BLOG: Rob Portman, working to get something done, someday!

Tom Jackson
Nov 29, 2011


By now, unless you're smarter than me and you've given up following politics, you've heard about Congress' latest dismal failure. The fabled "Supercommittee," which was supposed to figure out a way to deal with the nation's budget mess, finished work without getting anything done.

Ohio's Republican U.S. senator, Rob Portman, was part of the Gang of 12 that didn't do anything. But not to worry! Portman has issued yet another press release on the debacle, which says, "Portman continues to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get Washington’s fiscal house back in order and get our economy moving again."

Thanks to our junior senator, we now know what to say when we face awkward conversations at work:

EDITOR: You haven't written anything in the last two days? Not even a posting for your stupid blog?

TOM: I'm continuing to work with my sources to get the newsroom moving again by writing an a newspaper story.

By the way, the senator and his Republican colleagues have written an op-ed for the Washington Post on what went wrong. Surprise! It's the Democrats' fault!

In fairness, the GOP account makes it sound like Democrats did not want to make a deal. It's not clear from the GOP piece whether Republicans made equally unreasonable demands.




tom, what's with the gop bashing?  i think there is plenty of blame to go around here.  maybe, just maybe, if obumbles would actually do something that he has yet to do as our prez like give us a budget then the gop would know exactly where he wants to go!  to give obumbles carte blanche is even more scary than the gop being in charge of congress as obumbles has done a big fat zero when it comes to his fiscal abilities!

most people can't make a simple budget for their household when they don't know what their expenditures vs income is let lone a trillion dollar rouse.

and they said bernie madoff was a bad man.  obumbles has him beat.

The Big Dog's back

 Portman is part of the problem, not part of the solution.


Typical Tom Jackson GOP bashing non-news item!

To hear Tom tell it, (or not tell it) ALL the earths woes fall on the shoulders of Republicans.


Tom, how do you go through life with those blinders on?


big dog - they ALL are part of the problem!



Let us know when Portman offers to take a cut in his pay and bennies.

You republican wingnuts want to make an offer we can't refuse have the Legislative Branch cut their wages and benefits as a show of good faith.




@Kimo says, "You republican wingnuts want to make an offer we can't refuse have the Legislative Branch cut their wages and benefits as a show of good faith."

Funny how you libs always put that out there yet I have not seen a single Dem legislator offer up the proposal.  Seems the holier than thou left are also unwilling to take a paycut for the betterment of their country.  Seems everyone should sacrifice but them.  I'll be willing to pay more taxes as soon as they take a pay and benefit cut.  Until that, they can eat my shorts.

6079 Smith W

@ Mr. Jackson:

Wha? You didin't get the memo?

The "StuperCommittee" to which Mr. Obama abdicated his budget responsibiities was supposed to fail - it succeeded!

You know; when the goin' get's tough - have a meeting. In a bureacracy it helps to give the appearance of action.

Now, Mr. Obama has another issue to help divide the country to help his 2012 re-election campaign. 

He knows d*mn well that raising taxes on some Americans won't put a dent in the $14 trillion and growing federal debt. It's just smoke and mirrors.

Get up to speed would ya? You're appearing politically naive.

You like to read. Read or re-read the timeless: "The Peter Principle".

Mr. Obama is a classic example of it in action.



"He knows d*mn well that raising taxes on some Americans won't put a dent in the $14 trillion and growing federal debt. It's just smoke and mirrors."

It failed because the only answer that seems to be acceptable to many is cut, cut, cut, cut....

Want to bet that the representatives that hold the purse strings will change original agreement to protect only defence?


you leftwinged nuts want to make an offer that we the right can't refuse?  show us a budget, pleaseeee!  show how us how and where obumbles will make cuts.

as i have said before: i am not even close to being rich but i am against raising any taxes until we can be assured they will go stictly to deficit reduction. 

6079 Smith W

@ eriemom:

Not-to-worry; the Repubs don't have the political will to cut and the Dems won't.

The Greater Depression is just around the corner and austerity will be thrust upon us regardless.

Watch the PIIGS in Europe; it's a mirror of what awaits us or worse.




Actually, Gov. Rick Perry has proposed that Congress become a part-time body (as it was originally conceived to be). What would that mean?

