Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Anti-Bunning Twenty-One
Last night 21 stupid, cowardly Senate Republicans voted with the Democrats to pass without amendment H.R.4691 - a bill "To Provide a Temporary Extension of Certain Programs, and For Other Purposes" - which the CBO estimates will add over $10.3 billion to the national debt between 2010-2020... all this additional "emergency" deficit spending somehow exempt from the so-called PayGo "requirements" that Congress passed only weeks ago.
Consequently I introduce into the Hall of Shame the following:
Bond (R-MO); Brown (R-MA); Brownback (R-KS); Chambliss (R-GA); Cochran (R-MS); Collins (R-ME); Graham (R-SC); Grassley (R-IA); Inhofe (R-OK); Isakson (R-GA); Kyl (R-AZ); LeMieux (R-FL); Lugar (R-IN); McCain (R-AZ); Murkowski (R-AK); Roberts (R-KS); Shelby (R-AL); Snowe (R-ME); Vitter (R-LA); Voinovich (R-OH); and Wicker (R-MS).
So much for honor, intellectual integrity, and proclaimed allegiance to fiscal conservatism.
(*SNORT*)
We've grown to expect such behavior from the likes of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and the other "usual suspects," but from James Inhofe... Sam Brownback...
(*SIGH*)
Of course McCain and Graham are part of the gang that can't shoot straight...
(*SMIRK*)
The American People deserve better. Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, "Big L" Liberals all deserve better than this.
Remember these names, people... these are the folks we simply can't trust.
To be fair, though, not all Republican Senators "took a dive." There were actually 19 Republicans who stood on principle:
Alexander (R-TN); Barrasso (R-WY); Bennett (R-UT); Bunning (R-KY); Burr (R-NC); Coburn (R-OK); Corker (R-TN); Cornyn (R-TX); Crapo (R-ID); DeMint (R-SC); Ensign (R-NV); Enzi (R-WY); Gregg (R-NH); Hatch (R-UT); Johanns (R-NE); McConnell (R-KY); Risch (R-ID); Sessions (R-AL); and Thune (R-SD).
Of course Tom Coburn is "one of the good guys."
Interestingly... and I always try to give credit where credit is due... Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stood with "the good guys" and put his vote where his conservative rhetoric has been.
If only McConnell had fought alongside Bunning from the start perhaps the GOP could have engineered a real breakthrough... at least breaking through the sob story rhetoric of the Democrats and their Main Stream Media allies in order to use this specific bill as a case study in how and why dysfunction is the rule rather than the exception in Washington D.C.
Mitch McConnell... in the end you voted the right way... but as a Leader... you sir are a failure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Is your problem with the extension per se; or is your problem that it isn't paid for?
My "immediate" problem is that it isn't paid for, that - as previously noted many times - PAYGO is a complete fraud as is the President's recent claim to be (my words...!) a "born again deficit hawk."
Again, Rob, I'm all about respecting alternative views - but you just can't have reasonable discussion without a bare minimum of HONESTY.
As to the specific question of unemployment insurance "extensions," I'm basically against them.
I say "basically" because I'm open to the possibility of supporting very limited extensions - say extending unemployment benefits which were originally set to last for... say... 12 weeks to 24 weeks, perhaps even 24 weeks to 36 weeks... but at a certain point what you're creating with these seemingly endless "extensions" is yet a new middle class entitlement - a European-type "dole."
Rob. Click http://usalyright.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-mobocra-er-democracy-ultimately.html
If the link doesn't work just manually go to my archives and read my posting on the topic of extending unemployment benefits dated November 18, 2009.
BILL
LoL! I merely asked you a simple--and logical--question, and you accuse me of dishonesty! Nor did I even give an "alternative view." I merely asked you which of two possible reasons you had for disliking the fact that a GOP contingent stopped supporting Bunning's filibuster.
That said, there were "endless" extensions of unemployment benefits in the recession of the early '70s and democracy survived. Nobody who enjoys a middle-class lifestyle is going to stay on unemployment--trying to live on a maximum of 50% of what they were earning in their last job--as an "entitlement." That's ridiculous. (Now I've given an "alternative view"--not that there's anything dishonest about it.)
Or, perhaps, you're not accusing me, but rather the GOP contingent that dumped Bunning?
If so, I apologize for misreading you.
ROB... APPARENTLY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SOME UNKNOWN CHEMICAL - OR PERHAPS NATURAL - AGENT, WRITES...
"LoL! I merely asked you a simple--and logical--question, and you accuse me of dishonesty! Nor did I even give an "alternative view.""
Huh...???
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
Were you referring to when I wrote, "...you just can't have a reasonable discussion without a bare minimum of honesty?"
If so... Rob... com'on... you know me well enough to know that if I had meant "you" PERSONALLY... "you" Rodak... I would have written "Rob just can't..."
(*SNORT*)
Rob. Assuming you're sincerely confused...
(*SMILE*)
By "you" I meant the generic "you"... the "group" "you"... I meant "people..."
