I'll never like Obozo in office.

He's beholden to too many far-left interests, and he uses the presidency to further the bureaucracy...i.e. net neutraility, etc.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

We need to let California fail.

For a state that likes to dictate policy to the rest of the country, that place needs to get the plank out of its own eye before it starts telling everyone else what to do.

Californians need to learn the hard lessons or theyre never going to contribute to the overall health of the nation.

It won't happen they will bail us out. I can't wait for all your money to come pouring into my state. hell we already stole 10 billion for a high speed train to nowhere.

[W*GS]

Something to stick in the craw of the rightards...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...te_ripoff.html

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

I'll never like Obozo in office.

He's beholden to too many far-left interests, and he uses the presidency to further the bureaucracy...i.e. net neutraility, etc.

Speaking of net neutrality...

For a subject that arouses such strong passions, “network neutrality” is fiendishly difficult to pin down. Ask five geeks and you may well be given six definitions of it. The basic concept sounds simple enough: that the internet’s pipes should show no favours and blindly deliver packets of data from one place to another regardless of their origin, destination or contents. But the devil is in the detail. What happens for instance if some people want to pay for their data to go faster, or if others hog all the bandwidth? And it does not help that both political proponents and opponents of this undefinable thing claim they are fighting to defend free speech and innovation.

This debate is loudest in America, uncoincidentally the developed market with the least competitive market in internet access. Democrats, who are in favour of net-neutrality rules, insist regulation is needed to prevent network operators discriminating in favour of their own services. A cable-TV firm that sells both broadband internet access and television services over its cables might, for example, try to block internet-based video that competes with its own television packages. Republicans, meanwhile, worry that net neutrality will be used to justify a takeover of the internet by government bureaucrats, stifling innovation. (That the internet’s origins lie in a government-funded project is quietly passed over.)

From a consumer’s perspective, both sides are half right. Without some neutrality rules it is unclear how a network operator can be stopped from blocking particular sites or services. But overly prescriptive rules that fossilise the internet in its current form could indeed hamper innovation. Firms that come up with faster and fancier services should be able to charge a premium, just as delivery companies and airlines do.

So the fact that zealots on both sides are moaning about the new regime finally passed by America’s telecoms regulator on December 21st is on the whole a good sign. Two of the three new rules from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are relatively straightforward. One prevents network operators from blocking lawful traffic, subject to “reasonable network management” (an exception needed to ensure that spam or denial-of-service attacks can be stopped). The second requires network operators to be open about their network-management policies, so consumers and companies can see what might be blocked, and why.

The difficulty comes with the FCC’s third rule, prohibiting “unreasonable discrimination”. Discrimination, in this context, means letting some packets of data travel faster than others. To net-neutrality purists, any kind of discrimination is unacceptable: by allowing the “reasonable” sort the FCC has, in their view, left open a vast loophole. That seems overly conservative, to this newspaper. Why on earth shouldn’t a company be able to charge more for, say, faster delivery of video, or special broadband links that ensure snappy connections for video-gamers? Such “fast-tracking” is already widespread: if you pay a bit more, you can get a speedier connection or even a special “content delivery network” to hurry up the delivery of your data (as many large firms do). In some countries you can get connections optimised for gaming.

Sadly, there are two caveats and a huge omission. The first caveat is that the law is not clear. Despite allowing reasonable discrimination, the FCC says that “pay for priority” would “raise significant cause for concern”. In other words the FCC has not explicitly banned fast-tracking, but it does not seem disposed to allow it. So fast-tracking’s fate will be decided by the courts, to the annoyance of everyone except lawyers.

The other caveat with the FCC’s new rules is their leniency towards mobile operators, who will be allowed to block some kinds of traffic. Wireless firms point out, rightly, that their bandwidth is less abundant than the fixed-line sort and especially vulnerable to data hogs who use too much capacity. But the best way to deal with this, on both fixed and mobile networks, is to offer a monthly data limit and charge by the megabyte beyond it. Usage-based pricing, not a different regulatory regime, is all that is needed. Again, other countries do this.

The fundamental problem

These details are important, but the noise about them only makes the omission more startling: the failure in America to tackle the underlying lack of competition in the provision of internet access. In other rich countries it would not matter if some operators blocked some sites: consumers could switch to a rival provider. That is because the big telecoms firms with wires into people’s homes have to offer access to their networks on a wholesale basis, ensuring vigorous competition between dozens of providers, with lower prices and faster connections than are available in America. Getting America’s phone and cable companies to open up their networks to others would be a lot harder for politicians than prattling on about neutrality; but it would do far more to open up the net.

[epicSocialism4tw]

W*GS...a once reasonable person who got sucked into the Federal Grant game and lost his marbles.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

W*GS...a once reasonable person who got sucked into the Federal Grant game and lost his marbles.

You're in no position to talk about balls.

[Arkie]

I was skeptical all along since the pledge said nothing about auditing the fed.

[Rigs11]

[Odysseus]

Don't get mad? Reload?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]