No more political "careers." Politicians would actually have to have REAL jobs that would suffer real effects from the laws they wrote and passed. They'd be paid less (obviously) and DO less (thankfully).

I'm not sure I'm on board with Perry on a lot more than that, but I'm definitely not unhappy about THAT suggestion!


The reason "cut, cut, cut" is the only option acceptable to many is because it's quite literally the only RATIONAL option. Government has its fingers in far too many pies. Get it out of all of the places it doesn't belong, and there'd be plenty for such legitimate government functions as interstate infrastructure and yes, defense. Unfortunately, like someone once said, a democracy will last only as long as it takes for people to realize they can vote themselves largesse out of the treasury, and we're already well past that point. Like 6079 Smith W says, look at Europe. And then consider that we are well on our way to becoming Greece writ large.

And yes, mikel is right: The professional politicans of ALL stripes are a major part of the problem. But the blame actually lies with greedy voters who want their "Obama money" or who think they deserve to live off the sweat of others. It won't work. Never has, never will.  Meanwhile, the "greater depression" is looming, and don't pretend to yourselves for a moment that it's not.

Finally, it should have been clear to one and all long before now that Tom Jackson is on the far left himself, and is incapable of distancing himself enough from any issue to be less than biased. In a blog, that's not necessarily wrong or unethical, but it frankly colors my impression of everything he writes whether he calls it a "blog" or "news" because he's just so...OBVIOUS!

The New World Czar

The whole committee was basically a waste of time, money, and media space. No leadership from above, either (that's Obama, not from the "real" above). Meanwhile, moonbat Sherrod "Yale Russian Studies Degree" Brown is out to save underutilized post offices (and public jobs)...


 The executive branch does not control the fed purse.  The information that I'm getting from economists is that the budget cannot be balanced with cuts alone. Can you think of any budget, that clearly must include changes to the tax code, that would be acepted? To take the stand that a cut only budget will solve our problems is inexplicable.

In order to get a truely balanced budget we will need to replace anyone who is taking an our-way-or-the-highway stand.



You're half right. The budget as it exists CAN'T be balanced by cuts alone. But the half where you're wrong is the most important half. When I say "cuts," I don't mean decreases. I mean actually ending various and sundry government programs.

More than a few candidates have noted that America doesn't have an income problem. It has a SPENDING problem. That's no different than you and I insisting we can dine on lobster every night, and then crying because our credit cards are maxed out. Maybe — just maybe! — we don't need to eat lobster all the time. Maybe we don't need to take cruises EVERY year. Maybe the winter coat we bought last year will last another winter (or three or four). And maybe we don't NEED the latest version of the iPad, or to get our hair colored every month.

Government has become a slush fund for LUXURIES or for WANTS, not for NEEDS. If you and I can tell the difference between those two things in our own households, how is it that men and women who are allegedly so much smarter than we are can't see it from Capitol Hill?



"More than a few candidates have noted that America doesn't have an income problem."

It is also true that while they are candidates for office they are happy to feed you all of the red meat that you can eat. To bad that the sound bite just isn't true. I agree that cuts need to be made. Where we differ is in what should be cut, and then how do we pay for those programs that should not be cut.




“More than a few candidates have noted that America doesn't have an income problem. It has a SPENDING problem. That's no different than you and I insisting we can dine on lobster every night, and then crying because our credit cards are maxed out. Maybe — just maybe! — we don't need to eat lobster all the time…” 


 Perhaps the banks should not have been at the trough.  Perhaps if the banks were not at the trough the deficit would be well…..much smaller.  Perhaps the Citizens of our country could have jobs, hamburger instead of peanut butter, a home and not a homeless shelter, bridges that don’t collapse, safe water, food, Universal Health Care.  And if the tax code “giveaways” were removed all of these current conditions could be improved as well.

Conservatives come in two stripes: fiscal and religious.  It is never easy to see which stripe they are because they mask one concern to hold fast to the other.  I personally know many conservatives who will hold the Republican line on taxes and regulations when their true commitment is to ending Roe v Wade or some other purely religious/moral view.  To bolster their conscious they listen exclusively to FOX and Limbaugh who willingly provide the support they need that allows them to justify Republican fiscal ideology.  Unfortunately they have already lost their religious and moral debates.  Not so much because their positions are wrongheaded but because our constitution gives us all freedom of conscious and society has left the moral code of the 50’s.  One might remember that our nation was founded with the idea of freedom of conscious.   If Republicans lose their “moral majority” members they would lose on fiscal ideology. 


