Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

One program upon which House Republicans have consistently seized upon to bolster their budget-cutting bona fides is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund, a successful program that created 250,000 jobs in 37 states via subsidized employment programs for low-income and unemployed workers. And according to National Journal, Republicans are once again railing against the program:

House Republicans have targeted one of the first programs they would like to ax: the $25 billion emergency fund for people who lose their jobs, part of last year’s stimulus bill. Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said the program encourages states to increase their welfare caseloads “without requiring able-bodied individuals to work, get job training, or make other efforts to move off of taxpayer assistance.”

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out, Price’s characterization of the fund is completely inaccurate. The program also had the staunch support of many Republican governors, including Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), who said it provided “much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities.”

But the crux of the issue is that eliminating the TANF emergency fund will save exactly zero dollars, because the program has already expired! It was funded at $5 billion for two years, and ended on September 30, 2010. It’s over, and there is no money for Price to save.

Advocates, as well as the Obama administration, have asked that Congress fund the program for an additional year for $2.5 billion. Price multiplied that over ten years to come up with his ludicrous pronouncement that he would save $25 billion by cutting the program.

This highlights the extent to which Republicans want to employ gimmickry instead of actually being honest about their budget priorities. The TANF emergency fund did precisely what it was designed to do, and Republicans are now using it to demonize the working poor and falsely point to it as an example of government waste that will yield loads of savings if it is cut.

A few Republican Senators — including Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) — have said that they will vote against raising the nation’s debt ceiling unless such a move is paired with spending cuts. “I won’t [vote for it]. Not unless this debt ceiling is combined with some path to balancing our budget. Returning to 2008 spending levels,” Coburn said.

Last night on CNBC, Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) went a step further, explicitly saying that he will vote against increasing the debt limit, whatever the consequences:

KUDLOW: Using the debt limit or the debt ceiling as a way of forcing down spending and deficits — how far would you go? Would you go toward government shutdown if you had to?

LEE: Well, look, I’m going to vote against raising the national debt ceiling. We simply can’t continue to mortgage the future or our unborn children and grandchildren. [...]

KUDLOW: You know Senator, I always wondered, the government shutdown thing, I know people have a fetish about it. When I worked for Reagan many years ago, we did have a government shutdown, but you know, essential activities continue. It’s non-essential activities that get shut down. And if that’s what it takes to cut spending, isn’t that what it’s going to take?

LEE: Yes, and that’s why I say it’s not something that we avoid at all costs. It’s something we try to avoid, because it’s an inconvenience, it’s a nuisance.

Watch it:

Comparing the government shutdowns under Reagan — which were short and due to budget differences — to the country defaulting on its debt entirely shows that neither Lee nor Kudlow understands the gravity of the situation. Raising the debt ceiling affirms that the country will pay off the debts its incurred, and as the Center for American Progress’ David Min pointed out, failure to do so could be disastrous:

The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S. Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world.

Such a move will also increase long-term deficits and debt, while cutting off Social Security and Medicare benefits for millions of seniors. If Lee thinks that’s just a nuisance, he needs to find some perspective.

Finally, Lee spent the entire interview trying to bolster his credibility when it comes to deficit reduction, but when asked about the nearly $4 trillion cost of extending all of the Bush tax cuts, Lee replied, “We have to stop looking at the Bush tax cuts as something we have to afford.”

BP’s former CEO, Tony Hayward, blames public scrutiny for his dismissal from the leadership of the oil company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. In an interview with the BBC to be televised this evening, the erstwhile chief complained about an “enormous feeding frenzy” from the media. Hayward famously complained in May that he wanted his life back and promised that “the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest,” leading him to be pilloried by everyone from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) to South Park. In the interview, he expressed anger about criticism for going yachting with his son, and reiterated that his only fault was his poor handling of the media:

If I had done a degree at Rada [The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art] rather than a degree in geology, I may have done better, but I’m not certain it would’ve changed the outcome. But certainly the perception of myself may have been different.

Hayward argued that the “full glare of the media” made “some extraordinary engineering” look like “fumbling and incompetence.” “We were completely overrun” by a flood of news cameras that spread over the coast and smothered BP’s reputation, he said, “and just not prepared to deal with the intensity of the media scrutiny.” Watch some excerpts:

Hayward told the BBC he was was confident that if BP had stopped the gusher in early June — after 11 men had been killed and 100 million gallons of oil had already spewed into the Gulf of Mexico and devastated the ocean — he would still be the CEO.