John Huntsman appears to have a whole lot more in common with Democrats, other than being President Obama's Ambassador to China!

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the issues on which Huntsman’s views differ from those of his party’s conservative wing — positions that, while sensible, could make it hard for him to win the GOP nomination:

Argued stimulus package was too small: When the economic stimulus bill passed, Huntsman criticized fellow GOP governors who refused to take stimulus money for engaging in “gratuitous political griping.” Later in 2009, he added: “I guess in hindsight, we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasn’t large enough” – an argument advanced by, among others, liberal economist Paul Krugman.

Supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants: Huntsman supported comprehensive immigration reforms during his time as governor, including a path-to-citizenship program for undocumented immigrants who came to America for work-related purposes and a plan for young immigrants that sounds eerily similar to the DREAM Act: “A lot of these kids were either born here or certainly were not in a position in their earlier lives to have any influence over the outcome of their journey,” he said. “They were brought here. Does that mean we disregard them and we kind of cancel them out from achieving the American dream?”

Supported cap-and-trade: Huntsman supported a cap-and-trade policy to limit the country’s carbon emissions. He signed Utah onto the Western Climate Initiative that would lead to a cap-and-trade system, and during the 2008 gubernatorial debate, said, “Until we put a value on carbon, we’re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change.” He also touted the University of Utah’s status as a leading center of innovation on carbon capture programs and advocated moving toward a “greener economy.” He recently reiterated his belief in climate change, saying, “All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.”

Supports civil unions: While governor, Huntsman supported expanding civil unions to same-sex couples, for which he was criticized by conservative Republicans. Huntsman told the Deseret News: “I’m a firm believer in the traditional construct of marriage, a man and a woman. But I also think that we can go a greater distance in enhancing equal rights for others in nontraditional relationships.” He stood by his support yesterday in an interview with Time.

Doesn’t irrationally fear China: Huntsman doesn’t seem to partake in the conservative angst about the impending doom of the United States at the hands of the Chinese. While he believes China will surpass the U.S. in “sheer output” over the next few decades – making it the world’s largest economy – he notes that the Chinese are perhaps a century away from catching the U.S. in per capita GDP, a more relevant economic statistic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/huntsman-progressive-past/

He'll NEVER make it past the baggers & birthers in IA!

He just ain't bat sh!t crazy enough!

I wanted to repost this as a clarification on the debt ceiling and the effect of default. It's long and boring but worth a read.

The U.S. government hit the debt ceiling on May 16.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Congress he would have to suspend investments in federal retirement funds until Aug. 2 in order to create room for the government to continue borrowing in the debt markets.

The funds will be made whole once the debt limit is increased, Geithner said in a letter. "Federal retirees and employees will be unaffected by these actions."

He went on to urge Congress once again to raise the country's legal borrowing limit soon "to protect the full faith and credit of the United States and avoid catastrophic economic consequences for citizens."

Geithner told Congress that he estimates he has enough legal hoop-jumping tricks to cover them for another 11 weeks or so.

But then he said that's it. If lawmakers don't get it together by Aug. 2, the United States will no longer be able to pay its bills in full. (Slashing spending alone won't cut it)

What is the debt ceiling exactly? It's a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow. The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare.

The first limit was set in 1917 and set at $11.5 billion, according to the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. Previously, Congress had to sign off every time the federal government issued debt.

How high is the debt limit right now? The ceiling is currently set at $14.294 trillion. The country's accrued debt hit that mark on the morning of May 16.

But by taking various extraordinary measures like suspending investments in federal retirement funds, Geithner will be able to bring total debt down enough to allow the government to continue borrowing until Aug. 2.

Hence, by the end of trade on May 16, total debt subject to the limit was a mere $25 million shy of the official cap -- or $14,293,975,000,000. Total debt can fluctuate up or down on any given day.

How is the ceiling determined? They don't admit it, but lawmakers tacitly agree to raise the debt ceiling every time they vote for a spending hike or tax cut.

So in reality arguing over the debt ceiling is essentially arguing over whether to pay the bills the country has already incurred.

But politicians who make a stink about the debt ceiling will always try to make the case that the guy who votes to raise it is a fiscal spendthrift.

And politics, of course, permeates the whole debate. Lawmakers who want to make hay of the issue for political gain may push for a small increase so the debate comes up again soon. Others may want a bigger increase so they don't have to revisit the issue for awhile.

Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001.

In theory, the limit is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality, it doesn't.

Every time the debt limit needs to be raised, lawmakers and the president are forced to take stock of the country's fiscal direction, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.

But the decision about how high to set the ceiling is divorced from lawmakers' decisions to pass spending hikes and tax cuts. It's also made after the fact, so it doesn't do much to pull in the purse strings.

