John Boehner's growing Tea Party headache

By R.K. Barry

There were a number of stories over the past few days about how disappointed various Tea Party factions were in the Republican leadership for the budget deal negotiated with the devil himself, a.k.a. the President of the United States.

Not to get into a big thing about "who won" the budget negotiations, or how much money is really being cut, because that's being covered by a lot of people - as interesting a discussion as it is.

What amazed me was the attitude of some of the Tea Party spokesmen. Not that I'm in the habit of feeling sorry for Speaker Boehner, but he does find himself riding quite the beast.

My favourite comment came from someone by the name of Doug Mainwaring, a "real estate agent and local conservative activist from Bethesda, Maryland." Mr. Mainwaring opined that "I'm not sure they (the GOP) have the political willpower to accept the mandate that was handed them by the Tea Party last November."

Elections are won for all kinds of reasons, usually with votes by majorities cobbled together from all sorts of voting blocs, so for the Tea Party to actually think they fully and completely call the tune for the Republicans is, well, just a lot of fun to watch. To put a fine point on it: successful political parties have to keep all manner of constituencies happy and pandering to the loudest to the exclusion of the others is a clear way to lose the next election.

The best part, as the Huffington Post reported, was that:

The budget deal passed the House by a comfortable margin, by a vote of 260 to 167. A total of 59 Republicans voted against the deal, but according to ABC's Jon Karl, only 27 of those no votes came from freshman House Republicans, who comprise the bulk of the conference's Tea Party component.

It seems that even those politicians most closely aligned with the Tea Party have no idea from whom they are supposed to be taking their marching orders. Mostly it seems that the Tea Party is really just a bunch of people who find themselves in front of a camera or talking to a reporter when the media need someone from the radical right to express the appropriate amount of indignation at any given moment in time.

That's hardly any way to run a political party and John Boehner knows it.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Bush balances budget on backs of the elderly

By Libby Spencer

So let me get this straight. We're in a health care crisis in this country. Almost 50 million Americans can't afford health insurance and Bush recently told us that it's not a problem because anyone can go to the ER for critical care. We'll leave aside that this still leaves millions without the ability to get preventive care that would keep them out of the ER in the first place.

Now comes Bush with his budget proposal designed to cure the deficit he created by 2012 and how does he propose to do that? Our compassionate conservative came up with the brilliant plan to cut billions in spending from the two programs that assist those who have to rely on near death experiences in the ER for their health care, namely Medicare and Medicaid.

The cuts won't be made to corporate welfare payments to private insurers who offer overpriced supplemental plans. No, he wants to slice the guts out of the safety net that the poor literally rely on to stay alive. He proposes to kill Medicare by cutting already inadequate reimbursements further.

Most of the Medicare savings in the budget would be achieved by reducing the annual update in federal payments to hospitals [especially teaching hospitals], nursing homes, hospices, ambulances and home care agencies.

So I guess the plan is that the elderly and the poor are supposed to wait until their health has critically failed to go to ERs that won't exist because hospitals will fail without proper reimbursement, which will solve the problem of the doctor shortage since there won't be there any place for them to practice. I don't know if Bush has come up with one of those pithy Orwellian names for this proposal, but I think I'm going to call it the Genocide Budget. I can't think of more accurate description.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

How would you have spent your $8,000?

By Edward Copeland

$8,000: that's the total it is estimated each man, woman and child in the U.S. has "paid" for the debacle in Iraq, according to new figures reported today in USA Today:

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release today.

A previous CBO estimate put the wars' costs at more than $1.6 trillion. This one adds $705 billion in interest, taking into account that the conflicts are being funded with borrowed money.

More startling and discouraging numbers from the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office:

The CBO estimates assume that 75,000 troops will remain in both countries through 2017, including roughly 50,000 in Iraq. That is a "very speculative" projection, though it's not entirely unreasonable, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the non-partisan Lexington Institute. As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

For those who have forgotten, prior to the Iraq invasion, the Idiot-in-Chief estimated the cost for toppling Saddam would be only $50 billion.