Wow Kari, how does the Kool Aid taste? Check out the Capitol News Release page for ideas from Republicans to put more money in the paychecks of low income Oregonians (not a tax cut - no revenue impact), re-build airports to help attract jobs and others. Nolan and Devlin can yell as loud as they want and stamp their feet but that doesn't make them correct.

Sure Kari-

Changes to the witholding tables to create 2,500 new jobs (revenue neutral): http://www.leg.state.or.us/press_releases/sro_012309.pdf

Airport Construction: http://www.leg.state.or.us/press_releases/Airport_stimulus021609.pdf

Construction Jobs: http://www.leg.state.or.us/press_releases/hro_012909.html

Nolan is wrong. The crisis was not brought on by the failed Republican governance, but by the failed neoliberal policies of both parties. Much of the deregulation that got us into this mess was initiated by Clinton.

Kari, the shell game will continue. It is the only thing Republicans have to offer: bait and switch.

Hopefully by now, everyone has caught on to their game. The Republicans get into office, knock down as much infrastructure as they can, and Democrats are so busy playing janitor that we can't actually implement our progressive agenda.

OK, Clinton deregulated to the point of putting Chris Cox at the SEC and not supervising credit default swaps? Is that what you are saying? It was a Clinton appointee who failed to act on the warnings of whistleblowers that Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme? It was Clinton policies which allowed "stated loans" (just write down a number for your income, we won't check, and you can have the property for no money down)?

I don't think so.

How is an unwillingness to admit mistakes and failures, "Telling it like it is?" Isn't that one of the left's biggest criticisms of Bush?

There's plenty of blame to go around for both Republicans and Democrats in Washington leading up to the "national economic tsunami."

Bill Clinton himself went on record saying, "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

"Despite comments to the contrary, Democratic leaders have made a good faith effort to include Republicans in the current budget process."

And the public would agree:

Only 30% say Obama hasn't done enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress — the GOP base vote, basically — while 62% say he's doing the right amount and 6% say it's been too much. Flipping it around, only 27% say Republicans have done enough to cooperate with Obama, with 64% saying not enough and 5% saying too much.(AP/GFK Poll)

Kari- Just because you don't like the ideas doesn't mean none were offered. Good try...

it's time for them to get creative, get constructive, and start talking about actual solutions to the revenue problem in our state

There's a curious problem inherent in the way you've formulated your criticism. You've framed the debate in such a way that it's necessarily a "revenue" problem, entirely discounting (and, if I may hazard a guess, dismissing) the fact that many people see the problem as one of spending, not revenue. In short, you're not allowing for the possibility honest disagreement over the nature of the problem itself.

You could, of course, wrap yourself up in armchair Keynesianism and attack caricatured fiscal conservatives by simply implying, as have others, that fiscal conservatism is totally discredited, and that "greed", "deregulation" and unopposed "laissez-faire" policies alone are responsible for the mess we're in despite evidence to the contrary.

In essence what you'd be saying is unless it agrees with what you believe it doesn't count.

That's not very intellectually honest.

Chris #12- The distinction between neocons and Republicans is excellent. Anyone can pick a demarcation point that reinforces ones views. However, deregulation was a hallmark of Reagan and Newt. The mantra of 'Government should be operate more like business,' and let markets determine how to address needs, has led us to this point. Governments are near bankruptcy too. There is no one to turn to when they fail. In this crisis, business are turning to government. There is no there there, no d. That, my friend, is why there isn't a reasonable cogent alternative. Governance excellence comes from excellent governments, being true to what they are, not trying to emulate something they are not. Oregon Republicans, and please, no one throw ad hominim tomatoes my way for saying so and accept my nostalgia, were an innovative lot for decades, fostered statesmanship and leadership, embrace state institution's role and value,and left ideological dogma at the door when it came to addressing the state's pressing needs. There was a common ground. They did not insist on a divisive, persistent erosion as a panacea. that emperor has no clothes and it is important that they are telling it like it is.

Sure, Vincent, folks could propose spending cuts too. Haven't seen much responsible discussion from Republicans on that score either.

It did rather seem that you were framing the issue exclusively as one of "revenue", but if that wasn't the case, then my apologies for misinterpreting what you wrote.

You'll get no argument from me about the absurdity of the GOP's sudden discovery of their "fiscal conservatism," in any case. I'm glad to see them at least going through the motions, but I've no hope that it'll stick the moment they recapture some modicum of political power.

