WHAT'S THE PLAN, STAN?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said (via the L.A. Times):

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage."

Let me repeat that last bit: "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage". Really? The Senate has not passed a budget in over 750 days - more than two years.  Isn't that a bit foolish, Sen. Reid?  Passing a budget is essential for the economic health of this country.  Not doing so would mean a repeat of the squabbling over bi-weekly continuing resolutions from earlier in the year, something we can ill afford to do again.

What Reid is willing to do is finally bring the House-passed 2012 Ryan budget proposal up for a vote, where it was voted down 57-40.  Why, all of a sudden, was he ready to bring the bill to the floor after letting it languish for more than a month?  He was striking while the political iron was hot, of course.  The NY-26 special election republican loss is being spun as a referendum against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, particularly his take on Medicare reform.  Reid's only motive is to get republicans on record as voting for the budget so it can be used against them in the wider mediscare campaign democrats are going to embark on in the coming months in a desperate effort to keep their majority.  It's all about politicking, not the well-being of the nation.

Reid also brought President Obama's original budget proposal introduced back in February to the floor for a vote shortly after the vote on the Ryan plan, where it was defeated 97-0.  In fact, the Senate voted down not two but four budget proposals that day, without offering up even the merest hint of a plan of their own.  And try as they might to paint Rep. Ryan's proposal as "radical", it still fared a heck of a lot better than Obama's.  You'll be shocked - shocked - to learn there is zero media coverage of the complete repudiation of Obama's fiscal plans for 2012 - only the failure on party lines of the extremely extreme, radically radical Ryan proposal. 

Now that Senate democrats have put the kybosh on those budget proposals, one would expect them to introduce one of their own.  That's normally how things work.  It's really the heart of the negotiating process.  Obama's own fiscal commission cautioned against exactly what is going on right now in the preamble to their report:

"Don’t shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place."

So what does Reid offer in place of the budgets he just voted down?  Nothing.  Squat.  Zippo.  Nada.  Zilch.  Well, aside from the usual demagoguing, of course.  Demagoguery is rather like jello for left-wingers - there's always room for some.  Unfortunately, it makes it seem like the welfare of this country and it's people is not at the top of the list of priorities for this administration.  The agenda must be implemented, no matter how much pain it inflicts (or how vehemently it is rejected).

It's tempting to make the case for incompetence as an excuse for this bizarre budgetary inaction in the face of a potential double-dip recession.  The thing is, who's going to buy that almost an entire administration is incompetent?  It then begs the question: Does incompetency on such a grand scale deserve to be in power?

President Obama's own fiscal commission co-chair, Erskine Bowles, has called the coming fiscal collapse:

“the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

And yet, even now, this administration refuses to make any serious proposals, or even tap the brakes on the runaway spending.  Obama's 2012 budget proposal, introduced well after the fiscal commission gave it's recommendations to bring down spending and fast, actually increased spending by $200 billion over the most recent budget democrats passed - for FY 2010.  Yup, his own commission strongly recommended immediate, deep spending cuts - including entitlement spending - and Obama's response was to increase spending in his budget proposal.  Incompetence or willful negligence?

Steny Hoyer is on the record saying we are not broke and Harry Reid is lamenting the possible loss of funding for such vital necessities as cowboy poetry at the hands of those mean-spirited old republican meanie-heads.  President Obama is jetting around the globe shaking hands, kissing babies and ignoring such petty details as debt ceilings and budgets in favor of promising aid we can't afford.  In fact - and this is a longstanding issue that predates Obama but which has only increased under his administration - it turns out that there is quite a circle jerk going on with foreign aid.  We give financial aid to wealthy nations and then ask to borrow back ten times as much.  Talk about insanity!  Wall Street is faltering (if a 279 point one-day drop  and the longest slump since 2004 can be called something as mild as 'faltering'), house prices continue to tumble, inflation has caused Memorial Day celebrations to cost an estimated 29% more this year than last, gas is still over $3.60 per gallon, unemployment is back up to 9.1%, manufacturing is down, consumer confidence is dropping and experts are starting to talk about a double-dip recession again - even liberal ones. 

Demagoguing the issue will only be tolerated for so long; certainly not all the way up to the election .  Even some liberal talking heads are starting to remark on the lack of a fiscal plan from the left.  It's time for Harry Reid and President Obama to get serious and put up a plan for getting us out of this mess instead of just attacking others.  What sounds like great politicking inside the beltway looks like a complete disregard for the economy and the people suffering under it outside the beltway.

It's time for a democratic plan that can be compared to the republican's offerings.  Negotiation requires that both parties bring something to the table.  What is going on now is nothing more than fiddling while Rome burns.  It is said that Nero allowed Rome to burn so that he could rebuild it to his specifications.  Sound familiar?

YOU CUT

Congressional Republicans, headed by Minority Whip Eric Cantor have started a new website called "You Cut" that allows common Americans to vote for what spending cuts you want to see Congress adopt.


This is an interesting idea, if it takes off. They are offering up five different spending programs for the chopping block each week. Whatever program earns the most votes from the public will be offered up for a vote in Congress the next week. No doubt they will get a lot of flack and ridicule from the left over this one, but I personally think it's great for a few reasons.

