tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post5419149501626824988..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Deficit Reality and SideshowsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-13223231714448012082010-05-01T15:08:07.790-05:002010-05-01T15:08:07.790-05:00Here's the thing about so-called "deficit...Here's the thing about so-called "deficit hawks." They only appear during Democratic administrations. It's a phony issue that is ginned up by the Republicans, and reporters who diligently and obediently write up the issue like good little stenographers. Because, you know, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Think I'm exaggerating?<br /><br />Take a look at this pdf. It is a comprehensive, detailed <a href="http://www.fabmac.com/7-07%20National%20GOP%20--%20Presidential%20Results.pdf" rel="nofollow">survey</a> by GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio, comparing the changing trends in the Republican Party between 1997 and 2007. The whole thing is fascinating, but I direct you to pages 14 and 15. Page 14 shows that the so-called "deficit hawks" comprised around 30% of the GOP in 1997. Page 15 shows the complete disappearance of the "deficit hawk" brigade during the Bush Administration. Fabrizio addresses some questions garnered by the work here <a href="http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2007/08/06/update_tony_fabrizio_checks_in/" rel="nofollow">UPDATE: Tony Fabrizio Checks In - Swampland - TIME.com</a>. Let us not forget Bush took us from a $128 billion budget surplus to a deficit of $800 billion dollars when he left office.<br /><br /><br />I'd love to see a followup on that study now. Are the GOP "deficit hawks" back? You betcha!Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-65870172736245840412010-05-01T10:51:51.559-05:002010-05-01T10:51:51.559-05:00"Why are deficit hawks whining that no one wi..."Why are deficit hawks whining that no one will do anything about the deficit, instead of applauding what the Dems just did (and, if they want, asking for more)?"<br /><br />That's what I want to know, specifically about the non-partisan deficit hawks. If they really were concerned about the deficit, I would think they would try to encourage good behavior, and they certainly fail to do that if they do not acknowledge that one party is doing better than another. So why the refusal to give credit where it's due? It's almost as if they cared more about being heard carping about the deficit than about the deficit itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60162901888119844812010-04-30T17:36:13.747-05:002010-04-30T17:36:13.747-05:00It would be do whatever it was supposed to do. I&...It would be do whatever it was supposed to do. I'm in favor of a Truth Commission that was intended to (1) fully document what happened, and (2) demonstrate, as much as possible, the elite consensus against torture outside of the Cheney faction. Put together a commission intended to do that, and I think it would succeed.<br /><br />Of course, you also have to get people to testify, which is the point of pardons -- which, by the way, would only cover past conduct, not future perjury.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11385521530211100922010-04-30T17:03:47.815-05:002010-04-30T17:03:47.815-05:00Hmmm. Jonathan. You certainly have a dim view of C...Hmmm. Jonathan. You certainly have a dim view of Commissions. And I wholeheartedly agree with you, in every respect. Especially this: "One hopes that by the time the commission reports back, everyone's forgotten about the urgency that made the commission necessary in the first place, and the commission report can be safely filed away.<br /><br />Now, about that Truth and Reconciliation Commission we talked about the other day....Jamesnoreply@blogger.com