3/27: The Budget That Wasn't

NBC's First Read described yesterday's House GOP budget rollout as "a P.R. disaster for the GOP," and a quick scan of the blogosphere confirms the accuracy of that description. Liberal bloggers are ridiculing the House GOP leadership for unveiling a 19-page document that contains "no hard spending numbers or deficit projections." Ezra Klein snarks: "[It] reads like what would happen if The Onion put together a budget: 'Area Man Releases Proposal for 2010 Federal Spending Priorities.'" Meanwhile, Steve Benen writes: "If Republicans aren't going to take their own ideas seriously, why should anyone else?"

Most conservative bloggers haven't mentioned the GOP alternative budget, but the few who did were disappointed by the lack of details. David Freddoso complains: "[A]fter all of the buildup about the Republican budget, I would have liked to see a budget. Even a one-page budget. [...] But this...well, it's a bottle full of air." Philip Klein agrees, suggesting that the House GOP leadership should have "wait[ed] an extra week to release a serious alternative, rather than rush out a half-baked proposal with few specifics that would be easy to mock." At this point, bloggers on the left and right are both eagerly anticipating the more detailed budget that GOP leaders plan to unveil next week. Liberals will undoubtedly tear it apart, while conservatives will undoubtedly praise it as a superior (and more fiscally responsible) alternative to Pres. Obama's.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Black, Morrill, Bowers, Orton, Benen) are criticizing Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) after he defended his Senate Blue Dog caucus by saying: "We literally have no agenda. How can [liberal groups] be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?"
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Yousefzadeh, Malkin, Hewitt) are buzzing about yesterday's Chicago Tribune article detailing how WH CoS Rahm Emanuel "made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint" on Freddie Mac's board.
• Liberal bloggers (Wheeler, Waldman, Aravosis, Willis) are accusing Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) of operating in bad faith after he proposed "a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public."

GOP BUDGET: Is This A Joke?

Liberal bloggers are mocking the House GOP leadership after it unveiled a 19-page alternative budget that contained "no hard spending numbers or deficit projections":

• Klein: "If you're having a bad day, I highly encourage you to spend some quality time with the Republican budget proposal. [It] reads like what would happen if The Onion put together a budget. 'Area Man Releases Proposal for 2010 Federal Spending Priorities.'"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "For some reason or another, the Republican leadership held a press conference, held up a blue binder that allegedly held a budget, but didn't really, and the results were pretty disastrous."
• TPM's Elana Schor: "Where's the actual budget? You know, the numbers that show deficit projections and discretionary spending?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The big news is that there really is no GOP budget. No numbers, no ideas, no details, no plan. They are the party of 'NO' -- No future."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I've been trying to figure out what to say about the House Republicans' new 'budget'. I think it's pretty neat that they decided to use those cute bubbles instead of numbers. Maybe next week they'll present their budget using interpretive dance or little animated jelly beans."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Wow. I guess the Republicans felt they needed to get a handle on this whole 'party of No' meme, the sense that all they did was complain and obstruct rather than offer constructive alternatives. So today, they unveiled their budget alternative, which actually wasn't a budget at all, if by budget you mean, ya know, numbers and stuff. But never again let it be said that Republicans don't know how to bind 18 pages together into a presentable packet."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "So taking a first glance at the Republicans' alternative budget proposal, the striking thing is the total lack of real budget numbers. It's full of complaints that the CBO score of Obama's budget leaves the deficit too high -- they have charts and graphs and everything -- but no charts and graphs about the deficits that would be created by their own proposals. After all, as best I can tell they're not proposing drastic cuts to Social Security or to Medicare or to defense but they are promising lower taxes. This should leave them with spending that's not all that much lower than Obama's spending, but revenues that are wildly lower."
• dday: "The President and his team walked into the worst economic crisis in decades [...]. A smart political opposition could take this environment and turn it to their advantage. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, we don't have one of those. We have one actual political party and a conservative know-nothing rump faction which literally has absolutely no ideas about how to capitalize on this political moment. They released a budget plan today without numbers. No, really."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If Republicans aren't going to take their own ideas seriously, why should anyone else?"

Other liberal bloggers are ridiculing the charts in the GOP budget. Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Jed Lewison snarks: "You know how the GOP promised to propose a budget today, but failed to deliver? Well, do you know when they've repromised to deliver it? Wednesday. Wednesday, April 1. April Fool's Day. The GOP is now promising to deliver its budget on April Fool's Day. They are gold. Pure gold. Pure fool's gold."

GOP BUDGET II: Where's The Beef?

