Congressional Repubs Introduce Alternative Budget to Gales of Near-Universal Mockery

[Lemur]

President 44 challenged the congressional Repubs to come up with an alternative budget in his last presser. Amazingly, they took the bait. The results have been epic.

House Republican leaders rolled out their alternative budget on Thursday to respond to President Obama's charge they were slamming his proposal without offering one of their own. At a Capitol Hill news conference, House GOP Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, held up an 18 page document entitled, "The Republican Road to Recovery" and said, "well, it's just not true, because here it is Mr. President."

Just one problem: The budget they submitted is literally a pamphlet that does not include many numbers, charts, or projections. How will it impact the deficit? They didn't run the numbers. How will they pay for a massive tax cut while cutting the deficit? They don't know. It's literally the kind of thing you could whip up over the weekend if you had no access to the Congressional Budget Office or Microsoft Excel. Robert Gibbs snarked: "There's one more picture of a windmill than there are charts of numbers. And there's exactly one picture of a windmill."

The ensuing mockery has been nothing short of hilarious.

The Republican "Road to Recovery" budget alternative, rolled out today by John Boehner, has been criticized by left and right for its lack of specificity and its promise to eliminate the national debt while significantly cutting taxes. FiveThirtyEight.com, however, has received an advance copy of additional details prepared by the Minority Leader's office. Although some elements of the proposal are still under discussion -- Eric Cantor is said to want to eliminate North Dakota rather than Idaho, while Thaddeus McCotter has suggested using the balance of TARP funds to purchase scratch-off tickets -- the final plan can be expected to contain most or all of these components.

This is in response to the infamous bubbles that are some of the only graphs in the Road to Recovery budget. I have to admit, it made me think of the underpants gnomes as well. Here's the bubbles from the proposed budget:

More riffing on the Republican bubble solution below the tag. Source.

[Lemur]

The not-funny part of this story is that apparently Mike Pence was so eager toget in front of cameras that he sabotaged real work going on in Paul Ryan's office.

Ryan, the ranking Republican on the budget committee, plans to introduce a detailed substitute amendment for the Democrats' spending plan next Wednesday -- and still intends to do so.

But he and Cantor were reportedly told by Boehner and Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) they needed to move more quickly to counter Democrats' charge they were becoming the "Party of No," according to House GOP staffers.

The 19-page document, prepared by Pence's office, was distributed two days after President Obama criticized Republicans for trashing his detail-crammed 142-page budget outline without producing a credible alternative.

“In his egocentric rush to get on camera, Mike Pence threw the rest of the Conference under the bus, specifically Paul Ryan, whose staff has been working night and day for weeks to develop a substantive budget plan," said a GOP aide heavily involved in budget strategy.

"I hope his camera time was gratifying enough to justify erasing the weeks of hard work by dozens of Republicans to put forth serious ideas," the person added.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is no GOP answer at present. There is not cohesive platform following November's defeat. Trying to rush one out that has not gelled up from the body of the party is silly.

[seireikhaan]

That's a budget?

[Xiahou]

Robert Gibbs snarked: "There's one more picture of a windmill than there are charts of numbers. And there's exactly one picture of a windmill."

Gibbs is clearly gunning for a seat at a late night show after he's done his time as press secretary. He gets my vote for most irritating press secretary since Scott "deer in the headlights" McClellan.


More on topic, I saw snippets of their press conference to introduce their non-plan.... it was painful. It would've been less embarrassing for them, but still probably pointless, to release the document to hype the upcoming budget proposal- but without the accompanying press conference. What sense is there in having a press conference where you can't answer any questions? It seemed like most of Boehner's were wholly comprised of "We'll tell you next week." That's great- so why are you wasting our time now then?

Additionally, I don't know that I entirely agree with the premise that the GOP can't criticize Democrat plans without having an alternative plan. Why isn't nothing a valid alternative?

"This stimulus plan is terrible." "Well, what's your plan?" "Nothing!" Of course, that would never play in the media- government always has to be doing something even when it shouldn't be.....

