GOP Budget Hypocrisy is Boundless

[Buzz]

Seems the Republicans want to pass a law that requires budget offsets for any spending increases. Sounds like a good idea no? Except...

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...-health-reform

The House Republican leadership has announced it will enact two things immediately upon taking control of the House this week: a new "CutGo" rule to require revenue offsets for any increases in spending, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act health reform law.
The Republicans might want to pass health reform repeal first.
Because if they install "CutGo" rules first, they won't be able to repeal health reform without also finding $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next two decades to make up for the taxpayer savings they'll be throwing away.
At minimum, if the House GOP doesn't feel bound by the Congressional Budget Office's nontraditional long-range forecast -- which was provided because the bulk of the estimated deficit reduction would occur in the second decade of implementation -- it would at least need to offset the $143 billion that the traditional CBO estimates would be saved by health reform in this decade.

Except that...

(UPDATE: I overestimated the House GOP's creativity. The New York Times reported that the "CutGo" rule will simply have a loophole exempting the repeal of health reform. Hat tip: Alec82.)

See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us...1&pagewanted=2

Under new rules drafted by House Republicans in an effort to bolster fiscal discipline, lawmakers must show how they will pay for legislation that increases the deficit. But a bill repealing the health care law would be explicitly exempted from that requirement.

Why would they have to put this loophole in their bill if HCR was going to cost a trillion dollars as they keep saying?

Freaking lying hypocrites!

[david gibson]

waaaaaaaaahhhh!!! wahhh - waaaaaaaaahh!

[JDogger]

waaaaaaaaahhhh!!! wahhh - waaaaaaaaahh!

Ya see RK? Dripping snarky, just dripping...

[Steve Hester]

Except that...

Why would they have to put this loophole in their bill if HCR was going to cost a trillion dollars as they keep saying?

Freaking lying hypocrites!

Probably because that's the only way the Democrats would even begin to support it... You know, get the bill passed, then gut Obamacare..

[road kill]

Ya see RK? Dripping snarky, just dripping...

Actually, that's calling a spade a spade.



RK

[dnf777]

Yeah, I just bought a truck from our new representative. (a politican who's a car dealer.....Hmmmmm)

Any-hoo, he part of the new republican freshman class who will usher in the era of financial responsibility and austerity. And just to prove it, they're throwing themselves an oppulent multi-million dollar soiree at DC's swankiest hotel! (now I know, some rich billionaire is probably paying out of pocket for this, so its ok!)

[road kill]

Yeah, I just bought a truck from our new representative. (a politican who's a car dealer.....Hmmmmm)

Any-hoo, he part of the new republican freshman class who will usher in the era of financial responsibility and austerity. And just to prove it, they're throwing themselves an oppulent multi-million dollar soiree at DC's swankiest hotel! (now I know, some rich billionaire is probably paying out of pocket for this, so its ok!)

Where are they holding this party??

Hawaii???


RK

[mjh345]

Probably because that's the only way the Democrats would even begin to support it...

Therein lies one of the biggest problems in the legislative process

[david gibson]

Ya see RK? Dripping snarky, just dripping...

snark·y
   /ˈsnɑrki/[snahr-kee]

–adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang .
testy or irritable; short.

i would hardly call my post irritable - that however is a perfect description of your post. mine is satire, poking fun, teasing, mocking, razzing.

see if you can find a better word, but "snarky" aint quite it.

[Buzz]

Yeah, I just bought a truck from our new representative. (a politican who's a car dealer.....Hmmmmm)

Any-hoo, he part of the new republican freshman class who will usher in the era of financial responsibility and austerity. And just to prove it, they're throwing themselves an oppulent multi-million dollar soiree at DC's swankiest hotel! (now I know, some rich billionaire is probably paying out of pocket for this, so its ok!)

The new gov of Michigan just threw a big expensive bash for his inauguration and in defense they said it was funded by private donations. Yup, I really feel a lot better knowing that the gov of my old home state is living it up on private funds. No conflict of interest there.

But that wasn't the point of my original post. I was kind of mocking them for shouting from the rooftops about how much Obamacare was going to cost taxpayers, but then they had to put an exclusion into their new cutgo bill because surprise, getting rid of it is going to cast taxpayers money!