Today we mark a new milestone in the ongoing denial by Democrats in Washington who refuse to admit we have a spending problem. It is now 1,400 days since the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a budget, failing to meet the most basic function of governing. It’s their job (and the law) to pass a budget each year, yet they have failed to do so for 1,400 days. Hardworking Americans budget every day, and it’s time for Washington to do the same so the government will start living within its means. The American people know that spending is the problem, so now it’s time for the Senate to pass a budget.
From Government Executive:
The House on Friday voted to freeze the pay of federal employees and lawmakers through 2013.
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., prolongs the current across-the-board pay freeze for civilian government employees through the end of the year. President Obama issued an executive order on Dec. 27, 2012, that would end the two-year salary freeze on March 27 — when the current continuing resolution expires — and give civilian federal workers a 0.5 percent raise in 2013. DeSantis’ move to block the order also applies to lawmakers, but Congress already voted to freeze its pay in 2013 in the fiscal cliff legislation signed into law in January.
H.R. 273 effectively overturns Obama’s December executive order.
House lawmakers took two days to debate and vote on the measure, which the leadership fast-tracked to the floor, bypassing regular order. The legislation passed, mostly along party lines, 261 to 154.
H R 273 YEA-AND-NAY 15-Feb-2013 11:18 AM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees
Johnson, E. B.
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Sánchez, Linda T.
President Obama addressed the nation last night and proposed more plans to grow the government and reduce our personal freedoms. He’s attacking liberty on multiple fronts to distract and demoralize us. I’m writing to encourage you to stay focused and to direct your frustration with this president toward impacting the mid-term elections. If we work together, we can win several Senate races and stop Obama’s agenda.
The first step to winning a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate is to defeat the Democrats in red states where we know a majority of voters support the principles of freedom that make this country great.
We’re all interested in our home state elections, but changing the Senate requires us all to look beyond the senators we hear about in our local news and work together to win battleground races across the nation.
RED STATE DEMOCRATS
Democrats are defending Senate seats in seven states that President Obama lost in 2012. These seats are in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
There are many other races that hold promise and we won’t write any of them off, but the races in these seven states offer us the best opportunities to replace liberals with conservatives.
We must do two things to win these seats:
(1) Define the liberal incumbents.
The Democratic incumbents in these red states are vulnerable and they know it. It’s why one of them — U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) — has already given up and announced his retirement.
The rest are trying to quickly reinvent themselves in the eyes of the voters. These liberals know that if they say they’re “moderate” enough times, people will begin to believe it.
We can’t let that happen.
Here are the six Democrats still running in red states who must be defined, defeated, and ultimately replaced with principled conservatives:
- MARK BEGICH - Alaska
- MARK PRYOR – Arkansas
- MARY LANDRIEU – Louisiana
- MAX BAUCUS – Montana
- KAY HAGAN – North Carolina
- TIM JOHNSON – South Dakota
Many of these Senators are nice people and may even have the best of intentions, but the policies they support are destroying this country and it’s up to us to move them into a different line of work.
With your help, SCF will identify their weakness and survey voters to see which messages resonate most. Then we’ll begin educating voters about their liberal records.
(2) Recruit conservative challengers.
The next few months are probably the most important of the entire election cycle. If we find good conservative challengers, we’re in the game. But if we don’t, we will likely get stuck with moderate Republicans who either can’t win or won’t fight for our principles if they do.
The Republican establishment is already looking for candidates in each of these battleground states. They know that the quicker they find someone and start raising money for them, the harder it will be for conservatives to nominate an alternative.
We’re talking to many prospective candidates right now and will do everything we can to recruit exceptional people to fight for America’s future.
Your support for the Senate Conservatives Fund is the best weapon we have in the battle to flip these seats from liberal to conservative. It helps us define liberal incumbents and recruit outstanding challengers. The stronger we are now, the more likely we’ll be able to win next year.
Thank you for being willing to fight for America’s future.
