There are many things in life that are a certainty--like...the sun comes up in the morning, the sky is blue, oceans are filled with water, Democrats should bow down to Conservative nut jobs and douche weasels.
Chuck Todd demonstrates that view perfectly, but he poses it as a question. (Thanks Heather for spotting this)
Gene Sperling, President Obama's chief economic adviser joined Chuck on The Daily Rundown to discuss whether President Barack Obama will reach his 2014 goals with or without the help of Congress.
Todd also focused on the failed proposals that would have extended unemployment benefits to at least 1.3 million people now and many more to follow.
The Senate failed to clear the 60-vote hurdle on two proposals to extend unemployment benefits, thanks to a GOP filibuster.
The obvious problem is that Republicans want to cut spending someplace else to pay for the extension. It's the ridiculous pay-go scenario.
The dispute centers on how to pay for the aid. Republicans have insisted the cost of the benefits be offset with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget, but they balked at the pay-fors Reid suggested last week.
Chuck definitely knows this is the issue, but his framing said another thing altogether and without mentioning that Republicans filibustered all Democratic efforts to get something done.
Todd: Let me ask you this, why, what happened yesterday unemployment benefits the longer you go the less sense of urgency these lawmakers are going to have. They're going back, it's not happening at least for another couple of weeks. If some eighty Senators all saying publicly that they think there should be some form of an extension, how does it not happen at his point. Ahhh, should Democrats have given more to the Republicans to try and make this happen? Is this a parliamentary issue. Is this a relationship problem, what is it?
Firstly, it never matters what the Democrats give up because it's never enough and secondly, why didn't he ask if the Republicans should have given more to the Democrats so that the bill was passed?
And about the insanity of the position that Republicans hold which says we must have spending cuts elsewhere in the government to offset any spending. You know that's a lot of malarky, don't you?
Paygo follies: guess who doesn't have to "pay" for their benefits?
Back when everyone was high giving the Ryan-Murray grown up budget last month, I noted that it was unlikely that the military pension cuts would stick, while it was obvious that the cuts to federal employee pensions would. The military is sacred to politicians in both parties and very few of them would be willing to fight the veterans groups.
But this is even more sickeningly unfair than I thought. I'm sure you've noticed all the garment rending among the Republicans in recent days over the need to "pay for" any spending with cuts to other programs, even unemployment benefits which have never, until very recently, been subject to pay-go rules.
Read the piece and find out who is now exempted from the pay-go rules.