Conservative bloggers were disappointed by the lack of details in the GOP budget:

• NRO's Freddoso: "[A]fter all of the buildup about the Republican budget, I would have liked to see a budget. Even a one-page budget. Frankly, Obama's budget is so bad that I would just like the consolation of seeing someone in power present a realistic plan that doesn't involve tripling the national debt in 10 years. But this...well, it's a bottle full of air. One cannot help but get the impression that Obama's challenge to present an alternative caught the Republicans unprepared. It's great that they're going to present an alternative budget, but it's a bit disappointing to be promised a budget and to get a general statement of policies instead."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "[D]espite the macho talk, the 19-page document [House Min. Leader John] Boehner waved included general proposals, but no actual projections of how it would impact the deficit relative to the White House budget. Pretty soon, Republicans were downplaying the booklet as a mere blueprint of their actual budget, to be released next week. And the Politico reported infighting among Republicans, because some members felt (rightly, in my view) that it would be better to wait an extra week to release a serious alternative, rather than rush out a half-baked proposal with few specifics that would be easy to mock. [...] Many conservatives continue to underestimate Obama, pinning him as some naive rube who is in over his head and unable [to] speak without a telepromter. But, while his policies may be dangerous, he remains a skilled politician, and he played this one beautifully."

In a separate post, Klein offers a more specific critique of the GOP budget: "Overall, the biggest problem with the Republican budget is for all of its justified outrage about the exploding debt created by Obama's budget, it makes no serious effort to cut entitlement spending. Sure, there are some fixes around the edges. It would ask wealthier seniors on Medicare to pay more for prescription drugs, allows states more flexibility on Medicaid, and promises to reduce 'waste, fraud, and abuse' of Medicare. That's simply not going to cut it when we're facing a $56 trillion long-term entitlement deficit. It doesn't mention any plans for Social Security. What's alarming is that Republicans are surrendering too much ground to liberals."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis is growing increasingly frustrated with the GOP congressional leadership: "Clearly, John Boehner and [Senate Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell are not equipped or prepared to lead any sort of revolution -- but I'm also beginning to think the same sadly holds true for younger Members of Congress like [House Min. Whip] Eric Cantor and [WI Rep.] Paul Ryan -- both of whom voted for the punitive AIG bonus tax, for example. [...] My guess is conservatives must look outside DC for inspiring young leaders who haven't been beaten-down by DC, who are still bold enough to espouse 'bold colors -- no pale pastels'..."

BAYH: What's The Point Of Forming A Group With No Agenda?

Yesterday we noted that liberal bloggers have been harshly criticizing the moderate Dem coalition created by Sen. Bayh. Yesterday, Bayh responded to his progressive critics by telling Politico, "We literally have no agenda. How can they be threatened by a group that has taken no policy positions?" Liberal bloggers think Bayh's comments are absurd:

• Atrios: "I was going to ask what exactly the point of a congressional group which has taken no positions on anything was, but then I realized the answer was 'getting on the teevee and having David Broder say nice things about me.' Still, if Evan Bayh wants to walk around town with a 'Kick Me' sign on his back I guess he's free to do so."
• Daily Kos' BarbinMD: "His group has no agenda? Then why is it that last week you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting Bayh as he appeared on one cable news show after another, talking about his group's agenda? Bottom line, Senator Bayh? Don't complain about the reaction you get after you litter the airways with vague, smiling threats about getting your own way."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "So what's the point? If Bayh refutes the notion that his caucus of self-appointed moderates disagrees with Obama's agenda, then why tie a ribbon around yourself? Does anyone think there's anything here besides an attempt to stay somehow relevant? The Washington political media loves this type of posturing, but is there substance?"
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "[This is] exactly the problem. If there were a 'moderate' agenda, perhaps you could argue it on the merits. But the moderate agenda seems to be focused on making sure people who actually have ideas about policy are considered extreme."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Well Senator Bayh, how can you be for a group, and in fact organize a group, that has no agenda? And anyway, if you don't have an agenda, then how was the group even formed? Was it a random lottery of United States citizens that just happened to select 15 people who were all members of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate? If the group has no agenda, then how was your press release for the group constructed? Was it a dada production where newspapers were cut up, and words were glued randomly to the page? And if the group has no agenda, then should we expect all future votes from the group members to be completely random in nature?"

Benen, on the other hand, thinks Bayh is being disingenuous: "The problem, of course, is that people feel 'threatened' because Bayh and the Blue Dogs do have an agenda, and we've already seen some of their policy positions. The Wall Street Journal noted this morning that the working group's stated goal is to 'protect business interests.' [...] Americans elected Democrats to hold a 58-seat majority in the Senate, and yet, the majority party will struggle to pass it's agenda -- a popular agenda, mind you -- because of Republican obstructionism, and Democrats who prefer to drive with their foot on the brake."

