Budget Release Week
While a goodly portion of what I choose to write about is pointing out the idiocies and foibles of our beloved elected officials, today I'd like to offer up some applause instead. Because it seems like we're getting back to how budget battles in Washington are supposed to be fought, and I believe that's a good thing. The fact that this puts me in agreement with Republicans is somewhat distasteful, of course, but in this instance they do indeed have a point.
The big news from Capitol Hill this week is that House Republicans and Senate Democrats are both releasing their budget overview plans. Now, this isn't really a "budget" because to complicate things further, Congress is supposed to pass two budgets per year. The first -- the documents being released right now -- is an "overview," and is supposed to set overall levels of spending. The second process is the real budget -- "appropriations" bills which lay out in great detail how all the agencies of government will spend money for the next year. But we've got to get beyond the first step before we get into the appropriations bills later in the year.
The way this will happen (assuming it does) is that the House will pass a budget, the Senate will pass a budget, and then there will be a conference committee which will hammer out a deal that can pass both houses. That's the way it is supposed to work. Obviously, even a glance at the competing Democratic and Republican plans shows there's going to be a lot of hammering out to do. But the important part is that Democrats are part of the debate, once again.
For the past few years, Harry Reid has failed to lead Senate Democrats. They have failed to pass (or even to put forward) their version of a budget. There is a reason for this, and it is called "political cowardice." Budgeting is always a painful exercise in Washington, for the fundamental reason that Americans want more from their government than they are willing to pay for. It has always been this way since the beginning of our country, so I don't expect it to end any time soon. Because of this, budgeting involves standing up for some things which are going to be unpopular. Budget cuts, in particular. But for years now, Democrats have refused to either stand up for budget cuts or, alternatively, stand up for higher taxes or higher deficits. None of these choices is a particularly crowd-friendly one, and so Democrats in the Senate just refused to put their cards on the table at all. After all, it's harder to get elected when you propose (or vote for) unpopular things.
This, however, puts the cart before the horse. Senate Democrats didn't want to propose a budget because they might lose their job -- but a major part of that job is doing a yearly budget. President Obama led throughout last year's election, and provided cover for more-timid Democrats by actually campaigning on raising taxes -- something no Democrat has done in a long time. Because he won, Democrats are feeling a bit better about standing up for their budgetary priorities now, I guess.
For whatever reason, though, Republicans have been beating up on Senate Democrats for years for not passing a budget, and they have a valid point. Both houses of Congress are supposed to put a budget before the public, and then strike a deal with each other. That's the way it is supposed to work. Both political parties are supposed to stand up for what they believe, and defend their budget priorities.
While I'll definitely have a lot to say about the particulars of Paul Ryan's budget and the Senate Democrats' budget in the coming days and weeks, I just wanted to say at the start of the process that it is indeed refreshing to see Democrats stepping into the light, stepping up to the plate, and standing up for a viable federal budget. Unlike "getting re-elected," this is supposed to be a big part of their jobs. So it's good to see they have realized this basic fact, once again.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
While a goodly portion of what I choose to write about is pointing out the idiocies and foibles of our beloved elected officials, today I'd like to offer up some applause instead. Because it seems like we're getting back to how budget battles in Washington are supposed to be fought, and I believe that's a good thing. The fact that this puts me in agreement with Republicans is somewhat distasteful, of course, but in this instance they do indeed have a point.
That's what I like about you CW.. You are always willing and able to forgo partisan ideology and give credit where credit is due.. Even if that credit goes to those evil country-killing, government-decimating Republicans.. :^D
Personally, I think the reason Democrats have never stepped up to the plate and actually do their jobs with regards to the budget is because they are terrified of letting the American people find out exactly how bad they have mis-managed the people's money..
I mean....
Researchers aim to learn why more lesbians tend to be overweight
http://now.msn.com/national-institute-of-health-funds-15m-study-on-lesbian-obesity
Honestly... Do we REALLY need to spend one and a half million dollars to learn why lesbians are fat???
So, yes.. I completely agree... It's high time Democrats in the Senate have finally stepped up to do their jobs... Let the American people pass judgement on how their money is being spent..
Michale
The latest Ryan budget should give Democrats all the cover they need to stand up for whatever it is they think are priorities for a federal budget.
Isn't really much to discuss about the Ryan budget. It's exactly what they ran on and got pounded on in 2012.