Senate Conservatives Fund
Spending Daily | February 8, 2013
With No Spending Cut Offsets, Political Blame Game Continues
POLITICO reports, “Republicans open to letting billions in sequester cuts go through figure they can blame the president if the economy goes south. But Democrats are betting they can shift that blame right back to the GOP. They’re so confident, in fact, that they’re already eyeing at least 10 Republican-held seats with strong military connections from Florida to California to target in 2014, after sequester cuts have trickled down to local bases where jobs are lost and voters notice. … Even if the targeted GOP members work to stop the cuts and cast votes to stop them from going into effect, Democrats say the Republicans’ electoral prospects could still be dragged down if enough conservatives win on forcing sequestration to happen anyway. … If voters are looking to pin the blame on anyone, several Republicans said Obama and the Senate Democrats should face the consequences for not agreeing to legislation passed by the House that could have already turned sequestration off.”
Dems Dig in Against Calls For Spending Cuts
POLITCO reports, “Senate Democrats are digging in against Republican calls for deeper spending cuts by bringing out some of their favorite punching bags: corporate jets, Wall Street and Big Oil. With the automatic budget cuts in the sequester coming up next month, Democrats hope to vote on an alternative plan to raise taxes on some of their favorite boogeymen in hopes of shifting the blame when the GOP inevitably rejects it. … The Democratic public pressure campaign is expected to begin in earnest next week, starting with President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday and a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing expected Thursday at which senior administration officials will most likely sound the alarm that so-called sequestration cuts would devastate the economy.”
Obama Vows To Go After GOP On Taxes
The New York Times reports, “President Obama vowed Thursday to confront Republicans over the issue of closing tax loopholes, saying that he would relish a debate with those who insist that Congress has done all it should to get more tax revenue from wealthy individuals and corporations. Speaking to a group of House Democrats here who are gathering for a policy retreat, the president sounded defiant at times as he sketched out his positions ahead of the looming deadlines that will force Congress and the White House to negotiate a series of complicated fiscal deals in the coming weeks. Mr. Obama said the key to avoiding the across-the-board spending cuts that would go into effect on March 1 was for Democrats and Republicans to resolve their differences over how to replace those cuts.”
GOP Urged To “Stand Strong” On Sequester
Roll Call reports, “Despite early protestations against a sequester many members voted for, congressional Republicans are preparing to go past a March 1 deadline that would trigger across-the-board spending cuts without agreeing to alternative legislation.At the annual Senate GOP retreat earlier this week, Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., delivered a message to the conference that standing strong on the scheduled spending cuts would be preferable to a deal to replace it that included any revenue. … With billions in spending cuts already written in law from 2011’s Budget Control Act, some see Republicans as having little incentive to come to the table in a recess-shortened February, if at all. … Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, have said they will not agree to any deal that is not balanced between further cuts and revenue.”
Energy Department Considers Plans To Cut Back
The Hill reports, “The Energy Department (DOE) is considering furloughing employees to reduce costs if automatic spending cuts from sequestration occur, according to an internal memo obtained by The Hill. … The email underscores the uncertainty federal agencies face with $85 billion of cuts scheduled to take effect March 1. The cuts would slash discretionary spending government-wide by 8.2 percent. … Bloomberg BNA was the first to report on the memo, which outlined a series of cost-cutting measures the department could pursue. Other options included reexamining contracts and grants, slashing administrative costs such as travel, training and facilities, and possibly ‘making cuts to vital programs.’”
“Senate Democrats Struggle To Craft Plan For Sequester Replacement”
The Hill reports, “Senate Democrats are struggling to come up with a replacement for the $85 billion spending-cut sequester set to begin on March 1. … The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over tax issues, but Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.), the panel’s chairman, said he wasn’t sure who would lead the bill through the Senate. Asked if he would be the senator shepherding the bill, he responded: ‘Good question.’ Both Senate Democrats and House Republicans are determined to not be blamed if the sequester does go into effect. … But huge differences remain between Republicans and the White House, raising questions about whether a deal can be reached to avert the cuts. Neither side has offered a plan for replacing the sequester.”
“Upton: Time to save Medicaid”
Rep. Fred Upton writes in The Washington Times, “Americans’ frustration with Washington’s inability to cut spending is mounting. For two years, Congress has been entangled in a disorienting tango, stumbling to reach a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction. While the left seems obsessed with increasing taxes and spending even more money, conservatives have focused more heavily on the need for spending restraint and entitlement reform — primarily to preserve and protect the future of the Medicare program. Overlooked in all of this is the future of Medicaid. Medicaid has consistently flown beneath the radar in debates, almost disregarded at times and even deemed untouchable by progressive ideologues. Yet without reform, this program will continue to decline, sentencing our most vulnerable citizens to inferior health care. … Worse yet, even with this program’s poor track record and our current spending crisis, the Obamacare expansion will cost more than $600 billion over the next 10 years. We’re in an unimaginable fiscal hole as a nation, yet Obamacare calls for continued digging with no guarantees of better health outcomes. We know such areas of outrageous spending demandprogram improvements, and we must have the courage to do what is right to rescue future generations.”
