SOTU Reaction

Here's Eric Massa's response to last night's State of the Union address, and here's Tom Reed's [pdf].

As usual, Massa has a list of specific likes and dislikes, and Reed's response is shorter, less specific and completely negative.


So, it's still Brylcreem?

Actually Massa's release talks all about secondary issues and Reed's gets to the heart of the matter.

No, it doesn't. It just spoons out vague platitudes.

He's right that controlling spending is necessary for our long-term prosperity, but he's also been a steadfast foe of the stimulus package, which most economists think has saved us from a much worse recession.

More importantly, I have yet to see Republicans match serious rhetoric with serious action on deficits. Let's begin with the recent history of trillions of unfunded programs, such as Medicare Part B and the two wars which the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress chose to fund off the books. Then, let's move on to the recent vote on PAYGO -- pay-as-you go, which was part of the reason that we ended the Clinton years with budget surpluses. PAYGO passed the Senate with a 60-40 party-line vote. Not a single Republican voted for it in the Senate, and only a few did in the House.

When Reed stops repeating Republican talking points, I'll start taking him seriously as a challenger. But Republican deficit-cutting rhetoric is a joke, considering that PAYGO vote and the history of the Bush years.

But Reed wasn't in Congress for any of that spending.

If he uses the same talking points as every other Republican, can't we assume that he'll vote with them?

It's a kind of a joke that the people who caused the crash and the deficits "as far as the eye can see" have largely paid off their debts to the taxpayers under TARP, have become deficit hawks, or lobbyists, and are now going on their merry way. It's like Grover Norquist's wish come true. Bye-bye "entitlements" and any hope for reform and redirection of the economy in a greener more energy independent way.