Virginia's National Embarrassment

Earlier this week when Eric Cantor called for "offsets" before tornado victims in the midwest could be helped by the Federal Government I decided not to write about it because I assumed it was a speaking error and the Congressman was probably embarrassed at the way his own comments came out.

Apparently I was wrong.  Today Cantor doubled-down on his idiotic remarks.  Playing politics with disaster victims is reprehensible.

It's also worth noting that Cantor's Chief of Staff Steve Stombres is also a member of the Fairfax City Council.  Stombres voted to accept every federal stimulus dollar the City applied for as well as balancing the City's budget with federal money each of the last few years since he was elected.  I think this situation also speaks to Steve's character- what kind of person accepts this money for their town but by day works for someone who would delay disaster funding because of an ideological mission?  Voters in the 7th district should can Cantor, but Fairfax City residents should also send him a message by sending the vile Steve Stombres packing also.

Comments

[Max]

Good post.

[Gett]

Virginia, get rid of these fools. What an embarrassment to your state. Aid to Americans with strings attached? GTFOOH!

Good luck Virginia! Vote -Vote - Vote! Against Them!!!!

You have a new democratic contender, check him out!

[Gett]

Virginia, get rid of these fools. What an embarrassment to your state. Aid to Americans with strings attached? GTFOOH!

Good luck Virginia! Vote -Vote - Vote! Against Them!!!!

You have a new democratic contender, check him out!

[Tatum]

The Federal Reserve can just print more money. There's no green ink shortage.

[The Bureau of Engraving and Printing]

Tatum, the Federal Reserve doesn't print money.

[Tatum]

ok. The Federal Reserve will create currency through the purchase Treasury Notes, a.k.a. "Quantitative Easing".

The point is new dollars are created in order to finance this gov't spending.

[tmtfairfax]

Real people of all political beliefs regularly change their spending priorities. Businesses and nonprofits do the same. So do state and local governments, whether they are run by Democrats or by Republicans. It is way past time for the federal government to behave like everyone else in America. If you need to spend for something different and unexpected, cut spending elsewhere. Only in a scummy city like Washington, D.C. and its next door suburbs do people believe that federal spending can go on forever. Both parties just need to understand that the money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the people. Remember that "We the people." Not we the parasites or we the thieves.

[Tatum]

Yes tmtfairfax. That's exactly what's driving Cantor's actions.

Everyone who understands the problem is starting to panic. It's starting to be so widely understood that someone at the NY Times gets it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/business/economy/29gret.html?_r=1

[Thank God for the House GOP]

Cantor doesn't understand what Libs know, which is that the money is printed on a magic printing press that is operated by unicorns and leprechauns, who are also at this very moment writing the Dems' budget alternative to Congressman Ryan's budget.

[Kevin]

Thank God for the House GOP -

Last time I checked, the House just passed a budget for last year that increased the debt yet again. Those fiscal conservatives also passed budget after budget chock-full of debt since the mid-90s. They thought magical tax cuts would increase revenue (talk about believing in unicorns) while helping to enact two wars that were not paid for.

So don't give me this crap about the GOP stopping the fiscal insanity. Your hands are just as bloody.

So yeah, I guess "thank god for the GOP". They'll continue to pass budget deficits laced with pork projects for their constituencies. You'll pretend that they're fiscally conservative and vote for them. Easy game.

[James Young]

I'm curious: what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to engage in charity such as this?

[truthteller]

James, its called the general welfare clause...

And funny for the GOP to be getting all holier than thou about offseting disaster relief years after going into multiple wars (one in Iraq clearly unnecessary) that were not offset, passing a Medicare Part D plan, also not paid for, and making two rounds of tax cuts mostly for the rich (also not offset) which blew the budget wide open. Furthermore after abandoning all pretense of regulatory oversight allowing Wall Street to engage in too much risk taking and bringing about a financial meltdown the legacy of which we are stuck with today, I am sick and tired of sanctimonious professions of fiscal responsibility by born-again supply siders/ budget scrooges and denunciations of free spending liberals. Not to mention, after Katrina, you better believe we spent extra money to pick up the pieces & there would have been hell to pay if they hadn't.

So spare me the sanctimonious lecture and start honoring your responsibility to look out for your neighbor's interests when adversity befalls them. One nation, one people....