Anyway this graph is a good overview of the Democrats (Senate) vs Republicans (Ryan) proposals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/2014budget_comparison1.png
Also Democrats should've just played the Republican game which is to propose unpopular policies then, come election time, just lie.
Republicans: Us? Cut Medicare? No way! Cut Medicaid why never! You must have us confused with someone else. We don't like to cut things. In fact, we're alergic to scissors! That budget I proposed which involved going through programs that help the poor/veterans/elderly/sick which a giant pair of scissors and slashing them? Oh that wasn't mine. You must have misread it!
The day after the election
Republicans: We must cut Medicare and Medicaid NOW! No tax rises, cut cut cut cut cut!
It's exactly what they ran on and got pounded on in 2012.
Your definition of "pounded" is hysterical.. :D
As CW so eloquently pointed out, Republicans have never been afraid to put their budgets where their ideology is..
Democrats cannot make the same claim...
Michale
Anyway this graph is a good overview of the Democrats (Senate) vs Republicans (Ryan) proposals:
Only you would think that a WonkBlog cartoon would constitute a "good overview"... :D
Long on hysteria and political bigotry, none existent facts... :D
Michale
Honestly... Do we REALLY need to spend one and a half million dollars to learn why lesbians are fat???
reminds me of a bad old joke - adam asks god why he made eve so stupid, god replies she had to be stupid to like you.
~joshua
Your definition of "pounded" is hysterical.. :D
Their 'budget guy', on the top ticket, lost by 68-32%. I'd call that a pounding.
Only you would think that a WonkBlog cartoon would constitute a "good overview"... :D
Long on hysteria and political bigotry, none existent facts... :D
Lol unlike your bigoted comment, the graph is very specific in the numbers. If you'd like to refute anything in there be my guest.
My guess is that as usual you will shirk the issue move on to something else and ignore you ever made the comment...
Their 'budget guy', on the top ticket, lost by 68-32%. I'd call that a pounding.
And it would be... IF you were quoting facts on the 68/32 BS..
But you are not, so it's not..
Lol unlike your bigoted comment, the graph is very specific in the numbers. If you'd like to refute anything in there be my guest.
So it's specific in it's numbers..
That doesn't mean that it's not all bullshit..
If you'd like to refute anything in there be my guest.
Uhh... I thought I just did...
Your turn... Where are the facts?? Leftist/Democrat propaganda doesn't count..
Put up or shut up...
Michale.
And it would be... IF you were quoting facts on the 68/32 BS..
But you are not, so it's not..
Seriously? Not sure where you've been the last few months. Did you hear Obama was re-elected? In case you missed the news he was re-elected with 332 (62%) of the electoral votes compared to Romney/Ryan's 206 (38%). Although I got the percentages slightly wrong the 1st time round this was quite the pounding.
Uhh... I thought I just did...
Nope. 'I don't like your source' is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is 'I don't like your source because it is saying number X when the correct number is Y'.
Your turn... Where are the facts?? Leftist/Democrat propaganda doesn't count..
Put up or shut up...
Lol I mean seriously can you read? Since I guess you missed the facts the first time I posted them:
Republican proposed budget (Ryan) = $4.6t of additional deficit reduction over 10 years, all in cuts.
Democrat proposed budget (Senate) = $2t of additional deficit reduction over 10 years, with 50% revenue 50% cuts.
Or in graph form: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/2014budget_comparison1.png
Note this is in addition to the $2.6t of deficit reduction Obama has already signed off on and the $900b of deficit reduction from the Sequester.
Maybe you like this source better?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2013/03/12/republican-budget-envisions-surplus-in-10-years/
Some excerpts:
"House Republicans plan to cut more than $4.6 trillion in spending over the next decade"
"Many of Ryan's proposals are identical to those in his previous budgets."
i.e. Cut cut cut cut. Exactly what he ran on and got pounded on. Exactly what I have been saying.
It is like dealing with a kid that I have to spell it out so easily for you.
If all you have is a graph/cartoon from a WonkBlog comment, then you don't have shit...
It's propaganda..
Senate Democrats haven't even released their budget yet, so all you have is vaporware...
Wishful thinking.. That's it...
Michale
Lol a graph is a graph. The numbers in the graph are 100% accurate. Jesus I even gave you a Fox News link. Here is a Fox News link to the Democrat figures:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2013/03/12/senate-democratic-budget-to-boost-taxes-report/
I give up. It's like trying to teach a kid basic math but 'since Wonkblog says 2+2=4' they refuse to accept basic rules of math. Even when Fox News reports THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS. LOLOLOLOL
Lol a graph is a graph. The numbers in the graph are 100% accurate.
