4/2: You Can't Be Serious!

After ridiculing the 19-page alternative budget that the House GOP leadership released last week, liberal bloggers are now attacking the more detailed version that was released yesterday. Lefty bloggers are calling the GOP budget "ridiculous" and are describing the GOP House leaders as "clinically insane". The netroots were particularly critical of the GOP proposal to impose a five-year freeze on "discretionary spending," which Ezra Klein notes is "far beyond anything George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan ever contemplated." Liberal bloggers believe that a five-year spending freeze would have disastrous consequences in an economic recession, and they're accusing House GOPers of pandering to their conservative base instead of proposing a serious alternative to Pres. Obama's budget.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Allahpundit, Johnson, Emanuel) are criticizing Obama for giving Britain's Queen Elizabeth II "a video iPod with inscription, songs uploaded and accessories, plus a rare musical songbook signed by Richard Rodgers."
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Klein, Lopez) are buzzing about a new Quinnipiac poll showing ex-Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) leading Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) by 16 pts in a hypothetical 2010 Senate race.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Atrios, Bowers, Lemos) are criticizing prominent conservative blogger Erick Erickson for suggesting that "rage is building" and that armed "riots" are imminent.

GOP BUDGET: A Five-Year Spending Freeze? Why Not?

Liberal bloggers are slamming the House GOP leadership's alternative budget:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "On taxes, spending, Social Security, Medicare, energy policy, the Republicans' budget isn't just wrong, it's ridiculous. The party failed miserably at governing, and yet, it apparently hasn't quite hit rock bottom when it comes to credibility and seriousness."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[GOP Rep.] Paul Ryan reaches deep into the conservative movement's storehouse of ideas on America's most pressing policy programs and comes up with an innovative agenda of tax cuts mostly tilted toward the wealthy and corporations paired with a five-year freeze on discretionary spending. If, superficially, this seems like a warmed-over version of the [John] McCain campaign economic agenda that the voters rejected just a few months ago, you need to pay more attention -- McCain was just calling for a one-year freeze on discretionary spending after which reductions in government outlays would be achieved by magic. Ryan, by contrast, is proposing a five-year freeze."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "[T]he Republicans running things in the House GOP caucus are still as clinically insane as in years past. We see today from their House GOP 'budget' that their new-found allegiance to fiscal discipline has them lowering the top marginal tax rate to 25% (it's currently 35%, with the Bush tax cuts), which for anyone who knows anything about the federal budget would pretty much inevitably lead to gargantuan federal deficits and the Treasury exploding probably some time early in the next decade. They manage to still have the deficits coming down by bunch of nonsense hokum about oil rigs and other foolery."

Lefty bloggers were particularly critical of the GOP's proposal to impose a five-year freeze on "discretionary spending":

• Klein: "A five-year spending freeze is far beyond anything George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan ever contemplated. It's not what you do when you're responsible for running the government. It's what you propose when you're responsible for running the messaging."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The gist of [the plan] is the classic, time-tested approach taken by 'fiscal conservatives' who are too gutless to propose actual, concrete spending cuts: an across-the-board spending freeze. (Except for the Pentagon, natch, because they're such paragons of efficient procurement.) That way they can release a 53-page document without taking the political risk of naming an actual program that will get cut."
• The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca: "Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created. Smart!"

GOP BUDGET II: Why Would People Choose To Pay More Taxes?

Liberal bloggers are also accusing the GOP of using budget gimmicks in order to ensure that their proposed tax cut didn't blow up the deficit. The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim explains:

"The Republican budget blueprint released last week called for 'a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter,' which would result in a massive reduction in government revenue and a generous tax break for the wealthy, who currently pay a 35 percent rate. [...T]he real way that Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget's revenue is to suggest that Americans won't actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure that resulted from those cuts. In other words, Republicans are assuming that given the choice between a higher rate and a lower rate, Americans will choose the higher rate."

Lefty bloggers are accusing the House GOPers of being dishonest:

• Cesca: "[G]et this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?"
• Benen: "If you like the tax system left by Bush/Cheney, you could choose to stick with it. Or, if you prefer the lower rates proposed by GOP lawmakers, you could choose to go that route, instead. Of course, the current top rate, applied to the wealthiest Americans, is 35%. Republicans support a proposal that would let the rich choose between paying a 35% marginal rate or a 25% marginal rate. I wonder which one they'd choose? But that's not the funny part. The hilarious angle to this is that the House Republicans run enormous budget deficits while assuming the top earners would voluntarily pay the higher rate."
• Yglesias: "It would be nice to have a real debate between progressive and conservative ideas about the course of public policy instead of needing to spend all this time hunting around for gimmicks."