[Noticed]

Hey truthteller, How about you and Ben tell us about your chickenhawk president who has clearly invaded Libya for no reason? I mean, Gadhafi had nothing to do with 9/11! Oh, yeah, and Obama signed an extension of the Bush tax rates and kept Gitmo opened. He continues to keep troops in Iraq. He took all kinds of money from Wall Street to get elected and directed all kinds of "bailout" and stimulus money in their dorection. Obama promised to go through the budget "line by line." He criticized Katrina and screwed up the Gulf oil spill response even worse because he didn't want to anger his union buddies. His overspending and inaction on entitlements will bring the biggest financial meltdown in history.

So spare me the sanctimonious lecture and start honoring your responsibility to look out for your NATION'S interests when adversity befalls it. One nation, one people....

[Tom White]

Ben, the country is flat broke. Cantor is simply suggesting we prioritize spending. That is not "playing politics" - rather it is a sound fiscal decision. If we have an unexpected emergency expense at home, it is often necessary to cut out other expenditures to make up the difference. The other option is to borrow money, and we are over $14 Trillion in debt already. Cantor never even hinted at NOT providing financial assistance to the victims.

Now playing politics with disaster victims would be to refuse to declare Virginia Tornado victims or Texas fire victims eligible for disaster assistance and allowing more Democratic friendly states free access to the nation's bank account.

Strange that you fail to call Obama out for playing politics but can't resist going the extra mile for a Republican.

Could it be that you are being a bit dishonest here?

[James Young]

Uh, "truthteller," the "general welfare" clause is in the Preamble, and therefore has no operative effect; certainly NOT to --- as many would --- "promote welfare generally." The enumerated powers granted to Congress are in Article I.

And you won't get an argument from me that Medicare Part D --- in fact, ALL of Medicare --- is unconstitutional. As for Iraq, whether it was WISE is a question different from whether it was CONSTITUTIONAL. We can argue ad infinitum (and probably ad nauseum, too) about the former, but making war is most CERTAINLY constitutional.

As for the rest, well, I know it's summer, but try to cut back on the Kool Aid.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

"Medicare --- is unconstitutional" a new height of stupid for you Jimmy. Exceeded only by the point you missed: Medicare Part D, like Iraq, like tax cuts for the wealthy - all unfunded Republican spending!

[truthteller]

Noticed, who FORCED Obama to extend the unpaid for Bush tax cuts?... Let me see... It was the G - O - P. TARP has been repaid.... as have the Auto Bailouts. And actually the issues with the Deepwater Horizon had NOTHING to do with union anything -- rather with the private sector acting irresponsibly with catastrophic implications!

Finally, I totally second what Bubby is saying. GOPers have a tough time acknowledging that THEIR fiscal policies, NOT OURS have primary causal responsibility for the budget hole we are in. Tax cuts twice unpaid for, Iraq war unpaid for, Part D unpaid for.

Also, James, I want you to cite me the ruling where SCOTUS has ruled Medicare Unconstitutional.... Hmmm. You can't? Maybe because it hasn't happened.

[truthteller]

Oh and by the way, Tom White, when you say not only must the aid be paid for but you must fundamentally alter Medicare the way we insist you deliver it in order for us to release the funding, as Eric Cantor has indeed done that IS REFUSING AID to people in need by taking political hostages to force changes that have 80% disapproval in the rest of the nation

[VAPolitico]

Actually James, there is another place where Congress IS authorized to act for the general welfare...

I'll let you find it for yourself since you're such a know-it-all...who's wrong.

[Noticed]

"truthteller," go back to snorting your coke, or whatever you do. Obama was not FORCED to sign anything. I mean, if he thinks higher taxes were such a great idea, he could have gotten Pelosi and Reid to keep the extension of the Bush tax rates off the schedule. Or he could have vetoed the bill that Congress passed. What he did flew in the face of all the campaigning he did.

As far as Deepwater Horizon is concerned, yes, it was a privately-owned facility that had the explosion and tragic loss of life. However, Obama and co. delayed effective spill responses, including allowing foreign help as it would not have been the all-important union labor that he treasures above all else. As a result, the oil spread a lot more than it might have otherwise. Again, this from the guy who made great criticisms of the Katrina response.

[Tom White]

Truthteller,
You said:
"Oh and by the way, Tom White, when you say not only must the aid be paid for but you must fundamentally alter Medicare the way we insist you deliver it in order for us to release the funding"

I did not mention Medicare. I simply said it is fiscally responsible of Cantor to suggest that the storm victims aid be funded with money we are otherwise wasting - like a Cowboy Poetry festival, for example.

And I am not sure where you get your news, but the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare does not end the program. It will use vouchers to allow people under 55 to obtain private insurance when they are old enough. Food Stamps are vouchers. As are housing assistance and many other programs. What you want is the equivalent of the government giving food stamp recipients food instead of money for food. Do you really think the government deciding exactly what food you must eat? Most recipients prefer to choose for themselves. Perhaps they want potato chips instead of broccoli.