Prove it....
I can make a graph with numbers that show Democrats are poopy heads... And the numbers would be "100%" accurate...
The report, quoting a Democrat familiar with the proposal will trim the deficit by $1.85 trillion over the next decade. Sen. Patty Murray, the Democrat from Washington and chairwoman of the Senate Budget committee, is expected to formally release the budget on Wednesday.
The budget hasn't been released..
Until it is, you got nothing but vaporware...
Michale
I can make a graph with numbers that show Democrats are poopy heads... And the numbers would be "100%" accurate...
Right. We can discuss what the numbers mean, which numbers are better and have an intelligent discussion about their interpretation and whether your poopy interpretation is accurate.
But with you YOU CAN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT. 10 odd posts to try to get you to acknowledge the BASIC NUMBERS EACH PARTY ARE PROPOSING in terms of revenue and cuts. Complete waste of time.
No wonder people are stopping posting here, I'm off.
But with you YOU CAN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT.
They AREN'T correct until the budget is released..
They are nothing but vaporware until then...
No wonder people are stopping posting here, I'm off.
Yea, the facts hurt, I know.. Especially when they don't support your position...
Michale
Basically what ya'all are saying is that Obama and the Democrats run the government so picture perfect, so exact and so precise that there is absolutely NOTHING that can't be cut from the orgasmic spending...
And yet...
We have 1.5 Million dollars of taxpayer money going to studying why the majority of lesbians are obese...
So, what's a person to believe??
That Obama and the Democrats are budget-perfect???
Or that maybe, just maybe, Republicans have it right, that SOME cuts can (and SHOULD) be made...
Hmmmmmmm
Decisions, decisions...
Michale
On a different subject??
All this pope talk is boring..
The choice is simple...
http://i.imgur.com/ptPDbkp.jpg
:D
Michale
We have 1.5 Million dollars of taxpayer money going to studying why the majority of lesbians are obese...
I see you have been injecting this little tidbit in to your posts. As the local expert on obese lesbians, can you enlighten us on who authorized this study and why? What benefit, if any, are we as a society are to get from it? Or is it just the mildly homophobic conservative attack sound bite of the week making the rounds?
I've got a question. Has anyone heard of the progressive caucus Back to Work budget?
You know why you haven't heard of it?
Because the corporate media doesn't cover it. They only cover the conservative Ryan budget.
"Liberal media" my ass.
-David
Bashi,
I see you have been injecting this little tidbit in to your posts. As the local expert on obese lesbians, can you enlighten us on who authorized this study and why?
For someone who claims to actually READ the links I post, you sure dropped the ball on this one..
Researchers aim to learn why more lesbians tend to be overweight
http://now.msn.com/national-institute-of-health-funds-15m-study-on-lesbian-obesity
David,
Because the corporate media doesn't cover it. They only cover the conservative Ryan budget.
They only cover it to denigrate it...
Have you heard any of the MSM actually praising the Ryan budget..
Of course not..
That's because it's a liberal MSM and NOT your ass.. :D
Michale
No Michale, it's because there is nothing in the Ryan budget that is praise-worthy. It really is just that simple, in more ways than one ...
No Michale, it's because there is nothing in the Ryan budget that is praise-worthy. It really is just that simple, in more ways than one ...
In other words, everything Republicans do is wrong. :D
Ya could just save a lot of typing and repeat that famed Weigantian mantra.. :D
Michale
Or is it just the mildly homophobic conservative attack sound bite of the week making the rounds?
So, everyone who attacks Obama is a racist..
Anyone who questions wasteful budget spending is homophobic..
Do ya'all have a book for all these "code words".. Keeping track of them is a daunting task...
:D
Michale
You have something against medical research for minority groups? Seems like a small amount for something affecting three quarters of a population. Considering the medical care costs for late in life obesity, seems like something like this could pay for it's self quite quickly if the study comes up with something useful.
Most of your links trace back to the manufactured outrage of the week of the conservative blogosphere. So it was a safe assumption...
Seems like a small amount for something affecting three quarters of a population. Considering the medical care costs for late in life obesity, seems like something like this could pay for it's self quite quickly if the study comes up with something useful.
So you think it's a valid waste of money...
And you see absolutely nothing wrong in singling out only lesbians for the study...
