All elections, but especially low-interest midterm elections, turn on certain meta-narratives. While individual races may be decided on local issues or through the talent and resources of the candidates, the overall trend on election night is driven by stories the electorate is telling themselves. In the leadup to the 2006 midterms, Democratic activists pressed the argument that the Republicans and the president had no accountability because they controlled everything. The argument that a divided government will be a better government is dubious at best, but it’s the Republicans’ main selling point. The way to combat that argument is to convince the public that the Republicans won’t provide accountability but obstruction, gridlock, and pointless witchhunts. In this effort, Rand Paul will be a gift that keeps on giving. But probably no one could be a bigger gift than Orly Taitz:
Orly Taitz is an Israeli émigré who has spent the past two years filing lawsuits challenging President Barack Obama’s right to be president on the grounds that he was born in Kenya. In the process, she has earned herself $20,000 in court fines.
Now she’s running for the GOP nomination for secretary of state, and with her establishment-backed primary opponent mounting a less-than-stellar campaign against her, operatives say there’s a chance she could win.
“It’d be a disaster for the Republican party,” says James Lacy, a conservative GOP operative in the state. “Can you imagine if [gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman and [candidate for Lt. Gov.] Abel Maldonado — both of whom might have a chance to win in November — had to run with Orly Taitz as secretary of state, who would make her cockamamie issues about Obama’s birth certificate problems at the forefront of her activities?”
“There is no Republican candidate for statewide office that would be willing to have her campaign with them,” says Adam Probolsky, a spokesman for the Orange County Republican Party.
I hope Taitz wins her election tonight because it will shine a bright light on what the Republican Party is becoming. We can hang Taitz and Paul around the necks of Republicans in every race this fall. And it will be very, very helpful in beating back the idea that we’d benefit from a divided government.
That won’t make a damn bit of difference if Democrats, including Obama, keep wanting to act like Herbert Hoover.
Um, yeah. That comment is a bit disconnected from reality. It also ignores a point raised in this piece. One meta-narrative that is rattling around in Americans’ heads it that the government is taking on absurd quantities of debt and that it’s basically unconscionable. Making largely symbolic budget cuts in the general operating expenses of our various government departments is an effort to address that meta-narrative without substantively addressing it. It’s only politics and means nothing, either negatively or positively.
So you don’t believe Krugman? .. and if it’s what you think it is … why the nonsense with the Deficit Commission?
Nonsense with the Deficit Commission? The current debt is 13,050,588,009,652.62.
And that’s a drop in the bucket compared what we’re already obligated to spend in the future.
Sane budgeting holds off on deficit spending until a rainy day when the economy needs stimulus. It does not build in budget deficits, nor run deficits every year since 1969.
We are currently in a rainy season which is forcing us to spend hundreds of billions of our children’s dollars just to keep employment from collapsing. And you think the idea of attacking our structural long-term debt is nonsense?
White House is ordering its agencies to cut 5% of their budget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/07/AR2010060704832.html?hpid=topnews
Detail:
Previous administrations have asked agency heads to justify programs, but budget analysts said they could not recall a time when agencies had been ordered to volunteer programs for elimination. To encourage cooperation, Obama also will ask Congress for new authority to let agencies keep half the savings they identify, administration officials said. The agencies could then put the cash toward higher priorities rather than surrendering it all for deficit reduction, as is typical.
I suppose it COULD work but isn’t cutting government jobs in a recession not a good thing?
Well not technically a recession, but for regular people it is.
I’m going with Yglesias on this.
Does that mean the cut would only be 2.5% if the agencies are keeping half the savings?
Also, does the budget cut necessarily all come out of salaries? I’m no government-hater by any means, but have to believe that there are 2.5 or 5 percent worth of genuine waste that could be cut without damage. In the current economy, even salary/benefit cuts wouldn’t seem all that draconian.
I think we make a mistake as Dems/liberals/lefties/whatever if we automatically treat deficit reduction as a bad thing.
Yeah, they get to keep a dollar for every two they cut.
if she wins, I will crack up
mentally or laughing?