Note to those who unbelievably believe the Democrats spend too much.  Please not this was done before President Obama took office.

“The Federal Reserve Bank committed some $7.77 trillion in funds to major Wall Street banks during the height of the 2008 financial crisis, according to a report published by Bloomberg News November 28 through a Freedom of Information Act request….

Bloomberg noted that most of the major banks receiving the below-market-rate loans made billions in profit from the Federal Reserve policies. The Federal Reserve Bank loaned funds to major Wall Street banks at rates of between 0.10 percent and 0.25 percent and at the same time banks were encouraged  to purchase U.S. Treasury bills. Two-year Treasury bills the federal government was selling were fetching more than one percent interest. The deal — borrowing at a discounted rate from one agency of the federal government and taking loans earning interest at a higher rate from another agency of government — amounted to a cash transfer from the federal government to the big banks that Bloomberg estimated netted the banks some $13 billion in profit.”


@Bess says," constitution gives us all freedom of conscious." 

LOL! Another liberal beholden to revisionist history.


@ Sam Adams:  You made one huge assumption and mistake: 6079W Smith and Mikel agree with your opinion, which is fine, but opinions are not automatically facts. I can easily find 2 people who think all 3 of you are incorrect, but I know mine is still just an opinion, although I have a pile of facts to back up my viewpoints, just as I'm sure you do.

From where I'm sitting, I know that taxes are at the lowest level in nearly half a century, so clearly the problem is NOT as simple as: we're being overtaxed. Clearheaded people from both parties realize that a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes is needed. If you're one of the naifs who think that cutting taxes is the only way to fix the problem, then you're one of the stubborn fools who is assuring that the problem will continue. 

Try a little open-mindedness and compromise - you'll be amazed at the results if you'll just let your mind grow a little bit. For starters, I suggest turning off Faux News. Their spin is so one-sided as to be 3 parts fiction/entertainment to 1 part news/truth.



LMAO @ coasterfan.  I have yet to see you cite any facts other than what you have pulled either out of your rear or from an ultra-left source.  Get real, you have as much credibility as Big Dog, AKA Brutus. LOL.  As fpr Fox News, the same could be said for outlets such as MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC.  All bastians of liberal propaganda.

6079 Smith W

@ eriemom:

Know your history:

TRA86 was crafted in order to: Cut spending, lower tax rates and broaden the tax base. (Similar to what many Repubs have currently been proposing.)

Unfortunately, the tax parts came to fruition, the spending cuts did not.

If taxes are raised, history will IMO repeat itself and the cuts will be MIA.

On federal, state and local levels, costs have long been outstripping tax revenue - everyone's taxes will need to be raised, just not on the rich and businesses.


@ Bess:

And the current U.S. Treasury Secy., "Turbo Tax" Timmy Geitner was head of the NY Fed Resv. while all that $7.7T arrangement was goin' down.

Mr. Bernanke is all set for QE3 - more bailouts for Fannie and Freddie to the tune of $545B:



 TRA86? I wrote about the latest debt ceiling event. In the event that the super committe could not agree on cuts that would reduce the debt, automatic cuts would result. My bet is that the cuts will not be made in defence as agreed to.

Te problem with TRA86 was that it did not broaden the tax base. It only incentivized corporate lobby for tax subsidies. It also added terms to our language such as vodoo economics and trickle down economics.

6079 Smith W

eriemom writes:

"Te problem with TRA86 was that it did not broaden the tax base."


For one, the tax deduction for credit card interest was phased out. That affected a lot of people who were carrying a large amount of credit card debt.

Certain other income tax shelters were also phased out.

TRA86 was agreed to by both Dems and Repubs.

Read the following, you know not of what you write:




Gotta love the whacky liberals trying to rewrite recent history. The major wall street banks were forced to take the money, even though they didn't need it, they have since repaid the loans with interest. It was the small mom and pop banks that were failing. The liberals are bad mouthing wall street for nothing. Here's the link because the left has been lied to so often, they don't know the truth.


coasterfan - i don't disagree that we may need to pay more in taxes.  however, as i stated, until there is a real plan to make cuts it doesn't matter how much you raise in taxes.  you can't continue to spend, spend, spend no matter what the level of taxes would be.  a blend of tax increase's along with cuts is the only way we can make progress.  these cuts and increase's should touch EVERY person regardless of income level.