Further, you make it sounds like there are absolutely NO OTHER studies of obesity on humans in general anywhere in the country..
Surely there are.. And surely the results of THAT study would apply equally to lesbians as it does to other humans...
Or is it your contention that lesbians are not quite human..
But hell, why stop with lesbians.. Why not spend a couple million dollars to see why freckle-faced red-haired people have hangnails...
It's a waste of money, Bashi.. No matter how you try to justify it, it's a redundant and useless waste of money.....
$1.5 mil would run White House tours for three years..
But Noooooooooo...
It's vital to this country to know why the majority of lesbians are fat...
Why not.. Let's just chuck logic and rational thought out the window... :^/
Michale
The simple fact of the matter is that absolutely NO PROGRESS can be made on fiscal responsibility until the problem is even identified.
The Left in general and Democrats in particular simply do not see the orgasmic wasteful spending as a problem..
Therefore they will continue to spend and spend and spend and mortgage our children's, our grandchildren's and our great-grandchildren's future...
Our great grand children will have to work to pay off the huge trillion dollar debt created by Obama and the Democrats..
Michale
The first priority should be to get the economy back on track. Deficits should be paid off when the economy is back on track.
Ask an economist. Or maybe we should just ask the last person to actually produce a surplus while in office :)
-David
Have you heard any of the MSM actually praising the Ryan budget.
And yes, unfortunately all kinds of people take Ryan seriously.
The point, however, is that his budget is supposed to be extreme. And its supposed to get lots of press that its extreme.
This way when President Obama proposes a compromise which is also extreme it will look moderate by comparison.
-David
A liberal media, if there were one, would not be playing this conservative shell game.
A liberal media would be discussing the real problem: jobs and the economy.
Find me that story repeated over and over ad nauseum like the Ryan budget and I might believe that there's a "liberal" media.
-David
The point, however, is that his budget is supposed to be extreme. And its supposed to get lots of press that its extreme.
So, maybe you are wrong about the Ryan budget..
Is that possible??
Michale
A liberal media would be discussing the real problem: jobs and the economy.
And HONORABLE liberal media would...
But this liberal media is simply all about tearing down the Republicans and covering up the misdeeds, mistakes and incompetence of Obama and the Democrats...
Michale
Michale,
Basically what ya'all are saying is that Obama and the Democrats run the government so picture perfect, so exact and so precise that there is absolutely NOTHING that can't be cut from the orgasmic spending...
Democrats are NOT proposing cutting nothing. CAN YOU READ? I even put it in picture form. They are proposing $1t in cuts IN ADDITION TO THE $3.5t OBAMA HAS ALREADY AGREED TO CUT. $3.5t signed into law. $1t more proposed. The biggest package of cuts every seen in the history of the US.
Of course actual factual numbers don't belong in any Michale post, continue to repeat the latest crap from Drudge/Fox other nonsense rhetoric... Yawn.
Or that maybe, just maybe, Republicans have it right, that SOME cuts can (and SHOULD) be made...
Both sides agree with this. Republicans argument is that hefty cuts should be made, despite large unemployment and a global stalled economic recovery; Democrats argue that this is economic suicide (which every economist agrees) and that cuts should be more balanced until full employement has resumed.
David
The first priority should be to get the economy back on track. Deficits should be paid off when the economy is back on track.
Ask an economist. Or maybe we should just ask the last person to actually produce a surplus while in office :)
Pretty much end of discussion. Anyone who doesn't agree with this is an idiot.
The fastest way to reduce a deficit is to increase revenue and decrease costs at the same time. GETTING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK does exactly this. The $4.6t in cuts Ryan proposes will cost an estimated 2 MILLION jobs. Which means less revenue, more costs. Which means cutting EVEN MORE THAN NECESSARY to make up for the lost revenue/additional cost of these 2 million jobs to balance your budget.
The problem with America's deficit is not structural it is cyclical. During the last economic boom cycle you had some idiot moronic President decreasing taxes while going on a spending spree - invading other countries and spending TRILLIONS - so that now, during an economic down cycle, you have large deficits.
Paying off these deficits during the economic down cycle just because you don't like the party in charge is moronic. It is playing politics with economics which, sadly, happens in every country because politicians and the average persons understanding of economics is about as good as my understanding of how not to argue with someone who isn't capable of listening to reason... Ahem.
/rant
Both sides agree with this.
Bullshit..
Democrats go on and on on a DAILY basis that spending is not the problem..
