I rather badly want to have been the person who first came up with that phrase, in fact. I feel that I need to get this on the record. Anyway, if you were looking for a recap on the entire didn’t-turn-out-as-intended climate alarmist attack on the Heartland Institute by – well, I suppose that it has not been proven in a court of law that Peter Gleick was responsible for the forged memo, so we’ll go with “person or persons unknown who could conceivably have the initials ‘P.G.’” and be done with it. Anyway, this is a pretty good recap : it describes the initial ‘data’ dump, identifies the central trouble with it (essentially, the central document is a farrago of nonsense and lies, and absent it the ‘supporting’ documents are thoroughly innocuous ), notes the ghoulish zeal with which alarmist blogs treated the original ‘revelation’… and ruthlessly spotlights the petulant refusal of most of said alarmists to admit that the whole thing exploded in their face. Relatively speaking, of course: the media was happy to memory-hole this one. Which, by the way, is one reason why support for this particular branch of for radical green theology has declined over the years: contrary to progressives’ fond hopes and dreams, rigid control over message dissemination only works up to a point. And after that point has been passed, said control only acts as a data point in the opposition’s favor. Yeah, I know that it’s considered bad form to write out things like that; after all, the situation is ultimately rebounding in my side’s favor, so why risk spoiling things? …Which is an argument with some heft to it, but if I thought that my readers truly deserved the mushroom treatment then I would have stayed in the Democratic party. (Via Via Meadia ) Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Yesterday, the Club for Growth released a statement saying that the Ryan budget was “on balance, a disappointment to fiscal conservatives.” We applauded the strong pro-growth reforms in the bill, but the reasons for our opposition were twofold: First, the budget doesn’t balance within 10 years, or for that matter, even 20 years. Our country is currently enduring unsustainable trillion-dollar deficits. We cannot wait until 2040 — the year the Ryan budget balances ( page 84 ) — in order to arrest our ever-growing national debt. Second, we are opposed to how the budget dismantles the annual sequestration spending cuts enacted into law by last year’s Budget Control Act (also known as the debt-limit deal). As you may recall, the debt deal established annual discretionary spending caps for the next ten years. But the debt deal also required additional cuts (both discretionary and mandatory) because the supercommittee failed. Therefore, for the upcoming year, the real number that needs to be achieved, beyond the spending cap, is $110 billion in cuts in total spending authority. But Ryan’s budget achieves less than that: $19 billion in discretionary cuts and $53 billion in cuts to mandatory authority, of which only $18 billion would be included in budget reconciliation, a fast-track process requiring committees to actually pass implementing legislation. House leaders know that they are $39 billion short — and thus, are breaking the terms of the BCA — but they overcompensate for this by promising deeper spending cuts in the out years. In other words, they are kicking the can down the road . . . again. Congress made a solemn promise last year that they would abide by the spending restraints in the Budget Control Act. But already, House Republican leaders are breaking that promise. This is now more than a fiscal problem. It’s a credibility issue. Like we said in our original press release, “It is hard to have confidence that our long-term fiscal challenges will be met responsibly when the same Congress that passed the Budget Control Act wants to ignore it less than one year later.” By breaking the sequester, House Republicans aren’t just spending an extra $39 billion — they are undoing the entire $1.2 trillion sequestration part of the deal. We know Democrats will be more than happy to go along . . . and that will be the worst possible result. Republicans need to uphold the promise they made last year and go even further. As a country, we can no longer afford to kick the can. We must act, and we must act now. Chris Chocola President – Club for Growth
Continued here:
The Club for Growth on the Ryan budget
RedState Morning Briefing March 22, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Forgetting History 2. Marx Madness Redux 3. Mitt Romney: The Consummate Etch A Sketch 4. A Real Solution to the Gridlock Over the Highway Bill ———————————————————————- 1. Forgetting History I have a confession to make. I am a thirty-something pundit on television and radio and I am frequently aggravated by many twenty and thirty-something pundits on television and radio. It is even a non-partisan aggravation. We all make mistakes and I am sure someone can be critical of me for the same reason I find so many up and coming political pundits so aggravating, but I try to do my homework. I do keep a Lexis-Nexis account. I do read my history books. Mistakes happen, but it seems a lot of up and coming soon to be somebodies are making needless mistakes. This may sound like a Matt Lewis inspired “get off my lawn” screed, but put very simply, a lot of pundits of the twenty and thirty-something variety have absolutely no sense of history. For them, partisan politics began at Bush vs. Gore and history did not exist before November of 2000. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Marx Madness Redux My radio producer, Shane, is a genius. And he put this audio montage together in honor of the 2nd anniversary of Obamacare. What to call it? Marx Madness. What to put as background music? Why the national anthem to the USSR of course. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Mitt Romney: The Consummate Etch A Sketch Throughout the presidential campaign, we have been lampooned by the pale-pastel wing of the party for not coalescing around the Romney campaign with alacrity. Our detractors have been stupefied by our stubborn opposition to “the only candidate who can beat Obama;” the man with the requisite resume, funding, organization, intelligence, and persona. We’ve been at a loss to encapsulate our opposition into a one-liner; a bumper sticker. After all, it takes copious pages of ink to explain the extent of Romney’s hypocrisy on the issue of healthcare alone. Yet, late in the 11th hour of the campaign, when it’s probably too late to make a difference, we have finally discovered our symbol that exemplifies Romney. Ironically, it came from his own campaign. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. A Real Solution to the Gridlock Over the Highway Bill As we approach the March 31 expiration date for surface transportation projects, we can take solace in the fact that the House will not vote on two bad bills; Boehner’s original 5-year $260 billion reauthorization and the Senate’s 2-year $109 billion bill. While we push for a more prudent long-term solution, the House will pass a 90-day stopgap bill to continue spending at current levels until the end of July. While funding transportation projects with short-term bills is not ideal, it is better than passing a lousy long-term bill that cannot be altered for several years. Democrats are already launching their cantankerous assaults on the “irresponsible” stopgap bill, but we must remind them of two points that are overlooked in this debate. Please click here for the rest of the post.
See original here:
Morning Briefing for March 22, 2012
We’ll know soon enough as Assad’s elite troops accompanied by tanks began a ground offensive on four fronts to crush the rebel stronghold in Homs. (RT) — A general in the opposition militia known as the Free Syria Army has told journalists that the rebels have received French and American military assistance, amid reports of worsening violence
Visit link:
Syrian Rebel Leader Claims U.S. And France Arming Them With Weapons And Anti-Aircraft Missiles…
I don’t think anybody is objecting to appealing to crossover voters in principle. The question is whether pursuing those voters by hitting Romney on his opposition to the auto bailouts, which Santorum also opposed, really advances conservative principles. (I agree that supporting TARP and opposing the auto bailout makes for bad politics in places like Michigan, but that is a separate question.) I don’t know anybody who thinks it is bad for a Republican to use his conservative positions to attract Democratic votes, as Reagan did.
See the rest here:
Crossover Artists