Is This The Most Important State Of The Union Of Obama’s Presidency?
The Washington Post reports, ”In four days, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address, an annual speech before Congress that is arguably the most important one a president is tasked with giving. And for Obama, this particular speech may end up being the most important State of the Union of his entire presidency. n a nutshell, this is the speech that is best-suited to embody the ideas of Obama’s presidency. Whereas Obama’s previous State of the Union speeches have been delivered in the shadow of the previous administration or an upcoming election, and future speeches will be likely be constrained by politics – more on that in a moment – this address comes as Obama has embraced a far-reaching legislative agenda and is far-removed from the beginning and end of his presidency. … Looking ahead, it’s easy to see how Obama’a future State of the Union speeches could easily be less memorable. In 2014, Obama will be addressing Congress in the run up to the midterm elections, so his legislative agenda isn’t expected to be nearly as packed. Things simply don’t get done during election years the way they do in off years.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week Senate Democrats announced they will draft a budget for the first time in nearly four years. In the Weekly Republican Address, U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD), Chairman of the Republican Conference, says the budget debate is the perfect time to address Washington’s spending addiction. Getting spending under control, he argues, is the best way to jump-start the economy and create jobs and opportunities for American families and workers.
“Hi, I’m Senator John Thune from the great state of South Dakota.
“With the recently passed fiscal cliff legislation, Congress enacted tax relief for 99 percent of Americans.
“Now that the tax part of the fiscal cliff issue has been dealt with, it’s time to address the real cause of Washington’s fiscal mess— out-of-control spending.
“Washington is addicted to spending your money.
“Over the past four years, our country has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt. At $16.4 trillion, our nation’s total debt is now larger than our entire economy.
“This means that every man, woman, and child owes a $53,000 share of this debt. That level of spending is unsustainable. We cannot afford to keep adding over a trillion dollars to the debt every year, as we have for the past four years.
“A major credit rating agency has already downgraded our nation’s credit once, and, if we don’t start making some real progress on spending reforms, more downgrades are likely in the near future.
“What does that mean, practically speaking?
“Well if you or I as citizens had a bad credit rating, banks would charge a higher interest rate when we approached them to borrow money.
“It works the same way with nations. If the United States’ credit rating is further downgraded, our country will pay higher interest rates. This will mean trillions of borrowing in order for America to pay its bills.
“Needless to say, we can’t go on like this forever. Eventually, we are simply going to run out of money. And no tax increase, no matter how high, will be enough to save us.
“The only way—the only way—to dig ourselves out of this hole and put our country on a sound financial footing is to get spending under control.
“Reducing our spending and debt will jump-start our economy and create jobs and opportunities for American families and workers.
“And the way to start is by passing a budget.
“I think most American families would agree that having a budget is essential to keeping their spending under control.
“And if a budget is essential when you’re running a family, it’s even more essential when you’re running an entity the size of the federal government.
“Congress’ first priority every year should be coming up with a spending plan. In fact, the law requires Congress to do just that.
“Yet, it’s been almost four years since the Democrat-led Senate passed a formal budget.
“The last time Senate Democrats passed a budget, the iPad didn’t even exist!
“The lack of a clear spending blueprint has enabled billions of dollars in wasteful spending and massive growth in the size of government.
“Rather than continue spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars on government projects, Washington should approve private-sector economic projects like the Keystone XL pipeline—which the President is blocking. This project alone would create 20,000 jobs and strengthen America’s energy independence.
“As every family knows, budgeting is about priorities, and it can require tough decisions. There’s rarely enough money to pay for everything, so you have to decide where your priorities lie, and allocate money accordingly.
“Congress should be no different.
“One thing that must be part of the budget debate this year is a plan to reform our entitlement programs to save and protect Social Security and Medicare for current retirees, as well as for future generations of Americans.