And the bottom line is, if something isn't done, the program will either end or be substantially curbed which will be far more detrimental to seniors.

Instead of scaring old people, Democrats should work with Republicans to make sure the basic needs are met and the program will work in perpetuity. If something is being taken away, we need to make sure it is substituted with something equal. Or better at a lower cost.

The simple fact is, Democrats have no plan and if left to you, the plan will implode and the result will be far worse than making it sustainable now.

The fact that Ryan has taken this on at his own political peril is proof positive that it is worse than we think.

You guys seem to understand fiscal restraint when it comes to something Bush did, which was horrific, but can't seem to connect the dots to anything else.

Your plan to do nothing is the only plan on the table with a guaranteed outcome.

We have some tough problems we have no option but to resolve. We are far too late finally getting politicians to do something. Had we done something a few decades ago, we would not have the mess we now have. If we continue to kick the can, ending the programs will be the only option on the table.

None of want that.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

VAPolitico, that clause is properly referred to as the "Tax and spend power clause." Calling it the "general welfare clause" causes a lot of unnecessary confusion.

Taxing and spending for the general welfare is okay. No court is going to second guess Congress on what is in the general welfare. But the jury is still out on whether Congress can get away with using the tax and spend clause to engage in behavior that isn't based on an enumerated grant of authority or necessary and proper to effectuate an expressly enumerated power.

We may get an answer to that, depending on whether the health care mandate is determined to be a tax, with the AG's health care case. Then again, we may not. I'm betting no.

Overall, however, James' point is correct - when some folks, usually Democrats, use the "general welfare clause" line , they're usually wrong. It's not as broad and sweeping a grant of power as they want it to be.

And, anecdotally, it's generally never the answer to any Con Law question. In fact, it's wrong enough that my bar review folks have said never choose that choice in multiple choice Con Law question because it's always wrong.

[truthteller]

noticed, "snorting my coke"? Really, perjorative insinuations with no basis in fact is the last refuge of scoundrels. You just proved the addage: When you have the law, pound the law, when you have the facts pound the facts, when you have neither, pound the table!

[Andrew]

"Instead of scaring old people, Democrats should work with Republicans to make sure the basic needs are met and the program will work in perpetuity. If something is being taken away, we need to make sure it is substituted with something equal. Or better at a lower cost.

The simple fact is, Democrats have no plan and if left to you, the plan will implode and the result will be far worse than making it sustainable now."

Well, first off, the House controls the appropriations process and can simply say "no thanks" to any bill the Senate tries to put forward, so it would be pointless for the House Dems in the minority or the Senate to put forward a budget. This is common practice.

And why should the Dems be prepared to work with the Republicans on anything? Has there been a single issue relating to budgeting, appropriations, entitlements, etc that the GOP has shown any true signs of negotiating in good faith on since 2009? Even when the Dems take up GOP ideas (like the old GOP idea of the individual mandate), the GOP decides that they no longer like it and they just keep moving their demands further right. The only thing they'll accept is total submission to their demands. Meanwhile, the Dems have accepted past GOP ideas (even without GOP support!) such as the mandate and the cap and trade bill. Who is being difficult to work with here?

Is there any sign that the GOP will accept any Medicare fix to the left of the Ryan plan? If there was, I'm sure they've rejected it for fear of it becoming an idea of both parties and not of the right wing think tanks that keep driving the GOP further right.

Who has been negotiating on ANYTHING in good faith? Which party has accepted the other's ideas as valid and which has thrown their own old ideas under the bus over and over?

[truthteller]

Tom White, Eric Cantor mentioned Medicare, I could care less what you did or didn't mention. And if you don't think that the GOP Medicare proposals end Medicare as we know it check out http://smtp01.kaiserhealthnews.org/t/21253/537253/19858/0/ or a number of other fact checks. Fundamentally, it converts Medicare into an employer-based style plan WITHOUT the benefits of large group pooling that beneficiaries in employer based plans have to spread risk, and potentially without the protection for people with pre-existing conditions which currently exists in Medicare and which elderly people will need even more. From guaranteed benefit now we will go to capped benefit not keeping up with Medical inflation under the Ryan plan.

If that isn't radically altering Medicare, I don't know what is.