GOP BUDGET III: Paul Ryan's Awesome Graph

Liberal bloggers were particularly critical of the graph that Rep. Ryan placed next to his Wall Street Journal op-ed introducing the GOP budget. Lefty bloggers believe that this graph -- which suggests that Dems want gov't spending to comprise 50% of the GDP by 2060 -- is dishonest:

• Marshall: "As you can see, predicting ideological stances over as yet unborn Democratic members of Congress, the GOP scoring appears to have us on track for the government owning about 90% of the economy in the early-mid-22nd century, which if I remember is about the time period of the invention of the warp drive. So I don't know if they've figured that in too."
• dday: "[The GOP] helpfully scored the competing budgets over a 70-year time-frame, and while I think they're off a bit in 2072, you can plainly see that government under Robot Obama, who will be governing until he is 117, will explode in size."
• Cesca: "[S]uggesting a deficit that's 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that's 50 percent marshmallow man. It's insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 -- 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Philip Klein complains that the GOP budget doesn't adequately address the deficit: "[I]t shouldn't surprise readers of this blog to know that while I think the GOP alternative would be preferable to the Obama plan, I don't think it goes far enough in terms of really attacking runaway spending. In fact, if Republicans could actually get their way, we'd still be looking at the debt exploding from the $5.8 trillion it was in 2008 to $13.7 trillion by 2019, or from 40.8 percent of GDP to 65.1 percent. For American taxpayers, it really is choosing between Scylla and Charybdis."

OBAMA: Another Crappy Gift?

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of making a diplomatic error by giving Queen Elizabeth II "a video iPod with inscription, songs uploaded and accessories, plus a rare musical songbook signed by Richard Rodgers":

• Michelle Malkin: "My kids love those Kidzbop music CDs. I hope the Queen of Englad is enjoying the Queenzbop playlist our cheesy president chose for her iPod. [...] The Age of Obama: It's the April Fool's Day that never ends."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "President Obama's gift to the Queen was...an iPod? Wow. At least it wasn't cheesy American region 1 DVDs..."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Because, after all, nothing says 'special relationship' like a gadget you can buy in every mall in the western world. What'd he get Prince Philip? An Xbox? [...] Turns out there was more loaded on there than just 2007 mementos. [ABC News' Jake] Tapper shares the somewhat horrifying detail that they added some music for her too, leaving us to wonder what America's diplomatic brain trust considers appropriate for a royal mix tape. [...] Seriously, none of this merits a firing or three in the protocol office?"
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "[A]ccording to Jake Tapper, Obama outdid himself. He extended the Queen, not Queen's greatest hits, but rather Obama's greatest hits and more. Tapper reports that Obama gave the Queen an iPod loaded with fabulosities including Broadway show tunes, photos of Obama's inauguration, audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and audio of Obama 2009 inaugural address. Unfortunately, Obama must have forgotten the autographed compact disc of himself reading Dreams From My Father on the tarmac in Washington. Maybe next time!"

Liberal blogger John Cole pushes back: "I find it endlessly amusing that the usual suspects keep getting the vapors about what gifts President Obama gives people, but if the autographed Rodgers and Hammerstein songbook and IPod aren't good enough for the Queen, that is just tough for her. [...] I guess it could have been worse, wingnuts. He could have given her a backrub."

Meanwhile, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan notes that The Guardian's Michael White praised Obama's gift as one "that managed to combine thoughtfulness, modernity and a dash of history."