“These programs are in trouble, and they’re on an unsustainable path.
“Social Security began running a deficit in 2010, and without meaningful reform, Medicare will be bankrupt by 2024.
“Despite this dire situation, Democrats have resisted any discussion of reform.
“But the only way to save our entitlement programs is to reform them. It’s as simple as that.
“The good news is that it’s not too late. If we act now, we can put our nation back on a sound financial footing and preserve the promise of economic prosperity for future generations.
“If instead we choose to wait, if instead we choose to put off these tough decisions for another day, then we choose to leave the next generation with a far worse economy than we received from our parents and grandparents. We cannot let that happen.
“We can fix this problem. And I believe that if we work together, we will fix it. I hope Democrats will join us in passing a budget and putting our nation back on the path to prosperity.
“Thank you for listening. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”
Spending Daily | January 24, 2013
Senate Budget Chair Spent 3 Weeks Studying the Pros/Cons of Crafting a Budget
Roll Call reports, “Three weeks ago, incoming Senate Budget Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., directed her staff to explore the pros and cons of actually crafting a budget resolution. … In the days before the New Year’s Day fiscal cliff deal, Murray still had not decided whether a formal budget process was the best way to articulate the Democratic Party’s position. … So when she tasked her staff to weigh the relative benefits of developing a budget, the major question she posed was whether the formal budget process was the best vehicle for Senate Democrats to ‘aggressively articulate a vision while putting us potentially on a path to bring this fiscal-debt-deficit debate to a close,’ one source said. Some sources familiar with the process said the hammering Democrats have taken for not producing a budget in more than 1,000 days did not factor into the decision, but at least one senior Democratic aide said the GOP barrage was one of three major reasons for Senate Democrats’ change of heart on the matter.”
House Vote to Extend Debt Ceiling “only a bandage covering a festering long-term fiscal problem”
McClatchy reports, “The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to suspend the nation’s debt limit until May, allowing the federal government to continue to pay its bills and removing an immediate threat to the economy as it struggles to gain strength. The move, expected to be ratified by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama, signaled that the government will not repeat the 2011 debt limit battle this month, a skirmish that frightened Wall Street and led to a downgrading of the nation’s credit rating and could have done so again. … But economists stressed that a short-term debt limit extension is only a bandage covering a festering long-term fiscal problem that Congress and the White House need to get a handle on to better instill confidence in the U.S economy. Congress still faces deadlines on the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect March 1 and must deal with the expiration of the continuing resolution appropriations measure to keep the government operating in March.”
Boehner Raises the Stakes with Balanced Budget Proposal
The Hill reports, “Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) pledge to back a Republican budget that balances within 10 years raises the political stakes for his party and sets up another major test of his leadership. Democrats eyeing a takeover of the House in 2014 view the move as a gift, since the GOP budget plan will likely make deeper cuts to popular government programs that any leadership-backed blueprint has before. … The Speaker committed to a 10-year balanced budget on target on Tuesday to secure conservative backing for a short-term suspension of the debt limit. … ‘We’re committed to doing a budget and a 10-year plan to solve our budget crisis and to balance our budget. And frankly, I think it’s time for the Senate, and the White House, to produce a budget that will balance over the next 10 years.’ [the Speaker said.]“
Mafia Connections to Italian Renewable Energy Exposed in Sting
The Washington Post reports, “ Inside a midnight-blue BMW, a Sicilian entrepreneur delivered his pitch to the accused mafia boss. A new business was blowing into Italy that could spin wind and sunlight into gold, ensuring the future of the Earth as well as the Cosa Nostra: renewable energy. … The still-emerging links of the mafia to the once-booming wind and solar sector here are raising fresh questions about the use of government subsidies to fuel ashift toward cleaner energies, with critics claiming huge state incentives created excessive profits for companies and a market bubble ripe for fraud. China-based Suntech, the world’s largest solar panel maker, last month said it would need to restate more than two years of financial results because of allegedly fake capital put up to finance new plants in Italy. The discoveries here also follow so-called ‘eco-corruption’ cases in Spain, where a number of companies stand accused of illegally tapping state aid.”
