Tags

,

Other than from right wingnut republicans? We’ve been looking.

Previously:

Now what, Claire?: spending caps – the republican plan with lipstick (May 5, 2011)

Think Claire McCaskill’s serious about the deficit? Ask her to prove it. (April 29, 2011)

Rockefeller: McCaskill budget plan worse than Ryan’s for Medicaid

By Sam Baker – 05/04/11 04:21 PM ET

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said Wednesday that a fellow Democrat’s plan to tackle federal spending would be even worse for Medicaid than House Republicans’ “heartless” proposals for the program….

….Just like a block grant, a total spending cap fails to account for trends like the aging of the population and rising health care costs,” the letter states. “It would require such unprecedented and draconian cuts to Medicaid over time that it would inevitably result in s block grant, spending caps or other radical changes to the Medicaid program.”

House Republicans, despite voting almost unanimously for the budget resolution, have not made any serious moves to mark up bills that would make the budget’s proposed changes to Medicaid or Medicare….

[emphasis added]

Gee, they’re serious, aren’t they?

Posted at 12:14 PM ET, 04/15/2011

The second worst idea in Washington

By Ezra Klein

There’s talk that the McCaskill-Corker spending cap will be the cost of raising the debt ceiling. This would be, to put it simply, completely insane. Spending caps are bad policy, and the McCaskill-Corker spending cap – which holds spending to 21.5 percent of GDP, or three percentage points lower than it is right now – is a badly designed spending cap. But beyond all that, it’s laughable to posit it as a compromise: It’s arguably the most radically conservative reform that could be made to the federal budget. More extreme, by far, than Paul Ryan’s plan….

….I requested an interview with McCaskill to ask her some of these questions, but her staff never responded. My hunch is that she’s facing a tough race in 2012 and signed onto this legislation under the theory that it (a) wouldn’t pass and (b) would make her sound fiscally responsible. But the legislation is terrifically irresponsible, could become a dangerous flashpoint as part of the debt ceiling debate and would destroy much that she holds dear if it somehow did pass. This isn’t the Worst Idea in Washington, but it’s close.

[emphasis added]

Come on Claire, you can do better than this.

There’s more:

Corker-McCaskill Spending Cuts Far Exceed “Ridiculous” House Republican Proposal

February 1, 2011 at 5:33 pm

….It is striking that when she unveiled the proposal, Senator McCaskill criticized as “ridiculous” the recent House Republican Study Committee plan to cut nondefense discretionary funding over ten years by about $2.5 trillion.

I fully agree that the RSC proposal – which would slash overall funding for the part of the budget that includes K-12 education, the FBI, cancer research, health care for wounded veterans, and many other programs by 42 percent below today’s level, adjusted just for inflation – makes no sense.  But by the same standard, it is hard to conclude that the McCaskill-Corker proposal, which would mandate about $4.5 trillion in spending reductions over ten years in all programs – discretionary programs plus entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare – is any more responsible.

There must be an election coming up in 2012. It’s just that while we expect empty posturing from republicans when it comes important issues it disappoints us when we see the same from Democrats we all worked so hard to elect in the past.