This story is actually from March 31, folks; but I'm posting it now - better late than never - because it'll give you an inkling of what we're up against:
* * * * *
Seventeen House Republicans voted against their party's fiscal 2016 budget, which passed in a 228-199 vote last [month].
GOP leaders faced a challenge appealing to both deficit hawks who wanted steep cuts...
* QUESTION: SHOULDN'T ALL LEGISLATORS BE "DEFICIT HAWKS?"
* YEAH... PONDER THAT...
...and defense hawks who wanted to boost military spending over the caps imposed in the 2011 Budget Control Act.
* FOLKS, I FEAR IT'S PRETTY CLEAR - OR AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE - THAT "DEFENSE HAWKS" (WHETHER SINCERE OR SIMPLY POSTURING) ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE BATTLE FOR PORK DOLLARS WITHIN EACH YEAR'S MILITARY BUDGET THAN FOR WHAT'S BEST FOR AMERICA. WHAT EISENHOWER USED TO WARN US ABOUT - THE MILITARY-DEFENSE COMPLEX - IS NOW MORE OF A DEFENSE INDUSTRY-MILITARY COMPLEX.
* THINK OF OUR SOUTHERN BORDER. IS IT BEING "DEFENDED?" THINK OF OUR WARS. ARE THEY BEING WON?
The House initially voted on two plans: Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price's (R-Ga.) blueprint and a modified version of his plan with more spending for the Pentagon's overseas contingency operations fund without offsets.
* WITHOUT OFFSETS!
* WHY EVEN BOTHER WITH HAVING A CONGRESS WHICH WON'T MAKE CHOICES BETWEEN PRIORITIES BASED UPON THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE?
The second budget won more votes on the floor and was officially adopted.
* YES... THE SECOND... THE SPEND-SPEND "BUDGET."
All House Democrats voted against the budget in the final vote along with 17 Republicans, five more than in 2014.
(*JUST THROWING MY HANDS UP IN DESPAIR.)
Here's why Republican lawmakers [claim they] voted against the bill:
Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) — Amash backed Price’s original budget but rejected the second blueprint because it didn't offset additional defense spending.
* GOOD MAN!
“It doesn't ask for any cuts to other programs,” he said in a statement. “The Armed Services Committee's budget lays the foundation for more spending from both parties, hundreds of billions of dollars of new debt, and tax hikes.”
Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.) — Buck said that the proposed blueprint would not balance the budget quickly enough, leading to increased taxes and deficits. “It is based on false assumptions and ignores the political and economic realities we will face over the next decade,” he said in a statement. “Our $18.1 trillion debt is harming the economy now, and as the debt continues to skyrocket, it will destroy the economy for our children and grandchildren.”
* THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN BUCK...
Rep. Barbara Comstock (Va.) — Comstock suggested she had concerns about inadequate defense spending in a statement after the vote. “While we work on getting America’s fiscal house in order, we need to be mindful of the grave national security threats that still face us and the needs of our hardworking government employees — the majority of whom work in agencies that support law enforcement, our national defense, and homeland security,” she said. Comstock's district in suburban D.C. is home to many federal workers.
* SHE'S A MORON.
Rep. Rick Crawford (Ark.) — “Until Congress accepts that non-binding budget resolutions are ineffective without a permanent law like a balanced budget amendment or spending limitation amendment, the budget process will only be an exercise in futility and our debt crisis will continue on its current path,” Crawford said in a statement.
* YEP... THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS IT UP.
Rep. Chris Gibson (N.Y.) — Gibson also voted against the GOP budget last year. The centrist Republican represents a district President Obama won twice. Gibson announced earlier this year that he would not seek re-election.
* GIBSON IS A DIRTBAG CROOK - THERE'S NO IDEOLOGICAL "THERE" THERE.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.) — “After supporting two other budgets, I voted against the final version because it was irresponsible, adding billions in additional deficits and including only reconciliation suggestions, not definitive instructions to repeal ObamaCare,” said Huelskamp, a prominent fiscal conservative and critic of House leadership, in a statement to The Hill.
* WHY FISCAL "CONSERVATIVE" AND NOT FISCAL "REALIST?"
* ANYWAY... THANK YOU, TIM HUELSKAMP.
Rep. David Jolly (Fla.) — Jolly said the budget plan didn't do enough to eliminate deficits in a speech at a Florida event after the vote. “There’s no reason for anybody to serve in the U.S. Congress if one day they’re going to look back and see that the debt increased under their watch,” he said, according to Saint Peters Blog. He voted against last year's budget as well.
* EXACTLY! HEAR! HEAR!
Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.) — Jones called the increased spending “irresponsible” and “immoral.”
