Harry Reid is proposing putting the force of law behind rules already on the books requiring all future obligations Congress saddles us with to be funded prior to enactment.
Congress already lives within similar budget rules but routinely waives them. However, the new rules would carry the force of law and be enforced by the threat of across-the-board spending cuts if they are violated.
Apparently he’s a rather unwilling convert to the idea, being pressured by the “blue-dog” Democrats who tend to hold to more fiscally sound ideas while maintaining a (D) after their name.
These rules are similar to those enacted in the 90’s which helped contribute to the balanced budget of ’98. Those rules expired in ’02 and have not been re-upped.
So kudos to Senator Reid. I’ll think a few happy thoughts about you after you are forced out by a landslide defeat in your next election.
Democrats have been pulled to the left, to the left.
And I’d welcome a move to the right from them. Sure, it’s harder to tell people apart when they’re so similar, but the fights aren’t quite as “end of the world” as they are when there are such polar opposites at stake.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana prescribes such a move to save the party of the donkey from a potential rout in upcoming elections.
President Obama should, according to Bayh, “draw a line in the sand on spending” and promise vetoes for bills that exceed those limits. Yea, with you there. I’d like that.
Democrats are “tone deaf” to what people are really saying in the ballot boxes and around water coolers:
It is amazing that some people here in Congress still don’t get it.ÖFor those people it may take a political catastrophe of biblical proportions before they get it. I don’t think we’ll get to that. But we might.
Senator Bayh has good reason for his warnings, he’s up for reelection. And with the public increasingly understanding the national import of even local elections, he’s liable to get thrown out as any other Democrat, especially as his fellow Hoosiers tend strongly to the conservative.
So he chides Washington Democrats for being “out of touch”, for being foolhardy in spending, for not passing the best jobs policies, namely tax-cuts for small businesses.
He isn’t sure bashing banks will bring real economic improvement to average Americans, and he staunchly opposes denying Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a second term. He said he prefers “positive populism” in the form of, for example, more aggressive moves to create jobs and lower college costs. Above all, he wants that presidential line in the sand on spending and deficits.
Keep up the good advice Evan. I’ll think higher of you than I think of Harry Reid after you’ve been ousted too. Or perhaps you can join the party you belong in and put that pen to use where we actually believe in those things.
It just might save your bacon come November.
Oh, and I really can’t end even this post without digging some at Harry. I’m feeling a little icky after congratulating Senator Reid above.
Feeling better now.
…the more they stay the same.
How command-economy solutions failed the free-market and extended the economic dip of the 1920’s – 1930’s into the Great Depression.
And how far we’ve come today.
One question: They aren’t good at foreign policy, and they’ve been incapable of learning how to lead a national economy: What are Democrat’s good for again?
The Democrat party is apparently entirely represented (in the halls of power at least) by those incapable or unwilling to either read or learn from history, and are therefore doomed to repeat it. Can we stop them from dragging the rest of us through their own private hell?
I was rather disturbed recently when reading about the Democrat’s need to suppress right leaning speech.
Here are a few quotes from the articles.
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”
Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.
But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome. . .¬†One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. . . The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. . .Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It might just be me but does this sound like a direct attack on a multitude of the basic rights that freedoms that are supported and coveted by conservatism. Is this an attack on ideas like say . . . free speech, free market, free enterprise. Wait, I think I just had a revelation . . . Isn’t this a DIRECT attack on freedom.
Honestly, what are the liberal puppeteers trying to accomplish? Isn’t it clear that this is the suppression of dissention, the bridling of local choice, and forceful creation of¬†unsuccessful enterprises in the name of equality (that last quote really sounds like what happened to housing in the United States).
To sum it all up, I know that tomorrow will be better because of what I have done today, but why does today have to be so bleak? I am sorry if this offends some, but I am almost at the point where I cannot look at the presidential candidates without a measure of disdain, distrust, and disturbance.
In other news . . . A government funded scientific study supports industial advances. However, the English government cannot stand the truth they themselves found and so there is a cover up (sounds like the fair and representative government has an agenda).
I love my life and am going to have a great day¬†today. I just wish¬†my loving, protective¬†government would stop getting in my way.