DODD: Crashing

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about the new Quinnipiac poll showing ex-Rep. Simmons leading Sen. Dodd 50-34% in a hypothetical 2010 Senate race:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Even without [CNBC host Larry] Kudlow Running, Dodd can lose."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Get this man a sinecure in Academia! Chris Dodd looks like he will need a golden parachute in 2010, if he chooses to run for re-election to the Senate at all. The man who thought he could win his party's nomination for President now looks like he couldn't get elected dogcatcher in his own state, according to the latest poll from Quinnipiac. [...] If those numbers don't improve dramatically, Dodd can't run for re-election. In fact, it's hard to imagine that the Democrats would let him. Maybe Barack Obama will provide a nice escape hatch for Dodd, perhaps replacing Dan Rooney as Ambassador to Ireland in 2010. I hear he already has quite the house there."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "While Republicans are no doubt salivating at their oppourtunity here, they shouldn't get too far ahead of themselves. If things continue to look this bad for Dodd, he'll most likely be challenged in the Democratic primaries, perhaps by Ned Lamont, who of course won the 2006 Democratic primary against Joe Lieberman before Lieberman became an independent. And in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, a Democrat without Dodd's baggage would have a good chance of holding the seat, especially because ads will Rebulicanize somebody like Simmons in a general election. For that reason, I'd be curious to see how Simmons would poll against other Democrats."

ERICKSON: Give Me Dishwasher Detergent Made With Phosphates, Or Give Me Death!

Liberal bloggers are criticizing prominent conservative blogger Erickson (the managing editor of RedState) after he made the following comments about a Spokane, Washington law banning "dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution":

"At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot? At some point soon, it will happen. It'll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. [...] Were I in Washington State, I'd be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation."

• Yglesias: "At issue here is...an environmental regulation relating to dishwasher detergent. I think it's safe to say that we're not going to see violence in the streets over this one. [...] But recall that it used to be considered beyond-the-pale for liberal bloggers to sometimes use naughty words. You see, though, that the minute conservatives lose power they go back to 1990s-style incitements to violence."
• Benen: "Yes, Erick Erickson is recommending residents of Washington state prepare for mob violence in the streets because state lawmakers are prohibiting dishwasher detergents that contribute to water pollution. Let's also not forget that Erickson is not a fringe, obscure right-wing blogger, but a prominent conservative voice and a writer popular in the Bush White House."
• Atrios: "I've long rolled my eyes about armchair revolutionaries, the ones who dream of revolution but can't quite manage to get out of their chairs. We do have people on our 'side' who express such sentiments, but they're limited to anonymous people in comments sections and not, you know, prominent bloggers and commentators."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "So, Erick Erickson of Red State wants people in Washington State to start dragging state legislators into the street, and beat them into a bloody pulp, over a new law mandating higher environmental regulations on dishwasher detergent. Or, maybe that isn't exactly what he wants, but he certainly implies that he wouldn't object on the off chance that people reading his blog might actually decide to start doing that. Such action is worth considering, according to Erickson, and he is going to give his gun a good cleaning."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "Good thing Erick Erickson lives down in Georgia and not up in Washington State. Otherwise, we might have ourselves the 'Cascade Revolution.'"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It's The Economy, Stupid

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison discusses the NY-20 special election:

"What is absolutely amazing about the outcome [Tuesday] night is that Murphy declared his opposition to the death penalty, even in cases of terrorist attacks, and he may have won anyway. It is possible that his victory, like [Don] Cazayoux's in Louisiana, will be short-lived and will be reversed in 2010 because of this and similar issues. Murphy's stance on this is fairly left-leaning for someone who wants to join the Blue Dog caucus, but instead of becoming a huge liability it barely registered. It barely registered despite an NRCC ad highlighting this position. Four years ago, to say nothing of seven years ago, he could not have survived politically had he taken the same position. One of the interesting things about this race, then, is the degree to which economic issues have completely overwhelmed the old politics of national security and terrorism on which the GOP relied since '02, and they have done so even in one of the more culturally conservative districts in that part of the country."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Depressed, Distant Since 'Battlestar Galactica' Series Finale

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- According to sources in the White House, President Barack Obama has been uncharacteristically distant and withdrawn ever since last month's two-hour series finale of Battlestar Galactica.

'The president seems to be someplace else lately,' said one high-level official, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'Yesterday we were all being briefed on the encroachment of Iranian drone planes into Iraq, when he just looked up from the table and blurted out, "What am I supposed to watch on Fridays at 10 p.m. now? Numb3rs?"' [...]

Since the end of the series, Obama has reportedly brushed off key budgetary decisions, ignored his wife and children, and neglected his daily workouts, claiming that he no longer cares if he lets himself go 'just like Lee did before the rescue on New Caprica.'"