Probably wishful thinking, but: Harry Reid is threatening majority-imposed Senate reform, and soon. If it produces reform, it matters; if it gets a few more judges confirmed, it matters. If everyone ignores it and he doesn't follow through...
I don't really have much for "doesn't matter" during this slow news week...I suppose I continue to believe that the North Korea saber-rattling doesn't matter very much, so I'll go with that.
That's what I have. What about you? What do you think mattered this week?
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I don't think that either story really matters because I think both Kim Jong Un and Harry Reid are bluffing. I hope I'm right about Kim and wrong about Reid...
ReplyDeleteThis.
DeleteI know that we already knew it, but the announcement that Obama will put Chained-CPI (and other cuts) into his budget was important. I've come to believe that Obama is not offering entitlement cuts in exchange for tax increases; he really wants these cuts every bit as much as he wants tax increases. And in that case, John Boehner's statement seems perfectly valid to me, "If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes."
ReplyDeleteFor the record: entitlement cuts are a bad idea at any time and tax increases are a bad idea right now. It really does seem that our economy is in the hands of a bunch of incompetents.
This, too.
DeleteI strongly, strongly disagree. Even if I think entitlements should be curtailed (I don't, but even if I did), I think it's fair to make that conditional on everybody else paying their fair share too.
DeleteEntitlement cuts, discretionary spending cuts, and tax increases all effect the same pot of money, and the interests involved in each of these to insist that everyone's ox be gored equally.
It's like your house needs some repair, and you think everyone living in it should pay to fix it. John Boehner is your housemate, and he insists that only you should pay to fix it. Since you both agree that you should pay, but disagree over whether he should pay, he insists that there's no reason that your payment should be held hostage over his payment.
Besides, Obama says that his proposed budget is "not his ideal plan". There's no reason not to take him on his word for that.
Sequestration continues to matter everywhere except DC.
ReplyDeleteThis falls into the category of fundamental changes that are significant events in the course of world history:
ReplyDeleteNewt Gingrich isn’t ruling out a 2016 presidential run.
“I don’t rule it out, but we’re not spending any energy on it,” Gingrich told reporters this morning at a National Review briefing on Capitol Hill.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344697/newt-heads-sc-wont-rule-out-2016-run-robert-costa
I would expect if anything that Senate Republicans will respond to Reid's statement by being even more obstructionist. You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop believing you.
ReplyDeleteReid's threat is different this time. I don't think he's every threatened reform in the current Congress.
DeleteNew gun control passed in Colorado -- proof that Democrats can and will make it happen in libertarian-leaning purple states. Whether that's ultimately better news for the advocates of civilian disarmament or the NRA is yet to be determined.
ReplyDeleteIs the "what mattered" part of Reid's threat isn't the threat itself. It's that Reid flatly declared that the rules can be changed at any time. There were still a fair number of people pretending that wasn't the case.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a very big deal. The next time something is "filibustered", Reid won't have any excuses for demanding a 60-vote majority. It'll be very, very clear that the Democrats are deliberately choosing to allow the vote to fail.
And as a followup, no reporter should be allowed to claim that something died due to a filibuster without explaining that the Democrats were participating in that filibuster.
Delete