Scarborough: National Debt a “Ticking Time Bomb” That Can’t Be Ignored
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough writes for POLITICO, “As the president and his opponents prepare to scrap over social issues in circular debates that will produce far more heat than light, the possibility of an economic meltdown in America grows exponentially in these uncertain days because of the president’s aversion to arithmetic. Barack Obama and his party can no longer ignore the elephant in the room, particularly when that beast is becoming more bloated by the day. This feeding problem began under George W. Bush, who grew the national debt $6 trillion over two terms. Barack Obama did that and more in one. Unfortunately, his second inaugural address shows just how disinterested the Obama White House is in disarming the ticking time bomb that threatens our future.”
Ryan Vows to Press Ahead with Deep Spending Cuts
The New York Times reports, “Avoiding an economic showdown with President Obama, the House on Wednesday passed legislation to eliminate the nation’s statutory borrowing limit until May, without including the dollar-for-dollar spending cuts that Republicans once insisted would have to be part of any debt limit bill. … Instead, the next Republican showdown with the president will come in March, when the subject will be across-the-board spending cuts first and a possible government shutdown by the end of the month. ‘We know with certainty that a debt crisis is coming to America. It’s not a question of if. It’s a question of when,’ Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republicans’ vice-presidential nominee last year and current Budget Committee chairman, said as he vowed to press ahead with deep spending cuts.”
Credit Rating Agencies Cautious Over Debt Burden
The Wall Street Journal reports, “Moody’s Investors Service said the House vote to suspend the federal borrowing limit through May 18 would have no impact on the firm’s U.S. rating, which is triple-A with a negative outlook. The top factor for Moody’s rating is whether budget agreements to emerge from negotiations curb the U.S. debt burden over the medium term, said Moody’s top U.S. analyst Steven Hess. ‘This does nothing on that front other than to apparently force the Senate and the House of Representatives to come up with budgets. But what’s in those budgets is the important factor for us,’ Mr. Hess said. ‘We have never thought that the debt limit itself was a fundamental factor in our rating.’”
GOP Backing a $69 Billion Appropriations Cut
POLITICO reports, “Talk about déjà vu all over again. Fresh from their 2010 election victory, House Republicans wasted no time demanding $65 billion in cuts from discretionary spending, setting off an appropriations fight that only ended in April 2011 after narrowly avoiding a wartime government shutdown. Two years later, the GOP is back, endorsing a second, almost identical $69 billion appropriations cut — not because the party really believes in the reductions but because it’s looking for leverage to force President Barack Obama to accept alternative savings from benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. … Discretionary spending for 2013 is now set at $1.043 trillion but would drop below $980 billion and quite possibly to $974 billion under automatic spending cuts set to take effect March 1.”
“Balanced”: Schumer Calls for $600 Billion Tax Hike to Offset Sequester
The Hill reports, “Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, sees a joint budget resolution between the Senate and House as the key to raising another $600 billion in new tax revenues. Democratic leaders say that will be the minimum amount needed from tax reform to stop automatic spending cuts to social and defense programs mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The revenue would come from limiting deductions and closing loopholes and would affect only people earning above $250,000. President Obama has set the goal that additional deficit-reduction legislation should consist of a balanced or dollar-for-dollar ratio of spending cuts to tax revenues. … Democrats say any offset to the sequester must be divided equally between spending cuts and revenue increases, which means Republicans must agree to about $600 billion in tax increases to erase the sequester.”
“Both the Makers and the Takers Owe Us Entitlement Truths”
Major Garrett of the National Journal writes, “Entitlement spending across all federal programs, including transfer payments to alleviate poverty and provide disability subsidies, gobbled up two-thirds of all federal spending in 2010. … We spent $24 billion on entitlements in 1960 and nearly $2.4 trillion in 2010. According to American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt, from 1960 to 2010, inflation-adjusted entitlement spending grew by 5.2 percent annually. At the same time, real per capita income grew by 2.2 percent annually. We have, as a nation, been paying out much more than we have been earning for five decades. This is not a problem of ‘taking’ or ‘making.’ It is a problem of allotting. And if we don’t do something soon, we will be allotting more than the ‘makers’ can make, and the ‘takers’ will have much less to take.”