How do you reconcile this FACT with your statement that both sides agree that cuts are necessary..
How do you reconcile the FACT that the last budget battle resulted in ALL taxes and NO cuts??
How do you reconcile the FACT that Obama and the Democrats wanted to replace Obama's sequester with MORE taxes and NO spending cuts and used hysterical fear-mongering bullshit to try and make it happen???
No matter how you try to bullshit, it is simply undeniable that Democrats don't think that spending is a problem and they are ALL about taxes, taxes and more taxes...
Michale...
Democrats go on and on on a DAILY basis that spending is not the problem..
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL this is your idea of a 'fact'! Let me explain why this 'fact' is nothing but your usual rhetoric:
How do you reconcile this FACT with your statement that both sides agree that cuts are necessary..
Because the FACT is Democrats just proposed a budget with $1t in CUTS and Obama has signed more CUTS into law than any President ever seen. FACT.
How do you reconcile the FACT that the last budget battle resulted in ALL taxes and NO cuts??
Seriously have you been living on Mars? Have you heard of the word 'sequester'? You know the sequester was part of the last budget battle? You know the sequester was a giant pile of over the top cuts? Yet again another great Michale 'fact' comes to nothing.
How do you reconcile the FACT that Obama and the Democrats wanted to replace Obama's sequester with MORE taxes and NO spending cuts and used hysterical fear-mongering bullshit to try and make it happen???
Again complete and utter horse shit. At no point has Obama said replace the sequester with taxes only. They aren't even asking for tax increases at all. His favourite phrase for the past months has been 'balanced approach'. That is, some revenue (by closing tax loopholes, not increasing taxes) and some cuts. Exactly what the Senate Democrats proposed. FACT.
Anyone with half a brain can see that a balanced approach is the best approach during a recovery (sadly this doesn't apply to most Republicans as they rely on their propaganda machines for 'news').
In fact the INDEPENDENT COMMISSION with Democrats and Republicans (Simpsons Bowles) conclusion was to have 2:1 Cuts to Revenue. You know Simpsons-Bowles - that Republicans were harping on about for months but then went completely silent on and now all of a sudden hate once they released their conclusions?
How do Democrats and Republicans plan compare to Simpson-Bowles? Let's see cuts to revenue:
Simpson-Bowles = 2:1
Democrats plan = 1:1
Republican plan = 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (i.e infinity):0
Hmm who is being more reasonable here and who is acting like an absolute lunatic bunch of morons (as usual)?
If Democrats 'compromise' just a little you're basically at Simpson Bowles. Republicans have indicated they are not willing to make any compromise whatsoever that puts you in Simpson Bowles territory.
So basically the whole discussion is moot - Republicans don't give a crap about what the independent commission concluded and just want to destroy social programmes (as usual). If America seriously had an 'orgasmic spending' problem they would take any deal to cut this. Instead you are going to end up with no deal (again) because one of your parties has been taken over by lunatics.
So you think it's a valid waste of money...
Uh...valid waste of money? Is there such a thing beyond a Vegas vacation? I would say it's a valid expenditure of money.
And you see absolutely nothing wrong in singling out only lesbians for the study...
Further, you make it sounds like there are absolutely NO OTHER studies of obesity on humans in general anywhere in the country..
Surely there are.. And surely the results of THAT study would apply equally to lesbians as it does to other humans...
Well, as the local expert on obese lesbians, you should therefore be able to tell me conclusively why lesbians are twice as likely to be obese than heterosexual woman, citing these general studies where they found the answers, right?
The general low figure for average costs per person per year for obesity related health problems is $1400. The lesbian population is estimated to be about 2% (low figure) or 6 million. 3/4 of that would be 4.5 million obese lesbians in this country. Multiplied by the $1400 figure makes this a 6.3 billion dollar problem. 1.5 million seems pretty cheap to me. A mere 20% reduction of the lesbian obesity rate would pay for this study many times over.
Or is it your contention that lesbians are not quite human..
But hell, why stop with lesbians.. Why not spend a couple million dollars to see why freckle-faced red-haired people have hangnails...
Not sure what this is about beyond hysterical ravings...but if hangnails in that group is a 6.3 billion dollar problem, then I would not be too bothered by the study.
Why not.. Let's just chuck logic and rational thought out the window... :^/
I see you have already gone there. How's the view?