[Spino]

Embarassing for sure but again, we're barely three months into Obama's term and the country is still in the throes of its inaugural honeymoon (which, according to the polls, seems to be winding down earlier than expected). The howls of laughter that will follow this silliness will be quickly forgotten (I haven't seen a single mention of this on any of our shows today). The Democrats and the liberal bloc of the media can cry all they like about Republican opposition to any and all things put forth by Obama and the Democrats but in the end nothing short of a jaw-dropping GOP scandal is going to distract the public's attention away from the Democrats who have a majority lock on Congress and can do as they please.

This is the one good thing about being a powerless minority in a democratic form of government, if you screw up nobody cares because ultimately the finger will never get pointed at you by the voters.

The Republicans have two golden opportunities coming their way in 2010 & 2012, they had better get their leadership ducks in a row before the next round of elections. Ego driven incidents like these are a pity because they only distract from the good efforts of reasonably responsible Republicans like Cantor and Ryan. If anything someone needs to throw knuckleheads like Boehner & Pence under the bus and get Cantor and Ryan onto the GOP's center stage.

One thing for sure is the more I watch Obama and the Democrats carry on with this jaw dropping act of one upmanship style incompetency over the previous administration and Republican controlled congress the more I feel an astounding Republican victory in 2012 is closer to becoming a reality. I'm not kidding, at the rate the Democrats are going I get the feeling people will be throwing rotten food at them on the 2012 campaign trail.

Romney should dust off his suit and start working on his best Reagan imitation. With Jindal as a running mate Mitt could probably walk away with the whole thing. Not that Romney would be a great conservative candidate, I'm just playing the odds regarding which Republican would have the best shot. I mean if a guy named Barack Hussein Obama with no experience and some seriously questionable personal associations can become President then I really don't see a good reason why frustrated conservative and moderate voters won't rally around some Mormon named Mitt next time around.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Additionally, I don't know that I entirely agree with the premise that the GOP can't criticize Democrat plans without having an alternative plan. Why isn't nothing a valid alternative?

"This stimulus plan is terrible." "Well, what's your plan?" "Nothing!" Of course, that would never play in the media- government always has to be doing something even when it shouldn't be.....

It's a valid alternative, but to do nothing brings its own set of impacts. Since a government is elected to govern and is allegedly accountable for its decisions - even if they amount to taking no decision or action - the voters have the right to question that government about the effects of doing nothing, just as they have the right to ask those questions of an aspirant to government.

To do nothing in this case, may well be catastrophic for ordinary people. I might agree that the catastrophe would be worth it in the long run, but as I've said before, it's not me who would lose his job, home, savings etc.

Unless you are arguing that there should be no government at all, which would actually make my life complete: Xiahou the Anarchist.

(Now is when I wish Aenlic was still posting here...)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Positive Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney mentions! Wahoo!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Romney should dust off his suit and start working on his best Reagan imitation. With Jindal as a running mate Mitt could probably walk away with the whole thing. Not that Romney would be a great conservative candidate, I'm just playing the odds regarding which Republican would have the best shot. I mean if a guy named Barack Hussein Obama with no experience and some seriously questionable personal associations can become President then I really don't see a good reason why frustrated conservative and moderate voters won't rally around some Mormon named Mitt next time around.

I know you really, really want the Republicans to win.

In order to do so, Republicans have to let go of Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, and Piyush Jindal, not to mention start marginalizing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and fully wash their hands of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Thankfully the Republicans have started to avoid people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, just as I've washed my hands of Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kuchinich, and any other bat insane partisan wacko out there.

This is from a former Republican and fiscal conservative, who is against these massive bailouts on principle, but when the Republican Party leadership has a thumb up their collective hind ends about what to do with regards to leading the nation, I cannot support them. If they can't even select a decent party leader from within their own friendly ranks, how could they lead a nation who is hostile to their party because of Bush and Cheney?

Mitt Romney gets a bad rap over his faith, and to be honest... I can't say I blame people for being wary. I'm not a huge fan of the religion in question. But I judged him as objectively as I could, as an individual politician, and I think he's had his share of successes and could be a positive influence. He needs to drop the big fake eating smile, though, and finally just speak plain english without the nicely-polished schooboy image to maintain. People don't want a fancy suit and a grin, they want passionate leadership. Mitt Romney generates as much enthusiasm as a plastic bag.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know you really, really want the Republicans to win.

In order to do so, Republicans have to let go of Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, and Piyush Jindal, not to mention start marginalizing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and fully wash their hands of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Thankfully the Republicans have started to avoid people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, just as I've washed my hands of Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kuchinich, and any other bat insane partisan wacko out there.