“Frankly, I am tired — and I know the American people are tired — of the dishonesty in Washington,” he said in a statement. “We’re fed up with the annual budget charade where Washington makes another empty promise to get tough on spending in future years, while spending more today. It’s bankrupting America and it’s got to stop.”
* THANK YOU MR. JONES, BUT LET'S BE ACCURATE; THE DISHONESTY AND BACKSTABBING IS COMING FROM A SPECIFIC QUARTER OF WASHINGTON - THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, JOHN BOEHNER, REPUBLICAN.
* THIS... IS... THE... HOUSE... REPUBLICAN... BUDGET... THAT... PASSED...
Rep. John Katko (N.Y.) — “This budget fails to address the budget priorities of Central New York and it does not provide the realistic means to control long-term spending that I have been seeking,” said Katko. The New York lawmaker will likely face a tough re-election race next year.
* WELL... HE VOTED "NAY." THAT'S ALL I CARE ABOUT.
Rep. Raúl Labrador (Idaho) — Labrador expressed skepticism about the budget a week before the vote at a conservative event.
“I'm still trying to get to 'yes' because it does set forth a vision for what we should be doing as Republicans,” he said. “The question is, will we actually do the things that the budget requires us to do?”
* IN THE END... IT DIDN'T... AND HE VOTED ACCORDINGLY. (THANK YOU, SIR!)
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (N.J.) — LoBiondo suggested the budget cut too much, saying he was worried about the impact on his constituents.. “While I remain concerned about the nation’s unsustainable debt, my immediate focus continues to be the critical fiscal needs of the residents in my district,” he said. LoBiondo also voted against last year’s budget.
* TWO-FACED PRICK! WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT THE BUDGET WASN'T "LEFT" ENOUGH FOR HIM... DIDN'T OVERSPEND ENOUGH!
* BOTTOM LINE... HIS VOTE ISN'T WHAT IT APPEARS. HE SURELY WOULD HAVE VOTED "AYE" HAD BOEHNER NEEDED HIS VOTE.
* FOLKS... THE FACT THAT ONLY 17 REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THE BILL SHOWS THAT IN TRUTH MANY MEMBERS WHO CALLED THEMSELVES (AND ARE SO IDENTIFIED BY THE MSM AS) TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS SIMPLY... AREN'T.
Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) — "If budgets are aspirational, then Republicans should aspire to balance them. This one will never balance," said Massie about the budget plan in a statement. Massie also voted against the GOP budget last year, calling for more spending cuts.
* GOD BLESS TOM MASSIE!
Rep. David McKinley (W.Va.) — McKinley praised Price but said the budget didn't address the concerns of rural voters.
“[Price] should be commended for presenting a budget that balances in 10 years, makes necessary reforms, repeals ObamaCare and reduces waste and duplication,” he said.
“While the House Republican budget includes positive aspects, it also includes some proposals that differ from the priorities of West Virginia’s 1st District and it does not address the growing financial challenges facing rural America,” he added, citing needed infrastructure spending and subsidies to small airports. McKinley voted against last year's budget.
* IN ENGLISH... MCKINLEY WANTS MORE SPENDING AND HIGHER DEFICITS.
Rep. Martha McSally (Ariz.) — McSally, a former combat pilot and freshman lawmaker, highlighted the need for more defense spending.
“From an extremely sophisticated and well-resourced terrorist group in ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria], to Russia’s increased aggression in Europe, China’s continued military build-up, and Iran marching toward a nuclear capability, we face serious and growing threats to our national security,” she said in a statement. “Drastic across-the-board cuts have already devastated many current capabilities and continue to weaken readiness and hollow out our military.”
McSally also hails from a swing state where she'll likely face a tough re-election challenge.
* ANOTHER FOOL WHO CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES... CAN'T SEE THAT BANKRUPTING THE COUNTRY ISN'T THE WAY TO "DEFEND" OURSELVES.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (S.C.) — Mulvaney criticized fellow Republicans for circumventing the 2011 spending caps in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. “With fiscal concerns no longer in vogue, House Republicans broke the statutory caps of the Budget Control Act (BCA) and did so in a way that wasn’t honest,” the conservative lawmaker wrote.
* AGAIN... BOEHNER. THIS WAS BOEHNER. (AND MCCONNELL.)
Rep. David Schweikert (Ariz.) — Schweikert cited spending on entitlement programs during the floor debate on Wednesday. "If we do not have phenomenal economic growth, we are not going to be able to keep our promises," he said according to The Arizona Republic. He voted for last year's budget.
* FOLKS... I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY ANYMORE...
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) — Sensenbrenner opposed the lack of offsets for the additional defense spending.