That's why budget experts say it would be better to tie the debt limit decision to lawmakers' legislative actions.

If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by Aug 2, Treasury would not have authority to borrow any more money. And that can be a problem since the government borrows to make up the difference between what it spends and what it takes in. It uses that borrowed money to help fund operations and pay creditors.

Geithner's critics say he could prevent default by simply paying the interest due to bondholders.

But since average spending -- minus interest -- outpaces revenue by about $118 billion a month, Geithner won't be able to pay all the country's bills.

That means he will have to pick and choose who to pay and who to put off every day. And there's no guarantee that paying interest while shirking other legal obligations will protect the country from the perception of default.

Geithner said it would be akin to a homeowner who pays his mortgage but puts off his car loan, credit cards, insurance premiums and utilities. The mortgage is taken care of, but the homeowner's credit could still be damaged.

Ultimately, if lawmakers fail to raise the ceiling this year, they will have two choices, both awful.

They could either cut spending or raise taxes by several hundred billion dollars just to get through Sept. 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. Or they could acknowledge that the country would be unable to pay what it owes in full and the United States could effectively default on some of its obligations.

The first option would be impossible to execute without serious economic repercussions.

And the second option could cripple the economy and send world markets into a tailspin.

"Not only the default but efforts to resolve it would arguably have negative repercussions on both domestic and international financial markets and economies," according to the CRS.

At a minimum, a default could hurt U.S. bonds, the dollar and investors' portfolios. "Our bond market and stock market would crash," said former Congressional Budget Director Rudolph Penner.

Will reaching the debt ceiling for good cause a government shutdown? Not technically. A government shutdown occurs if lawmakers fail to appropriate money for federal agencies and programs.

By contrast, if the debt ceiling is breached, Uncle Sam would still have revenue coming in that could be used to fund the government, Penner noted.

But if Geithner is coming up short by $118 billion every month, and lawmakers just decide to cut spending by that amount, that could effectively mean a partial government shutdown.

The effect of a shutdown would be catastrophic. Until an agreement on spending cuts can be reached, Congress has no choice but to raise the debt ceiling or risk default. No Social Security payments, Medicare, retirement benefits, etc.

Santorum's comments about torture and other topics have shown him to be a buffoon. Whichever friends are advicing him to run....well, he needs new friends and advisors.

That means he will have to pick and choose who to pay and who to put off every day

Sounds like my bill paying strategy.

But seriously, very clear and instructive post Ira. I'll read it through to the end by the end of the day, I promise :)

Well, as long as santorum is traveling, he can't bring Home any Dead babies for his Kids to See & Hold.

Letem travel all he wants.

BTW, 1st Read, on an earlier thread, Chuck, Mark & another of ya wrote about Emptying the Clip.

What purpose does this type of writing serve other than sensationalism?

I'd bet if either of ya had a Gun pulled onya, you'd NEVER write such Crap again!

Wheres BOB-some number today, or did someone actually do something about him?

" Santorum is the far and away the travel leader -- logging 16 trips to New Hampshire, 14 trips to South Carolina, and another 14 to Iowa, according to his campaign."

My sympathies to Iowa, South Carolina and to my best friend in New Hampshire, who thought she had safely escaped when she moved there from Pennsylvania.

Do we have any numbers on how many trips Santorum made to his home in Virginia all those years he was supposed to be representing Pennsylvania in the Senate?

PS to Rick, KY - I read that story about the dead baby a while back. I suppose there are some people who might find it touching. Me? I was totally creeped out.

SF -

I have no problem with him wanting to be near his kids, either - though I do have a problem with the fact that he had them enrolled in a Pennsylvania cyber charter school, at Pennsylvania taxpayer expense, while they were living in Virginia. And then when he was questioned about it, pimping out all six kids in a campaign ad to blame the whole thing on his opponents:

"Johnny Santorum: My dad's opponents have criticized him for moving us to Washington so we could be with him more.
Daniel Santorum: And they criticized us for attending a Pennsylvania public school over the Internet.
Elizabeth Santorum: And he votes in Washington almost 40 weeks some years. And when he's not voting...
Peter Santorum: Dad's traveling all across Pennsylvania. 67 counties.
Patrick Santorum: That's a lot.
Johnny Santorum: Our dad works hard for the people of Pennsylvania, but one thing he's made very clear to us...
Sarah Maria Santorum: Being our dad is his most important job he'll ever have.
Rick Santorum: I'm Rick Santorum, your Senator, and I approve this message."

Hey, wait a minute.....did one of them just say that when Dad's not voting, he's traveling all across Pennsylvania's 67 counties? So then he wasn't home with them after all?

http://www.factcheck.org/article432.html

I guess the good news is that by the time they get around to our primary next year, he'll be long gone, so at least we won't have to sit through more ads like this!