First of all, it's fascinating to see all of the ways that Congress is wasting our money (and how much is being wasted). You hear rumors about some of the crazy or unnecessary things our money is being spent on, but to see it in black and white on a Congressional website, well, it really puts it into perspective. If you have high blood pressure or ulcers, you might want to medicate yourself before you check it out each week!

Second, in a political climate where it often feels like the train is out of control and heading off the tracks, this offers a way to give Congress your two cents on a very important issue - spending. And not just spending in general, as we have been attempting to do with the Tea Parties - we're talking specific, targeted spending programs. President Obama created the deficit reduction committee, but it won't be coming out with anything constructive until December, and doubtless there will be more in the way of taxation instead of spending cuts in their recommendations. Increased taxation will only prolong our suffering - especially at the levels they will need to tax in order to make a dent in the deficit. The only way out of this hole is through spending cuts. Politicians hate spending cuts because someone always loses out and voters become alienated. Perhaps if the cuts are brought to them by popular demand, they will grow some spines and do what's necessary to save this country from financial ruin. Don't hold your breath, though. These are politicians we're talking about, after all.

Finally, there are major political ramifications to this. As I mentioned before, the left will attempt to ridicule the Republicans on this - after all, when they have no other defense, they always turn to derision. The odds of the democrats voting down these proposed cuts are very high, but they need to really think before they do so. Not only will they be voting down Republican introduced spending cuts at a time when they are trying to paint themselves as deficit hawks, but they will be voting down cuts that were presented to Congress by popular fiat. They are used to thumbing their noses at We the Peons in general, but this will be a direct dismissal of what the American people want. The big question is, will their unprecedented tone deafness go that far?

In order to submit your vote, you must give them an email address. That's it. No other personal information required. You can vote more than once (I voted first for the Welfare Non-Reform Program and then the Subsidized Union Activities), and you can vote online or via text. So check out "You Cut" on Eric Cantor's website. Let me know what you think, and, as they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often!

 

Cross Posted at The Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS

The 2011 budget proposal was just released.  Can someone please explain to me how the budget increased by $200 billion despite a spending freeze?

While you're at it, could you please tell my why I should be excited by $20 billion in 'savings'?

Also, why, exactly, is Cap and Trade being discussed again?  The AGW argument is falling apart more and more with every day that passses, but for some reason we need to invest in green technology now, now, now!

While we're at it, I'd also like to know why Paul Kirk is still voting for legislation even though Scott Brown is the Senator from Massachusetts.  Brown won't be sworn in until Feb. 11th, so don't be surprised if they try to jam something reallly offensive through before then.

How exactly will repealing the Bush tax cuts on our small business owners and allowing the SEC to impose new regulations requiring companies to disclose potential risk to investors due to environmental regulations increase job growth and profitability?  Oh, I forgot - uncertainty and heavy taxation are the linchpins for a booming economy and low unemployment.

Those are just my top five questions so far this week.  I'm sure I will have many more before the week is out.

Hey, one more just struck me - why does Obama want Congress to rush the budget through, when it won't be effective until Sept. 2010?

Isn't it amazing how, with all of the spin explaining going on, there are still so many unanswered questions?

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

The New York Times, in a breathtakingly obtuse move, is trying to spin Obama's indecisiveness about Afghanistan. So what ridiculous excuse are they tossing in a trial balloon and floating out through their favorite neo-pravda media outlet?

Expense.

That's right, the administration that has been and is still attempting to spend our money like drunken sailors is citing budget constraints as a reason to not send troops.

Of all the arguments they could have used, this has to be the lamest. How about the old 'Vietnam-like quagmire' argument? Or maybe the loss of life is too precious and the outcome too uncertain?

No, they chose the money argument.

If they were at least trying to be more frugal in other policy areas, they might have a chance of persuading people to this argument. But they are flagrantly spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars in just about every other sector, and yet, suddenly, the only thing they are NOT throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at is the war. The war that Obama himself called the 'good war'.

Let's not forget that they are adding pork to the military funding bills, to the tune of billions of dollars. Stopping that practice alone would pay for 2,000+ boots on the ground for a year at the NYT's quoted cost estimate of $1 million per soldier per year. A number which is suddenly three times larger than the amount used just a year ago under the Bush administration. The Times cites increased cost due to mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment, as well as the large cost involved in transporting fuel and supplies in the mountainous region.

Just imagine the army we could have fielded with the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill - not to mention the $1.7 trillion health care bill! Plus there's Cap and Tax in the chute and I'm sure amnesty isn't going to be as free as it sounds....

All in all, I'd have to say Mr. Obama has made it very clear that, although he loves the global adoration, that is all foreign policy is for him - an ego stroke. He doesn't want to get involved, because he's too busy "fundamentally changing" the United States of America. Allowing us to leave in defeat from Afghanistan plays into the far-left world view anyway. America should not win under any circumstances because it makes us seem arrogant and superior, apparently. It's okay with them if we leave a power vacuum that will breed more terrorists and undermine, discourage and demoralize our military yet again. Incompetence is apparently preferred to perceived superiority.

It's this sort of nonsensical thinking that must have lead them to offer budget constraints as their asinine argument for not increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

The blatant hypocrisies of this administration boggle the mind.