This is from a former Republican and fiscal conservative, who is against these massive bailouts on principle, but when the Republican Party leadership has a thumb up their collective hind ends about what to do with regards to leading the nation, I cannot support them. If they can't even select a decent party leader from within their own friendly ranks, how could they lead a nation who is hostile to their party because of Bush and Cheney?

Mitt Romney gets a bad rap over his faith, and to be honest... I can't say I blame people for being wary. I'm not a huge fan of the religion in question. But I judged him as objectively as I could, as an individual politician, and I think he's had his share of successes and could be a positive influence. He needs to drop the big fake eating smile, though, and finally just speak plain english without the nicely-polished schooboy image to maintain. People don't want a fancy suit and a grin, they want passionate leadership. Mitt Romney generates as much enthusiasm as a plastic bag.

If that plastic bag contained a nuclear warhead of awesome.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If that plastic bag contained a nuclear warhead of awesome.

Now I know you're joking... lol

Mitt Romney is not such a bad guy, I guess... I find myself disagreeing more often than not. The problem is that you need a tough guy, and he doesn't seem tough. Frankly, I think that if I were in a room with him, and I were to debate him even casually, I could make him cry. And, not even intentionally either.

Needs to show some fire and passion, and drop the nice guy play-acting. No one in politics is a nice guy, even when they are a nice guy. I think Joe Biden is a nice guy, but if you talk politics with him, he can be a pit-bull. He doesn't always calculate what he says, and he's gaffe prone, but I think he means well. Mitt Romney: even his controversies are lame.

[Strike For The South]

I don't need passion. Passion is responsible for genocides, famines and epidemics. Passion blinds people

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't need passion. Passion is responsible for genocides, famines and epidemics. Passion blinds people

Blind passion perhaps. Other forms of passion allowed the United States to exist independent from the British Empire. Other forms of passion defeated Nazism. Other forms of passion overturned slavery.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't need passion. Passion is responsible for genocides, famines and epidemics. Passion blinds people

I agree to an extent. I want the people at the top to care about the country and about doing what's best for the people and nation though. I think some sort of passion is necessary, but certainly not the sort espoused by ardent partisans.

[Strike For The South]

Blind passion perhaps. Other forms of passion allowed the United States to exist independent from the British Empire. Other forms of passion defeated Nazism. Other forms of passion overturned slavery.

A man willing to run for POTUS in this day and age is passion enough for me. A man does not need to speak loud or make lofty promises to prove his passion.

There is a reason we remember Washington instead of Sam Adams, why Eishenhower was elected instead of Mac and why John Brown was hung like a dog.

A quiet reserved public persona does not equal a lack of passion

[Askthepizzaguy]

A man willing to run for POTUS in this day and age is passion enough for me. A man does not need to speak loud or make lofty promises to prove his passion.

There is a reason we remember Washington instead of Sam Adams, why Eishenhower was elected instead of Mac and why John Brown was hung like a dog.

A quiet reserved public persona does not equal a lack of passion

I agree that he could have passion; but I haven't seen it and I don't think the voters have either. If you want Romney, he has to make a bigger impression on people. Even Washington could give a speech, as I am sure Eisenhower could. Romney electrifies a crowd as much as a damp towel does.

You perhaps are persuaded with rational arguments, as is the ideal. I frankly wish more people were like you. People are not. They are blind, emotional, and have mob mentality. The only way you get serious votes these days is to have the ability to move people emotionally. That is why Hillary failed. Her emotions were forced, fake, or nonexistent. She had basically the same positions as Obama, but she failed to move people as much as Obama did.

Being a thinker and a philosopher does not necessitate appeal to emotion; but until people start thinking with their heads and not be persuaded by passion, anyone who seeks the highest office needs to be able to reach people. I'm not saying so because I want it to be that way; I am saying so because that is how you do reach people, and evoke a response, and get them off their lazy butts to go vote.

That is why emotion-based arguments frighten me.... they actually work. Those on the side of reason must learn to use this power, until the power no longer has a hold on people.

[Strike For The South]

People have always been persuaded through emotion. While there are many reasons not to be a fan of Rommney his business savvy is not one of them. As for his religion. We just elected a man who went to a church whose sermons damned America I think we can deal with the magic underwear.