6079 Smith W

@ KnuckleDragger:

I read that when Rep. Barney Frank began in Congress, he was making $50K annually and now he's possibly worth over $200M.

Congress obviously pays well.

Didja know that the three wealthiest counties in the U.S. per capita surround DC? Sweet.

And these *ssholes want more tax money? LOL.



Will continue attack later but, I know personally many more conservatives who could care less about Roe vs. Wade,oh great and noble illuminati whose intelligence is well above the common man and can speak for an entire political party. You oh gifted one are so wise and all knowing. Could you please blog louder, the refrains from Kumbaya are drowning you out!!


President Obama has done things that progressives or liberals opposed.  Geitner’s appointment was one.  At the time, Jan 2009, the economic decisions being made were forgiven, given the utter ruin the economy was approaching.  Not so much since as there has been plenty of time to change him out. 


Funny how one network is conservative and so many are liberal.  While it is clear MSNBC does support liberal ideas, can it be that all the others are skewing liberal too?  Or, are they just providing the news, that somehow does not support the conservative agenda?


Jes Goofus-  Bloomberg has been all over this and the big banks were not forced to take this money.  They took it because they had a great margin on the interest they could charge on it.  The money that was repaid was TARP.  

6079 Smith W

KnuckleDragger writes:

Bess says," constitution gives us all freedom of conscious." 

Good point about the revisionism.

According to the Founders, freedoms are "inalienable" or "God-given."

Govt. cannot give freedom, it can only take it away.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - Geo. Washington



i think people were mainly opposed to geithner because he was in essence a tax evader as he owed $thousands$, mucho thousands to the fed gov't in unpaid taxes.

kinda like having a mass murder being the local police chief.

6079 Smith W

@ Bess:

All that has essentially been accomplished is that "Too big to fail" has been transformed into "Too bigger to fail." 

The can was merely kicked down the road and we are increasingly running out of road.

Here's a new one for you this morning: 

"The world's major central banks made it easier Wednesday for banks to get dollars if they need them, a coordinated move to ease the strains on the global financial system. Stock markets rose sharply on the move."

Ya gotta stay up on this stuff. Stay away from that MSNBC nonsense and read more biz sites.

MSNBC is gonna go the way of that humorless defunct Air America.


The Big Dog's back

 It's funny winnie you diss MSNBC but love CNBC. Such a joke.

6079 Smith W

@ mikel:

My other favorite liberal was former senator Carol Moseley Braun (IL-D) who forgot $30K that she received from her mother's estate in order to make her mother eligible for Medicaid.

Hey! As soon as I found out about it, I paid the taxes and interest!!!



or charlie rangel, d-ny, who didn't "know" that he had to report hundreds of thousands of $dollars$ as income from his rental properties!

seriously though the banks don't want to loan money to people here in the us that might be a credit risk but they are willing to loan $billions$ to other countries which are BIGGER credit risks!!  obumbles supports this decision by the way.

The Big Dog's back

 To many Repubs to list, so here is a sight:

6079 Smith W

 @ mikel:

Probably more like $1T or more.

"That doesn’t mean that US taxpayers are not risk here, of course. The new dollars have the potential to spark inflation—which could result in higher interest rates and higher taxes as the government combats inflation. But in the current economic environment, the risk of inflation is very slight."

I like his use of the word "current." (Hey! The sun is shining so why bother to fix the hole in the roof?)

As Rick Santelli recently said on CNBC: About the only thing that Mr. Bernanke may be worried about is running out of trees in order to print the money.

My stocks are do'n real well today - Thanks Uncle Ben!



Keep lappin' the toilet water.

Seven of the ten richest members of Congress are Dems:




Et Tu Brutus, stay on the porch puppy!!

The Big Dog's back

You like that never ending list eh goof? 

6079 Smith W

@ Dog:

Did you eat the "large mint" in the toilet tank again?


6079 Smith W

The Repubs are saying: No more @#$% bailouts!

"Conservatives say they will try to block the International Monetary Fund from bailing out Italy and Spain, which they say could leave U.S. taxpayers with a huge bill."

"Even if it passes Congress, Coburn says President Obama would likely veto the legislation."