Where's the party of fiscal discipline?
In yet another baby step in the right direction, the House narrowly passed $50 billion in spending reduction. And when I say narrowly, I mean narrowly! It passed by one vote.
That's pathetic, people.
And you know what else is bad? Every Democrat voted against it. Every. Single. One. This is reminiscent of my recent list of a mere handful of Senators who had earned a modicum of respect on the issue of spending -- out of the 13 senatorial "heroes" I identified, only one was a Democrat.
Now let's be clear about this: The Republicans suck on the issue of fiscal discipline. They suck long and they suck hard, and that's one of the reasons why their poll numbers are in the shitter, and that so many fiscal conservatives like myself are feeling alienated and disaffected.
The Democrats would love for us to believe that they're prepared to assume the mantle of fiscal restraint, but with voting records like these, how can they have any credibility on that score? They can't. They don't. That's probably a big reason why no matter how low the GOP's poll numbers go, the numbers for congressional Democrats are still slightly worse.
A fellow disaffected Republican recently asked me, "Don't you feel like the Republican Party has left you? You know, like the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm?"
Well, yes. I do feel exactly like that. The big, depressing difference, however, is that Reagan and Gramm had somewhere else to go.
Comments
In all fairness, more Democrats might have voted for it except for that little "transfer wealth from the poor to the rich" thing. Bush has already tranferred billions from the middle class to the mega-rich through out of control energy gouging.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 18, 2005 03:22 PM
I couldn't help noticing that oil is down to US$56/bbl today and December put contracts in the US$48/49 range are trading heavily today.
Posted by: withoutfeathers | November 18, 2005 03:28 PM
Are we Libertarians yet?
Posted by: Paul Moore | November 18, 2005 04:35 PM
Well, I plan on getting stoned and shooting at things this weekend.
So...yeah, kinda.
Posted by: apotheosis | November 18, 2005 04:48 PM
Oil is down to more than double what it was when Bush took office ... so your point is what? Are the Big Oil companies going broke? Hey, I know, let's have Bush hand them even more of our tax money as corporate welfare!
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 19, 2005 01:43 AM
Cut taxes, cut spending, cut fat, cut pork, and cut out the BS. I'm with you, Barry. Now, I have some Sky Vodka that needs sipping!
Posted by: Ken chiarella | November 19, 2005 11:52 AM
Uhh.. this argument MIGHT have SOME merit if the borrow-and-spend Republican Congress were not considering now a TAX-CUT bill for $50-70 billion.
Net result? up to $20 Billion added to our already HUGE deficit.
Good work, Rethuglycans.
Way to look out for the American people.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 19, 2005 01:00 PM
Bush is bankrupting the future for almost all Americans, while trying to secure the future for his mega-wealthy traitor friends who move their corporations offshore and their labor offshore while living in this country in their nine or ten mansions each.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | November 19, 2005 01:37 PM
"Uhh.. this argument MIGHT have SOME merit if the borrow-and-spend Republican Congress were not considering now a TAX-CUT bill for $50-70 billion.
Net result? up to $20 Billion added to our already HUGE deficit.
Good work, Rethuglycans.
Way to look out for the American people" (anony-mouse)
So, in answer to Paul Moore's question YOU ARE becoming more Libertarian!
"Bush is bankrupting the future for almost all Americans, while trying to secure the future for his mega-wealthy traitor friends who move their corporations offshore and their labor offshore while living in this country in their nine or ten mansions each." (BH
And YOU TOO!
How about that?!
Posted by: JMK | November 21, 2005 10:55 AM
"Oil is down to more than double what it was when Bush took office ... so your point is what? Are the Big Oil companies going broke? Hey, I know, let's have Bush hand them even more of our tax money as corporate welfare!" (BH)
His point is, and I want to keep this as simple as possible, that neither Bush nor any Bush policies (ie the War in the Mid-East) has had ANYTHING to do with the rising prices of oil and gas.
Gasoline prices rose in the wake of a series of damaging hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico that depleted our already strained refining capacity. The price of OPEC oil has risen in response to increased demand, largely from India & China, which has since leveled off.
If you're going to blame Bush for high oil prices, which he had no control over (which YOU did), than it stands to reason that YOU must also give him credit when they fall.
See how that works?
Simple huh.
Posted by: JMK | November 21, 2005 11:02 AM