[Banquo's Ghost]

... and why John Brown was hung like a dog.

That's a very personal accusation, even for a Southerner.

[Lemur]

Meanwhile, it looks as though the rank-and-file Congressional Repubs are unhappy with the alternative budget PR fiasco. Can't say I blame them.

Standing before television cameras, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and other members -- including the top Republican on the Budget Committee Paul Ryan (Wis.) -- couldn't answer specific questions about their spending plan.

After weeks of promising a comprehensive alternative to the president’s budget that Republicans have painted as excessive, bloated and wasteful, Boehner was unable to provide specific information about their proposal.

His colleagues were unable to answer line-items questions as well. Boehner dismissed those details as “just a bunch of numbers.”

Even though aides insist that GOP leaders had no intention of releasing their full budget substitute, the press event was a public relations disaster.

“It looked like a disorganized blunder,” one GOP aide said. “It’s the worst messaging snafu at a time when the party can’t afford one.”

[Spino]

I know you really, really want the Republicans to win.

In order to do so, Republicans have to let go of Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, and Piyush Jindal, not to mention start marginalizing Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and fully wash their hands of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. Thankfully the Republicans have started to avoid people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter, just as I've washed my hands of Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kuchinich, and any other bat insane partisan wacko out there.

This is from a former Republican and fiscal conservative, who is against these massive bailouts on principle, but when the Republican Party leadership has a thumb up their collective hind ends about what to do with regards to leading the nation, I cannot support them. If they can't even select a decent party leader from within their own friendly ranks, how could they lead a nation who is hostile to their party because of Bush and Cheney?

Mitt Romney gets a bad rap over his faith, and to be honest... I can't say I blame people for being wary. I'm not a huge fan of the religion in question. But I judged him as objectively as I could, as an individual politician, and I think he's had his share of successes and could be a positive influence. He needs to drop the big fake eating smile, though, and finally just speak plain english without the nicely-polished schooboy image to maintain. People don't want a fancy suit and a grin, they want passionate leadership. Mitt Romney generates as much enthusiasm as a plastic bag.

Well yes, I do really, really want Republicans to win... really. Mainly because I am so ideologically and philosophically opposed to the average Democratic candidate. I realize my desire to have a modern Republican party cast in the mold of an Eisenhower, Goldwater or Ron Paul is just wet dream, pie in the sky style fantasy. As I've stated in other threads despite my conservative leanings I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Dole and that was in direct response to my intense disillusionment with and seething dislike of Clinton. To be brutally honest every Republican candidate since Reagan hasn't been 'conservative' enough for my tastes (even Reagan failed the litmus test on many issues). Since then I've either refrained from voting (2000) or cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate. My problem is that beyond the issue of abortion there is virtually nothing about the post-Vietnam War era Democratic party that appeals to me. I'm a rabidly pro-free speech, pro-gun, small government, low tax, curtailed spending, anti-democracy/pro-republic, classical liberal/conservative. Given all that you can understand how even the most conservative 'blue dog' Democrat is a tad too liberal for my tastes... ergo I consistently vote against the Democratic candidate and root for the Republicans come every election year.

Meanwhile, it looks as though the rank-and-file Congressional Repubs are unhappy with the alternative budget PR fiasco. Can't say I blame them.

“It looked like a disorganized blunder,” one GOP aide said. “It’s the worst messaging snafu at a time when the party can’t afford one.”

Well it's genuinely nice to see conscientous members of the GOP engage in critical self-reflection. It's nice to know the generation that holds the reins is even capable of constructive, introspective thought. But this aide needs to loosen his tie and relax a bit. Again, considering nobody but whining Democrats and select media outlets are paying serious attention to the GOP right now, they've got an awful lot of wiggle room to play with until the 2010 elections roll around.

[Xiahou]

Well the actual plan is out, and it's good to see the Washington Post give it fair consideration:

After getting blasted last week for presenting a budget plan light on details, House Republicans yesterday unveiled a more complete proposal that would cut taxes for businesses and the wealthy, freeze most government spending for five years, halt spending approved in the economic stimulus package and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the plan would stabilize the rising national debt by requiring the nation to borrow about $6 trillion over the next 10 years, $3.3 trillion less than would be required under the budget request submitted by President Obama.