How does the Oregon House and Senate GOP propose that we fill the budget hole?

Could this spell bi-partisan support for the 1600% beer tax? Как ужасно!

I'm sure this post feels good to a cheerleader for the Democrat Party. I also see that it has stirred a few folks to join in the discussion and that is good.

I am not knowledgeable about whether or not members of the Republican Party have or have not made constructive criticism or offered constructive alternative suggestions for the Democrat Majority to consider. I would guess that the statements are overly generalizing the facts.

I do believe that comments like those quoted from Ms. Nolan and Mr. Devlin serve no positive purpose. I don't wonder that Republicans reading these quotes will be offended and will get defensive. That produces nothing of value.

I do wonder what might have occurred if Ms. Nolan and Mr. Devlin had made a formal request to the Republican members of the legislature for a list of alternative suggestions and constructive criticisms of the Democrat proposals? I'm guessing the result would have been more positive.

I think both sides are busy playing "politics" while Rome burns.

Hey LT--ever heard of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999? That was Clinton.

I'm not saying that Republicans weren't guilty of the things you say, just that it wasn't only them. Do you really believe that Democrats, and Clinton in particular, had nothing to do with this?

The GOP is a one trick pony, de-fund the government, tax breaks for the wealthy, no corporate regulation. Net result the destruction of our public and private financial system. We all get to live through the consequences in the coming economic depression.

Chris: After 8 years of GW Bush, everything is still Clinton's fault?

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 contained the Enron loophole. When Bush was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001, he gained the right to appoint people to oversee such legislation, along with the bill you cite.

Turns out McCain was right about the need to fire Chris Cox at SEC--a former Republican Congressman as I recall.

Turns out Rubin was as wrong as Greenspan on some of these financial ideas. Clinton was wrong about more things than I could mention here. But even if Bill Clinton never did a good thing in 8 years (which I don't believe), that doesn't excuse the Enron debacle, the Cheney secret energy task force, the lack of regulation in this decade, the stories about whistle blowers going to the SEC about Madoff only to be ignored, that general tone of the country that as long as sales people were making money on subprime loans it was OK for them to steer people with solid downpayments and solid credit into subprime loans because the commission was better.

For many years after 1980, every problem in this country was laid at the feet of Jimmy Carter. Until Clinton was elected.

When I hear Republicans take responsibility for what Republicans did in this decade (for all the effort W's crowd put into reversing Clinton policies, everything is still Clinton's fault?), I am not going to have any respect for the "but Clinton was bad too".

This idea that everything goes wrong when a Democrat is president but Republicans are so wise that they never make mistakes or misjudgements could very well be why so many Republicans have lost in the last 2 elections.

Is it any wonder that people get fed up with both parties polarizing every issue?

Are you willing to say Reagan did anything wrong?

I voted for Pres. Ford but there have been very few Republicans since then who I could support.

Neither John Maynard Keynes nor Milton Friedman have the answer out of this mess. Volcker ran the Fed like a true monetarist and was repaid by being replaced with a "New School" failure who guided the US through 2 bubble economies.

I blame Alan Greenspan promoting inflation at the Fed for our mess. Cutting interest rates when the country is involved in two wars along with an absolutely inane economic policy of tax cuts during a period of time when the government needs all the tax funds to fund 2 wars is the main culprit for the current economic mess.

Last time we had a war with spending on the level of Iraq and Afghanistan, we froze wages. That was World War 2. Read your history, you Reagan worshipping piece of shit.

I agree, Republicans are doing nothing constructive. All Republicans are doing is obstructing and aiming for one or two shots of Reagan/1994 style policies in 2010 and 2012.

Palin is a fucking joke that Republicans think that they can trot out and get the female vote. I have never seen a political figure bask so much in their vapid, arrogant ignorance as her and the Republican base love a candidate so much for it.

Run her in 2012. I fucking hope you do.

While we are waiting for 2012, please run that charismatic, televangelist wannabe called Jason Atkinson for Governor in 2010. Make him the next perennial loser like Kevin Mannix.

We can talk about the 'existential' of policies and ideas all day. Fact of the matter is, Republicans don't know the literal enough to win.

What is the Republican strategy (in Oregon and nationwide) to win the urban vote?

What is the Republican strategy (in Oregon and nationwide) to win the suburban vote?

Obama won in part because his campaign focused on the GoTV in the urban and suburban areas, while counting on the colossal failure that was the Bush II administration to deliver a portion of the rural vote.