And you suggest Dems have no proposals on curbing costs on Medicare, but if you listened to Schumer on Meet the Press you'd know otherwise. We passed one round of delivery reforms known as the Affordable Care Act and are ready to pass others. Pay for performance and comparative effectiveness research have the potential to reward outcomes rather than numbers of procedures. And we can also require Medicare to negotiatiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies if we're looking to further contain costs without hurting people

[Andrew]

"And I am not sure where you get your news, but the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare does not end the program. It will use vouchers to allow people under 55 to obtain private insurance when they are old enough. Food Stamps are vouchers. As are housing assistance and many other programs. What you want is the equivalent of the government giving food stamp recipients food instead of money for food. Do you really think the government deciding exactly what food you must eat? Most recipients prefer to choose for themselves. Perhaps they want potato chips instead of broccoli."

Wow, this is a terrible understanding of how that sort of a plan would work. Maybe if grocery stores or food manufacturers were regularly raising the prices of goods much faster than the rate at which food stamps increase, or they could refuse to sell you certain necessary foods, or (insert common attribute of the private health insurance industry here).

[Tom White]

Truthteller, sorry, but ObamaCare is on the way to the scrap heap. Stick a fork in it. It has dramatically increased health care expenses and has not even done it full damage yet.

Outcome based simply means that the people with poor prognosis will be denied care to protect the bottom line. Really stupid idea.

And the Dems already raided the Medicare kitty to the tune of $500 billion in vapor savings. Shame on you for killing old people. How many more must die at Democrat's hands?

Perhaps we could pay for Medicare if we only got out of the war in Libya. Now we actually have NATO (American?) boots on the ground. It is like we are in the third reign of the Bush dynasty. Aren't Obama and Bush distant cousins? Ineptitude must be in their DNA.

Andrew, I would love to respond, but you were rather incoherent. Sorry.

[Andrew]

Rather incoherent? Is that a cop-out or can you seriously not understand what I'm talking about? Ok, I'll keep it simple:

1. Would the GOP ever agree to a Medicare fix that is not either the Ryan plan or something to the right of that (the Republican Study Committee Plan, for example. Google it if you need to)?

2. Is controlling the price of the Medicare program by shifting much more of the costs to seniors, many of whom live on fixed incomes, a good deal for seniors, today or in the future?

3. If the Ryan plan is simply aimed at deficits and debt, then why has he included items such as cutbacks on food stams, WIC, and pell grants? This is being done all while leaving revenues off the table (and even cutting taxes further) despite the fact that very few serious economists say that the revenue side can be left alone in reducing deficits.

Your claim that Medicare could be paid for by getting out of Libya (an intervention I never supported) and conflating NATO troops solely with American troops is just silly, so I assume you're being facetious in at least part of your post.

[proudvadem]

How does House Ethics allow a CoS to ALSO be on the city council? I'd do some more checking into this- wasn't kosher last session but may have changed.

[truthteller]

Truthteller, sorry, but ObamaCare is on the way to the scrap heap. Stick a fork in it. It has dramatically increased health care expenses and has not even done it full damage yet. FACTCHECKER: PANTS ON FIRE -- still in effect, no evidence to show health care expenses which were soaring pre ACA are rising any faster. In fact curbing the pace of increase would be a major victory.

Outcome based simply means that the people with poor prognosis will be denied care to protect the bottom line. Really stupid idea.

I call BS -- the Death Panel lie has been proven false. Actually all outcome based does is reward practitioners for achieving the best possible outcomes rather than ordering all sorts of tests and procedures that accomplish nothing but run up charges. And comparative effectiveness is not used to deny care but rather to identify optimal treatments. Again: PANTS ON FIRE!

And the Dems already raided the Medicare kitty to the tune of $500 billion in vapor savings. Shame on you for killing old people. How many more must die at Democrat's hands?

Actually, Paul Ryan wants to use that same money, which was Medicare advantage dollars. Premiums under medicare advantage have been level, services have remained high and noone is dying because of changes to Medicare advantage. You are a very bad liar and you are arguing with someone who is very up on the latest data.

If you want to make up apocryphal data and claims at least try citing stuff that isnt so readily refutable. Every claim you've made is easily debunked.

And you still havent responded to my or Andrew's point that the GOP's sanctimonious budget rectitude on the backs of the poor disabled and elderly is rich in light of the continued GOP insistence on budget busting taxcuts for the rich which resulted in a net NEGATIVE job creation under the Bush administration.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

ProudVADem - the Fairfax City Council is non-partisan. That's why government employees are able to serve on it.

[truthteller]

Now both Trump and Barbour have criticized Cantor for holding Joplin aid hostage, anyone wish to reconsider their obstinant posture?