Breaking news struck around 6:30 p.m. that Sen. Bunning (R-KY) had reached a deal with Senate Democrats to end his objection to extending funds for unemployment benefits that put thousands of government workers on furlough starting last Monday. "I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own 'pay fors' and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline. I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35675122/ns/politics-capitol_hill/). Many accused Sen. Bunning as being a hypocrite for his past votes on spending and tax cuts while objecting to hold Democrats to their own "pay as you go" bill. Sen. Bunning did vote against "pay as you go".
The objection raised by Sen. Bunning was refreshing to see a member of Congress to stand up others in the chamber to demand fiscal responsibility. I have been reading Facebook, media outlets and various blog sites as it pertains toward the objection raised by Sen. Bunning. When Sen. Bunning first made his objection last week he asked for Majority Leader Sen. Reid (D-NV) to use the Stimulus bill to pay for the $10B instead of passing the current bill without a funding source. I understand that $10B may be viewed as insignificant compared to the trillions of dollars being spent. Many, even some inside of Sen. Bunning's party, complained that he was hurting Americans by holding up the funding.
Sen. Bunning should be applauded for his stance regardless if it late in the game. A stance needs to be taken. The last time we went to the ballot box to vote for President of the United States many pulled the lever for Sen. Obama because he promoted change and hope. Even though many, those who took the time to vet Obama, knew his run to the middle was a charade and the true Obama leans extremely to the left. Since taking office we have seen a quadrupling of the deficit, a rise in the debt ceiling, broken promises to change Washington and to get people back to work. Obama has failed on nearly every campaign promise. Sen. Bunning is not running for re-election this year so perhaps this is why he is standing on principle and holding things up and the feet of the Democrats to the fire. I really don't care his reasoning; I am just happy to see a member of Congress to stand up and demand to know how we are going to pay for the $10B extension of unemployment benefits.
It will be interesting to see how the vote comes out and the deal made to pay for this extension.
Some questions:
ReplyDeleteWhen has the government EVER been fiscally responsible according to your standards?
What was Obama SUPPOSED to do to deal with rising unemployment, economic recession, and a huge deficit already?
What are members of congress elected for? To sit on their hands while the economy is out of control?
Why is a small increase in taxes (or a medium decrease in deductions) really a bad thing for lowering deficits?
The deficit will go down as soon as someone grows a pair and starts to tax wealthy people, stop military spending, increase corporate taxes, and stop all of these ridiculous tax incentives for things. These things are painful and flat out politically unpopular but effective. Stop your complaining about things the government does and has done for decades now. Unemployment benefits are like 0.001% if the total budget much like most of the earmarking that goes on. It's just another teabagger ploy to elicit a false populist response...enough already
Anon
ReplyDeleteI have written several times on what I like to see our Government do. None of which is "another teabagger ploy to elicit a false populist response.'
"When has the government EVER been fiscally responsible according to your standards?"
The past ten or twelve years has not seen the type of fiscal responsibility I'd prefer. The size and debt of government has grown unchecked. This is not a knock against a particular party rather against both parties.
"What was Obama SUPPOSED to do to deal with rising unemployment, economic recession, and a huge deficit already?"
First, Obama was not to use a failed strategy of spending to get us out of the recession or quadruple the debt in one year.
Second, in order for people to stay working or hired back, companies have to have a reason. The single group that can drive companies to hire people back is through the purchase of goods. The private citizen is best at doing that not the spending of the federal government.
Third, scrap the current tax system and replace it with a flat tax similar to the one I have discussed several times on the blog. The last time was the entry called "A Blue Print to recovery".
"What are members of Congress elected for? To sit on their hands while the economy is out of control?"
The reason why our economy is spinning out of control is because of our elected officials. The repeal of Glass-Steagel assisted the mortgage back derivative market that got its start in the belief that everyone had the RIGHT to own a home regardless if they could afford it or not. Many in Congress tried to warn of the insolvency of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but prominent Dem's i.e. Rep Frank said it was not. History tells a different story.
"Why is a small increase in taxes (or a medium decrease in deductions) really a bad thing for lowering deficits?"
We need to slow and reverse our spending trends. Government is not the answer. I agree that we need to get rid of tax credits but if we do we need to replace our current tax system with a flat tax.
So, based on your philosophy we should just accept growing government, out of control spending, devalue of the dollar, mounting debt, and the bankruptcy of America. If we are to accept the status quo then why are entertaining health care reform, worried about climate change or being energy independent?
My argument isn't against you but as to why all of this hasn't been achived after decades of wrangling. Do you think that this economy is the result of Obama, or Bush, or even Clinton? No. This is decades in the making.
ReplyDeleteYour answer to the first question says it all...
This is a media-driven, election-cycle, corporate handout world we live in. I have read your proposals and I think their sound, even as a progressive. However, I think you live in libertarian fantasy land. And this crappy economy? It will turn itself around sooner or later. It has to.
The government? It will keep growing because corporate america doesn't see a benefit in improving things like infrastructure. That gets expensive. Schools, healthcare, unemployment? Its like car insurance-damn I hate paying it but it sure helps if some idiot rear-ends me at a stoplight. I personally have never seen a "shrink the size of government" argument actually find its way into congress. I and would like someone to tell me when the only time when the government held no public debt (I believe it was the Jackson administration) Politicians are elected to bring money to their districts...we all think that politicians are bad, except our own.
I am not interested in insulting your solutions (mainly because I have not offered any of my own) but I thing the tea-party people and libertarian in general need to study up on their history to be made aware that deficit spending is not a new thing nor is it ever going away.
Where was he when the 2 wars were going on unfunded (total expense 1.4 trillion and counting)?
ReplyDeleteWhere was he when the Republican congress and a republican president passed a 1 trillion dollar tax cut (unfunded)?
Where was he when the republicans passed a 1.2 trillion dollar prescription drug plan (unfunded)?
Hypocrisy knows no bounds and he's just another johnny-come-lately to the fiscal conservative party.
What changed between those wastes of money and this 10 billion dollar joke? Oh that's right, the republicans lost power due to their spending binge.
Again, hypocrisy at it's finest.
I agree that we need to go back to Andrew Jackson to see a government will little to no debt. A Libertarian fantasy land? We need to start someplace to get the government to work for us, be fiscally responsible and be held more accountable.
ReplyDeleteCorporate America is not meant for improving infrastructure; rather the goal of Corporate America is to turn a profit. While turning that profit Corporate America will provide jobs. The idea of infrastructure is what our Governments and communities are for. I disagree that healthcare and unemployment benefits are to be considered infrastructure.
Infrastructure is roads, bridges, electrical grids, and the sort. Does it make sense for Government to craft a "safety" net for those less fortunate or as we have seen in recent memory suffered a layoff. The answer is yes but it should be limited.
I am curious where the notion of Representation, established by the Constitution, translates into pet projects and bringing money back to their districts. Our elected officials on the Federal stage should pass laws that move America forward as whole and the way the Constitution sets the process makes it difficult to pass knee jerk legislation.
Toward Kevin's comments. I agree Sen. Bunning's objection and continued objection smacks of hypocrisy but its hypocrisy that I welcome. I welcome it and hope that it catches fire. My hope is that Americans wake up and demand more accountability and encourage their Representatives to stand up against the Party.
Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation known as "Pay Go" and Sen. Bunning (hypocrisy, Johnny-come-lately) demanded that the Senate abide by the rules they set forth. I too wish that Sen. Bunning, or anyone else, would have stood up against the unfunded wars, prescription drug plan and tax cuts to ensure the funds were there.