Stage Set for Serious Policy Debate on Entitlements
POLITICO reports, “A split is emerging between powerful Democrats, such as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and Montana Sen. Max Baucus, over whether to employ controversial fast-track procedures to pave the way for a sweeping overhaul of the Tax Code that would presumably raise revenue to help slash future deficits. How the dispute is resolved will have dramatic implications for the contents of a final fiscal package. The dueling House and Senate budget resolutions could force the two parties into a serious policy debate over cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid — as well as whether to raise new taxes through a reform of the Tax Code — something that was largely avoided in the previous Congress. How this is resolved will define Obama’s second term in office and whether Capitol Hill can finally get a handle on its finances — or fall into yet another crisis.”
With bipartisan passage of the No Budget, No Pay Act in the House, the American people continue to turn their attention toward the Democratic-controlled Senate and their nearly four-year failure to pass a budget.
Watch and share the House Republican Conference’s new video, Earning It, which keeps the pressure on Senate Democrats to do their job.
It’s simple: no budget, no pay.
This Morning the Senate passed a compromise bill two hours after the deadline for the “fiscal cliff” bipartisan bill was to take effect.
The vote was 89-8 an even wider margin bipartisan margin than the bill it replaces. Only 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against the measure that will now go to the house.
With such an overwhelming imprimatur from both sides of the aisle in the Senate, it is impossible that this bill will fail in the house. Every member of the tea party caucus may oppose it, speak against it, and can argue the case for responsibility to no avail. There will be plenty of votes on both sides of the aisle to pass this deal.
That we are passing 100+ page bills that nobody has read at 2 AM on New Years day is bad.
That we are raising more taxes on small business at a $41 in tax increases not counting all the Obamacare taxes that are now kicking in, for each dollar of spending cuts, is worse.
But the thing that really bothers me beyond both is this: We have problems, problems that requires courage to solve. It took a lot of pain and effort to achieve what had previously been done and as Veronique de Rugy tells us it wasn’t much:
The alleged brutality of the cuts is one of the biggest myth of 2012. For the most part, the sequestration “cuts” aren’t really cuts at all. According to the Congressional Budget Office, discretionary spending would grow from $1.047 trillion to $1.234 trillion without sequestration. With the sequestration cuts in place, it will instead grow from $1.047 to $1.147 trillion. Medicare, which also faces cuts in the sequestration process, follows a similar trend. That means that going through with sequestration is just the beginning. It won’t make a dent in the size of our debt, and more cuts will be needed in the future.Yet both sides oppose fulfilling the deal they agreed upon.
and now even that has been undone.
Without controlling spending we are heading toward disaster. As de Rugy points out above, the sequestration cuts….were not cuts and a whole lot more was needed beyond sequestration to get us out of the hole we’re in and now we aren’t event going to do that.
Amazingly despite the date this was done by a cold sober senate and will be passed by a cold sober house to the cheers of the media that will celebrate the cowardice of a nation and its elected leaders.
Marco Rubio, one of the few votes against said it well:
“I ran, just two years ago, on the idea that I wanted to be part of solving the long-term problems this country faces. Time and again, we’re given choices here that don’t involve that.”
“The real fiscal cliff is still there,” he said. “We’ll be back here again. In March, we’ll have a showdown like this all over again.”
And what will happen then? Will the GOP grow a spine? Will the democrats learn to count? I wouldn’t bet on it. If we can’t make the tough calls when left & right have the fear of God, or at least the voters in them how will we do it otherwise?
As I’ve said many times we always get the government we deserve, but I really thought we deserved better.