Annual deficits also would be slightly lower than under the revised budget plans that emerged last week from the House and Senate budget committees. The revised Democratic proposals would require the nation to borrow about $4 trillion over the next five years, compared with $3.1 trillion in new borrowing under the GOP alternative.

WaPo aptly summarizes it as tax cuts for the rich and "slash"ing spending for the poor and elderly. Further, we also learn that the difference between 3 and 4 trillion- a difference of $1 trillion, is only a slight difference. That's just like how if you got a 25% raise at work, it would only be a slight raise.....

I'm glad that they're taking such a serious, balanced look at the proposal.

Now, if you actually want to learn something about their proposal, you could look at the writeups on Heritage which takes a more detailed and yes, favorable view of it. At least Heritage admits they have an agenda.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Answering President Obama's challenge for critics to present alternatives, the House Republicans have offered a responsible budget blueprint that:

* Borrows $3.6 trillion less than the President's budget;
* Would create $23,000 less debt per household than the President's budget;
* Keeps federal spending just above 20 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)—the same level as before the recession;
* Avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the overly complex tax code;
* Includes a temporary moratorium on earmarks; and
* Begins reforming the unsustainable costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Lastly, you can look at the actual documents here... the links are at the bottom of the page.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm all for anything that freezes earmarks and spends less money. Unfortunately, after the bailouts I simply just don't care anymore. While I see how ridiculous it is to call a trillion dollar cut a slight cut, really, at this point I just don't see what it matters anymore because unless the system is cleaned up we will just repeat this in 20 years.

I am normally middle of the road on tax increases for big businesses and rich folk, it really depends on the circumstances and the tax rather than some all-encompassing ideal I hold. I don't, however, think now is the time to be raising taxes on industry.

Buy gold. Buy land. Buy guns and collectibles.

[Spino]

Well the actual plan is out, and it's good to see the Washington Post give it fair consideration:
WaPo aptly summarizes it as tax cuts for the rich and "slash"ing spending for the poor and elderly. Further, we also learn that the difference between 3 and 4 trillion- a difference of $1 trillion, is only a slight difference. That's just like how if you got a 25% raise at work, it would only be a slight raise.....

I'm glad that they're taking such a serious, balanced look at the proposal.

Now, if you actually want to learn something about their proposal, you could look at the writeups on Heritage which takes a more detailed and yes, favorable view of it. At least Heritage admits they have an agenda.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Answering President Obama's challenge for critics to present alternatives, the House Republicans have offered a responsible budget blueprint that:

* Borrows $3.6 trillion less than the President's budget;
* Would create $23,000 less debt per household than the President's budget;
* Keeps federal spending just above 20 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP)—the same level as before the recession;
* Avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the overly complex tax code;
* Includes a temporary moratorium on earmarks; and
* Begins reforming the unsustainable costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Lastly, you can look at the actual documents here... the links are at the bottom of the page.

There are certainly some brights spots in the GOP's proposed budget but it is still way too timid & tepid for my tastes. Not nearly enough slashing and burning. People won't take much comfort in the fact that it simply recommends a return to federal spending in effect prior to the Obama administration. As if the spending sprees by Republicans and Democrats during the GW Bush years was acceptable to begin with?!? A temporary moratorium on earmarks? What a lovely, empty gesture! Whoopdeedoos all around! Ok sure, this plan is better than the Democrat budget we're about to be force fed but it still gets an epic FAIL grade according to any reasonably conservative metric.

The House Republicans could have seriously stolen the spotlight and shocked the nation by proposing a bold, innovative plan that actually adheres to the GOP's so-called core principles. Dramatically reduce the size of government in addition to massive reductions in spending accompanied by massive tax cuts. In light of the venom and vitriol being directed at the government by the public the timing for such a plan would have been perfect. As I've stated before the Republicans are powerless now, they can afford to toss caution into the wind and propose more audacious, conservative alternatives. Instead they draft a weak alternative plan that perfectly illustrates the lack of vision, principles and let's face it, balls, endemic to this generation of politicians. Clueless, gutless, narcissistic wonders, the lot of them.

Sadly this all reminds me of a popular Jack Nicholson romantic comedy from the 90s. Maybe Americans and other Westerners should just own up to reality and seriously ask ourselves, "What if this is as good as it gets?"