EMANUEL: Why Isn't Congress Taxing His Bonuses?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about yesterday's Chicago Tribune article detailing how Emanuel "made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint" on Freddie Mac's board:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Capitol Hill exploded in outrage this month when AIG paid retention bonuses to the employees it brought on board to rescue the company from the shoals. What about people in high government office who profited from unethical behavior during the period when the damage got done? Congress could start demanding refunds from those people -- like, say, Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel."
• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Read the story and one will see that a lot of easy money was made for very little work -- save the work done by people like Emanuel to ignore shenanigans like accounting tricks that were meant 'to mislead shareholders,' and 'illegally using corporate resources' to raise funds for politicians -- and getting fined for it. Such shoddy business practices and unethical behavior helped lead to Freddie Mac becoming nearly insolvent and being taken over by the government. And Rahm Emanuel got rich in the meantime."
• Michelle Malkin: "So, when's the ACORN/MSM-chartered bus to Rahm's (illegal) apartment departing to protest his ill-gotten gains?"
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Would [ex-WH CoS] Karl Rove have survived on the White House staff after such a story? Would any Republican?"

ISSA: What's He Got Against Michelle?

Liberal bloggers are accusing Rep. Issa of operating in bad faith after he proposed "a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama> and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public":

• Firedoglake's emptywheel: "I'm honestly not surprised that Darrell Issa is so insecure in the face of Michelle Obama's buff triceps that he is now trying to regulate her. [...] But I want to know where the fuck Darrell Issa was when we were trying to protect 'the historic role of the Vice President' for the last eight years?!?!? I mean, Issa had no problem with Mr. Fourth Branch conducting major policy work in hiding. But apparently he has decided now is the time to regulate Veeps and First Ladies."
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "[I]sn't it interesting that the mere fact that the measure is being proposed by Darrell Issa (R-CA-49) makes you suspect that he's got no serious interest in this other than being a dick?"
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The House Republicans are now afraid of Michelle Obama. Not that they shouldn't be. The woman could clearly kick most of their asses. But they're so afraid of her that they're now trying to pass laws reining her in? The Republican obsession with targeting their enemies' wives is alive and well in the form of GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California."
• Oliver Willis: "My memory may be rusty but it feels like [GOPers] waited until at least the six month point to completely lose their marbles against President Clinton. Then again, we know the Obamas are more exotic *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* than the Clintons."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: What's The Role Of A White House Correspondent?

On Wednesday we observed that liberal bloggers took a lot of pleasure in Obama's pithy response to a question from CNN's Ed Henry during Tuesday night's press conference. Henry subsequently wrote a column about the exchange in which he explained that his "strategy" going into the press conference was to "make news on something unexpected." Ezra Klein thinks Henry's incentives are out of whack:

"'Make news' is an interesting formulation for a reporter. I'm pretty sure the J School graduates are taught to 'report' news, or maybe 'explain' news. But creating news is rather a different goal. Inserting himself into the story, however, is well-aligned with Ed Henry's incentives. A lot more people know Ed Henry's name today than did a week ago. Henry can now write a column congratulating himself for standing tall in the face of the President's ire. It's similarly well-aligned with his industry's incentives. Though the American people might appreciate seeing the President offer a substantive explanation of his policy ideas -- 32 million of them, after all, watched the press conference for exactly that -- it's not the sort of thing that the cable channels can replay in bite-sized chunks. They're better off 'making' a new news story that can lead tomorrow's Situation Room."

LEST WE FORGET: Nature Decays, But Latinum Lasts Forever

Yglesias:

"With Fox News and [Matt] Drudge stoking fears of a new global currency the question naturally arises of what to call the currency. One option, based on analogy with the Euro, would be to call it the Globo. On the other hand, part of the appeal of 'Euro' is that it's solid multi-lingual word -- something that works as well in Portugese as it does in Finnish. On the world-wide scale, I'm not sure there's anything truly similar that works.

One leading contender in the future monetary policy literature is the 'credit' found in Galactic Empire's as varied as George Lucas' and Isaac Asimov's. There's also the 'cubit' from Battlestar [Galactica] which actually manages to stay in use despite the near-total destruction of humanity.

But Glenn Beck should consider that the left's agenda goes considerably beyond a black helicopter-based global monetary system. The ultimate aim is to establish a Star Trek-style post-capitalist society in which there's no currency whatsoever. Fortunately, the Trek universe does provide some refuge for the right -- the Ferengi who stand strong against the collectivist proclivities of their Alpha Quadrant neighbors. They, of course, have moved beyond fiat currency to a sound money system based on the un-replicatable liquid latinum; used in its gold-pressed form as a convenient means of exchange."