There is lots of waste in the government that could be cut but harping on drop in the bucket spending with explosive headlines (at least to conservatives) seems to me to be similar what you complain about both sides doing...
There is lots of waste in the government that could be cut but harping on drop in the bucket spending with explosive headlines (at least to conservatives) seems to me to be similar what you complain about both sides doing...
Many drops in the bucket equals an overflowing bucket..
But if you honestly believe that spending a million + dollars to study why lesbians are fat is a valid expenditure, then we really have no common ground in this..
And it surely explains why Democrats have increased the debt to over sixteen TRILLION dollars..
And yet, ya'all STILL claim that spending is not the problem...
Like I said. No chance of common ground whatsoever...
Michale
Democrats go on and on on a DAILY basis that spending is not the problem.
I'd agree with you to some extent. The problem is the economy.
I think deficits are an issue as do most liberals. However, as mentioned the time to pay off deficits is when the economy is back on track. Not when the economy is recovering.
Interestingly enough, more and more I hear business owners becoming frustrated with this Republican obsession with "cuts". I guess Republicans are confident in their ability to message their way through this ... but it will be interesting to see if that's the case.
-David
I'd agree with you to some extent. The problem is the economy.
It's Democrats that are making the claim, not I..
But WHY is the economy such a problem?
Because Democrats thought furthering their own Party ideological agenda was more important than taking care of the country and it's economy..
Because Democrats think today that taking care of political cronies and donors and Union thugs is more important than than taking care of the country and it's economy..
Interestingly enough, more and more I hear business owners becoming frustrated with this Republican obsession with "cuts".
For example....???
Because all the reports I read have business owners frustrated with new regulations and ObamaCare and other moronic things that are forcing the business owners to raise their prices to customers to cover the costs of moronic regulations and benefits..
You still haven't commented on the fact that VETS are having to raise their prices because OBAMACARE is making it more expensive for vets to do business...
Where is the logic in that??
Michale
Why not.. Let's just chuck logic and rational thought out the window... :^/
I see you have already gone there. How's the view?
*I* am not the one who thinks it's perfectly valid to spend millions on a study to learn why lesbians (and ONLY lesbians) are fat..
Anyone who thinks THAT is valid is the one who has lost all sense of logic and rational thought..
Michale
But WHY is the economy such a problem?
Because we're in a recession. Because the unemployment level is still near 8%. Because the economy collapsed in 2008.
For example....?
Here's a good recent example ...
http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/blog/2013/02/how-businesses-can-prepare-for.html
So healthcare for people is a "moronic" regulation?
I don't think most people feel that way.
-David
BTW, Michale. Here's one way to see Obamacare as a good thing.
Most businesses already offer healthcare to employees. These are good businesses. Ones which treat workers well.
Obamacare rewards these businesses by pushing other businesses to offer the same benefits. It basically levels the playing field in the right way.
With no regulations for healthcare, the businesses which get rewarded are those who don't offer healthcare. In this situation, the incentives are structured poorly. You're rewarding bad behavior.
I'm for the system which rewards our good businesses and punishes the bad. Not the other way around.
-David
Far too logical and rational David. Obamacare is an evil socialist Government takeover of America. Fact.
*I* am not the one who thinks it's perfectly valid to spend millions on a study to learn why lesbians (and ONLY lesbians) are fat..
Then please tell us, O local expert on obese lesbians, why they are fat. Do you know? Would you be making the same stink if it was Samoans or some other small minority who were studied for obesity?
You are also the one who has proven his bona fides with the climate change rants (the world is actually getting warmer) in a complete lack of understanding of how scientific research works. Luckily for the rest of us, both parties have come to the conclusion that politicizing the National Institute of Health is a generally bad idea. Republicans have been bitten in the past by harping on great sound bite headlines only to have that very research come up with something useful. Now days the only group that attacks the NIH are the religious right when they fund studies about anything homosexual. Funny that you are tossing in your hat in with those folks.
Now if you went beyond the headline and actually looked in to the issue you would find out some interesting info. Your link sucked but in it was a link to the source article that had much better info. Turns out this research could also help heterosexual male obesity and that is a huge problem, pun semi-intended.
But it brings up an interesting point. In your opinion can deficit reduction only be achieved by conservative sponsored budget cuts? Reducing future government expenditures with better understanding of health issues and how to target specific groups in order to reduce their occurrence and therefore cost not an effective strategy? I notice you have not responded to my assertion that this study has a good chance of saving the government money over the long haul. Why is that?