Banking on running just on Obama's failures will not get out the vote in the urban and suburban areas, which are needed to win elections unlike the rural vote.

Republicans better get literal, abandon their one-size-fits all strategy of running Southern values campaigns across the US, and adopt a regional strategy where they run liberal Republicans in urban areas, moderate Republicans in the Suburbs and conservative Republicans in the rural areas.

Running on static values in a rapidly changing electorate will only bring replays of 2006 and 2008 even if Obama's policies turn out to be utter failures.

Then again, I ain't Michael Steele or Bob Tiernan. LOL.

Good luck.

LT: "Chris: After 8 years of GW Bush, everything is still Clinton's fault?"

That's not at all what I'm saying. But it seems that you (and Nolan) are saying that everything is Bush's fault, and that's where I disagree.

After 8 years of GW Bush, everything is still Clinton's fault?

It's been all downhill ever since Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster to cover up her drug dealing. If you don't believe me, ask Pat Robertson.

Chris #12 said: "I'm not saying that Republicans weren't guilty of the things you say, just that it wasn't only them. Do you really believe that Democrats, and Clinton in particular, had nothing to do with this?"

Religion trumps rational thought every time when the DP/RP choirs are involved. We sit at the edge of the environmental and economic abyss, and we pursue a foreign policy seemingly designed to increase the probability that we will be attacked by those who we humiliate and savagely attack daily, and still the arguments of these ideologically challenged savants hinge on which party is most responsible for these crises.

Here's a news flash for both zombie parties: The empire is collapsing and you are responsible.

Folks who refuse to acknowledge that Democrats ever supported deregulations shuld probably not read this: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/its-deregulation-stupid

"Even more damaging, in light of today's economic crisis, was the sweeping deregulation of the banking and financial services industries that took place in the 1990s. What makes this enterprise particularly confounding is not only the fact that it took place under a Democratic president with support from a majority of Democrats in Congress, but that it followed so closely on the heels of the savings and loan crisis, which ought to have served as a cautionary tale on the dangers of deregulation in the banking sector."

Only the great leader tells the truth. His word is truth; his deeds are life! Great leader has outlawed the Republican Party. Oh, but wait. We need them to blame everything on. After great leader's second term begins, THEN outlaw the Republican Party. There is only one truth. Send Billery to preach to the unconverted!

Capitol Saffer is a very good illustration of a common Oregon situation, where you vote your hard earned dollars for a progressive agenda, that gets implemented by paying someone totally hostile to your ideas for not doing a very good job. It's all about conscience, though, and who really cares what happens after the great electoral victory. That's enough to get a notch, keep the checks rolling in, and "move the discussion forward". Those conservatives usually have more kids and they need your tax dollars. That's why you like big government. You want them to have a job.

To bad he's too stupid to notice that brilliant bit of snark.

Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 21, 2009 3:59:15 PM

Posted by: Harry Kershner | Feb 21, 2009 1:52:31 PM

You are completely divorced from reality.

He refuses to ignore reality. The reality you refuse to look at and wish to deny.

Spin and marketing, in-group perception and a perception that there's nothing in society more complex than your high school social interactions, is being divorced from reality.

Ignoring the killing and greed and waste committed every day for your convenience, is being divorced from reality.

Thinking you voted for hope and change is being divorced from reality.

Thinking that this isn't a complete waste of my time is being divorced from reality.

From Global Finance at Risk, by John Eatwell and Lance Taylor: There are basic inefficiencies intrinsic to markets, in general. In the case of financial markets, they under-price risk. They don't count in systemic risk, i.e., general social costs.

Risks, under both zombie parties, have been under-priced. Therefore, more risks were taken than should have been, and sooner or later it was going to crash. The creation of deregulated, exotic financial instruments are responsible for the depth of this crash, and the architects of this are the people who are now designing Obama's economic policies. (Dean Baker pointed out that it's almost like appointing Osama bin Laden to run the so-called "war on terror".)

The inefficiencies of markets can be controlled by some degree of regulation, but that was dismantled under religious fanaticism about efficient markets, a fanaticism that has been embraced by both zombie parties.

"...the core of the economy relies very heavily on the state sector, and transparently so...The state sector is innovative and dynamic. It's true across the board from electronics to pharmaceuticals to the new biology-based industries. The idea is that the public is supposed to pay the costs and take the risks, and ultimately if there is any profit, you hand it over to private tyrannies, corporations. If you had to encapsulate the economy in one sentence, that would be the main theme." (Uncle Noam)