Got it?
I'm well aware you didn't give me your view... that you simply asked a question. I was simply answering your question. I wasn't "accusing" you of anything.
Got it?
BILL
MY BUDDY ROB POINTS OUT...
"...there were "endless" extensions of unemployment benefits in the recession of the early '70s..."
Yep. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
(*SHRUG*)
Anyway... let's talk policy.
Let me ask you... do you know why unemployment insurance is named... er... unemployment INSURANCE...???
(*CHUCKLE*)
I mean, Rob, surely you're aware that they don't just pick "premium" rates and "length of benefit" at random; the two go hand in hand... at least if there's any relationship to economic reality, to costs vs. benefits.
So... going back to my original thoughts - both expressed here with this thread and expressed back last November... are you saying I'm being too... er... "stingy?"
If so... what's you proposed system?
How many weeks unemployment is... er... "sufficient?"
Would there be a cut-off in Rob's world?
We know the results of the present "extensions" - deficit and debt.
We know what the results of my proposals would be - less deficit... less debt.
What's YOUR proposal? Flesh it out as I've done.
Or... don't.
(*SMILE*)
P.S. - Again... I wasn't "accusing" you of anything and as for my feelings towards the 21 GOP Senators... well... didn't the thread make that clear?
BILL
I think that the cut-off dates should take local conditions into account. The call should be made from the state capitals, not from Washington. Obviously, it's harder for an unemployed person in Michigan to find work than it is in New York. Not that it's currently easy anywhere. That said, unemployment insurance--which everybody pays into throughout their work life, and most never collect on--keeps people off welfare and takes pressure off that part of the economy. In two income families where the second income is intact unemployment may allow that family to cut a few luxuries, but otherwise spend fairly normally. That's good for everybody; small business owners in particular. I really don't see the downside of it in a bad recession.
ROB WRITES...
"I think that the cut-off dates should take local conditions into account."
Such as...??? Specifically...???
ROB CONTINUES...
"The call should be made from the state capitals..."
Using state funds?
Rob. There's nothing to stop the states from making the call right now... as long as they're willing to PAY for their "decision."
ROB CONTINUES...
"Obviously, it's harder for an unemployed person in Michigan to find work than it is in New York."
So...??? What's that have to do with anything? I don't want the federal government borrowing money from China or simply creating it out of thin air via the printing presses to extend benefits PAST A CERTAIN POINT in any state - neither NY nor MI.
(*SHRUG*)
ROB CONTINUES...
"That said, unemployment insurance--which everybody pays into throughout their work life..."
And for their payments they're supposed to get X number of weeks benefits upon meeting the eligibility requirements as regulated by the state(s). What we're discussing here is what should happen when those PAID FOR benefits run out - when we're no longer talking about the original unemployment insurance "contract."
ROB CONTINUES...
"I really don't see the downside of it in a bad recession."
By "it" I assume you mean basically unlimited unemployment benefits.
(*SNORT*)
OK. That's your opinion. The problem is, you want to tax me and indebt me and mine in order to pay for your opinions.
Rob. Check out http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10970
I know that "math" makes your head hurt... (*SMILE*)... but besides our philosophical disagreement here there's the fact that your assumptions are just... umm... wrong.
BILL
You don't address my central point, which is that without unemployment benefits, or jobs programs, either of which would entail federal money since the states are broke, you will have whole families going on welfare--even more tax dollars. You will have more small businesses going under, and more unemployment. You will have more big businesses laying off workers, and more unemployment. If you just let people become homeless and hungry, you will very soon have the complete breakdown of society.
Of course you'll be "right" so it won't matter.
ROB WRITES...
"You don't address my central point..."
(*THROWING MY HANDS UP*)
OK, Rob... this should be good...
ROB CONTINUES...
"...without unemployment benefits, or jobs programs, either of which would entail federal money since the states are broke, you will have whole families going on welfare--even more tax dollars."
(*SNORT*)
Obviously reading a small analytical report based upon actual data was too much for you...
(*CHUCKLING SNORT*)
BTW... what's a "jobs program?'
Seriously...???
I thought that K-12 was supposed to prepare you for a job.
I thought an associates degree... a bachelors degree... they were supposed to prepare you for a job.
I paid for MY "jobs program;" I expect others to do the same.
(*SHRUG*)
Oh... and BTW #2... while you continue to "infer" rather than simply come right out and say it, it's clear that your answer to me about "limits" on unemployment benefits is that you don't believe in limits.
(Hey... if I've got that wrong let me know!) (*WINK*)
As for your concerns about welfare spending rising...
Fair enough! But the way to deal with that is to limit welfare.
ROB CONTINUES...
"If you just let people become homeless and hungry, you will very soon have the complete breakdown of society."
It depends upon how many people are effected. But putting that aside, once again I urge you to read the briefing paper I provided the link to last night.
I'm talking fact... you're talking "feelings."
(*SMILE*)
Nothing new! Same old, same old...
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
Post a Comment