Democrat Leader Once Promised He ‘Would Never, Ever Consider Breaking The Rules To Change The Rules,’ Called It ‘Illegal’ And ‘Un-American’
SEN. REID: ‘Changing The Rules By Breaking The Rules, Is About As Far As You Could Get From A Constitutional Option’
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “I would never, ever consider breaking the rules to change the rules. I never suggested that at all. I say to my friend, I want to work something out. I repeat that for probably the fifth time here today, but in the process we cannot give up the basic rights this country and this Senate have had for more than 200 years.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4242, 4/26/05)
· REID: “As I said, violating 217 years of standard procedure in the Senate, changing the rules by breaking the rules, is about as far as you could get from a constitutional option.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.5250, 5/17/05)
· REID: “One of the good things about this institution we have found in the 214 years it has been in existence is that the filibuster, which has been in existence since the beginning, from the days of George Washington–we have changed the rules as relates to it a little bit but never by breaking the rules.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4437, 4/27/05)
· REID: “The time has come for those Senators of the majority to decide where they stand, whether they will abide by the rules of the Senate or break the rules for the first time in 217 years–217 years–of American history. Will they support the checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers… It is hard for me to intellectually understand, emotionally understand how a Senator could say they know we are right but they are willing to break the rules to change the rules.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.5198, 5/16/05)
· REID: “…there is no cause for the majority to break the rules and 217 years of Senate traditions to take that right away. Mr. Smith should still be able to come to Washington, with either a Democratic or Republican Senate.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4613, 5/9/05)
· REID: “Ultimately, this is about removing the last check in Washington against complete abuse of power, the right to extended debate.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4238, 4/26/05)
· REID: “You have to break the rules to change them in this instance because if you follow the rules, you cannot do it with a simple majority. … We cannot go down that slippery slope.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4464, 4/28/05)
SEN. REID: ‘Un-American,’ ‘Illegal,’ ‘Improper,’ ‘A Partisan Political Grab,’ ‘Want Absolute Power’
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “The Senate is a body of moderation. While the House is the voice of a single man, single woman, and the House of Representatives is a voice of the majority, the Senate is the forum of the States. It is the saucer that cools the coffee. It is the world’s greatest deliberative body. How will we call this the world’s greatest deliberative body after the majority breaks the rules to silence the minority? Breaking the rules to change the rules. … They don’t want consensus or compromise. They don’t want advice and consent. They want absolute power. To get it, the President and majority leader will do all they can to silence the minority in the Senate and remove the last check we have in Washington against this abuse of power.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.5456, 5/19/05)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American. The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can’t do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can’t do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4043, 4/21/05)
· REID: “The majority can’t get what they want so they break the rules to change the rules. We believe the traditions of the Senate should be maintained. We believe if you are going to change the rules in the Senate, change them legally, not illegally.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4043, 4/21/05)
· REID “They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4238, 4/26/05)
· REID: “The American people, in effect, reject the nuclear option because they see it for what it is–an abuse of power, arrogance of power. Lord Acton said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. … That is what is going on. The rules are being changed in the middle of the game. They are breaking the rules to change the rules. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, Americans understand this is a partisan political grab.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4238, 4/26/05)
· REID: “I would answer to my friend, not only is there a suggestion about changing the rules, but they are going to do it by breaking the rules. To change a rule here in the Senate takes a simple majority. But if somebody wants to speak in an extensive manner relating to that rule change , you have to break a filibuster. They are not willing to do that. They are going to use brute force and break the rules to change the rules. That is what they are talking about.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4436, 4/27/05)
· REID: “The world is watching us. We should not be changing the rules by breaking the rules. We should not do that.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4614, 5/9/05)
· REID: “We believe in following the rules, not breaking the rules. And while it is good to talk about this up-or-down vote, the fact is if we move forward as contemplated by the majority, it is moving toward breaking the rules to change the rules. That is improper. It will change the Senate forever and that is not good.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.5375, 5/18/05)
· REID: “To change the rules in the Senate can’t be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes. So I do not at all say that the statements made by the Republican leader were wrong about our wanting votes and we were disturbed that there are no votes, but we never, ever suggested that rules should be broken.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.5455, 5/19/05)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “You remember when you were growing up and you had this kid who was never happy? You couldn’t win a game because he kept changing the rules in the middle of the game, and if you didn’t allow the change, all he did was whine about it? … What is going on in Washington? Trying to change the rules in the middle of the game is un-American.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.4437, 4/27/05)
WASHINGTON — A senior Republican senator on Tuesday accused House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and President Obama by extension — of basing their tax policy position on “Democrat dogma.”
“I saw Nancy Pelosi’s comments … saying you can’t get enough revenues through the itemized deductions and closing loopholes. That’s just not accurate. I mean, it’s just not accurate. You can,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told The Huffington Post.
“You can get more revenue if you wanted to. So I don’t know where her math is coming from. It sounds to me like it’s more just a matter of Democrat dogma that they want to be sure that people’s tax rates go up,” Portman said in a phone interview.
“The problem with that is, it’s going to result in more lost jobs at a time when we’ve already lost too many. Rates do affect people’s behavior. They do make the small business owners I was with today less likely to take a risk, make an investment, add the job, buy the truck,” he said.