Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House of Representatives spent eight hours arguing against the proposed budget. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Republican Rand Paul also stood against it.
Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House of Representatives spent eight hours arguing against the proposed budget. On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Republican Rand Paul also stood against it.
Rand Paul took stood there asking how it was that the Republicans were suddenly not against massive spending. Whatever happened to the position of being deficit hawks? "When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party," Paul said at one point. "But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty."
I've noticed exactly what he's talking about, and not just when it comes to the budget.
Obamacare was a great example. The Republicans were unified and 100% against it when the Affordable Care Act first emerged through a Democrat-controlled Congress, and were screaming for repeal. The calls for repeal extended through Obama's entire presidency, with the GOP clinging to their conservatism as one. Now, the Republicans have both Houses of Congress, and a President who is touting conservative ideals, and now, suddenly, a straight repeal hasn't been in the cards. Suddenly, many of them became Democrat light, and forgot about the fact that constitutionally, the federal government has no business getting involved in domestic industries, be it health care, General Motors, or how much wheat the local farmer can send to market.
How about immigration? They went from accurately proclaiming that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was outside the rule of law, and Obama had no constitutional authority unilaterally putting it in place, to acting like they are stepping on eggshells and suddenly amnesty is in the air. And let's not even get started on trying to figure out if the GOP is willing to build the wall.
On marriage it has always been a mixed bag with these guys, but they were in favor of things like DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act - which was actually unconstitutional...there is no constitutional authority expressly granted to the federal government regarding marriage by the United States Constitution) and screamed murder about how a gay federal judge unconstitutionally overturned Proposition 8 in California (Prop. 8 recognized marriage as being only between a man and a woman). Now, the issue has vanished, and they won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
A part of cleaning up the swamp was to get rid of, or closely monitor, lobbyists. Now, the Republican embrace of lobbyists is sickening.
Trump accurately outed China as a currency manipulator. The Republicans who supported him during the campaign shouted from the treetops that China needed to be dealt with. Now, crickets.
Of course, the liberal left Democrats have their own flip-flop going on. During Obama they believed higher deficit spending was a good thing, after crying and whining about it for eight years during the Bush administration. Now, they are back to their whining about how bad it is during Trump. Remember, under Obama they applauded him as the Kenyan grew the national debt by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86% from what it was when he took office.
Paul Ryan was among the Republicans complaining about Obama's massive spending, as well.
"Our debt is a threat to this country," Ryan said in a 2013 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "We have to tackle this problem before it tackles us."
The 2012 nomination for President, Mitt Romney, said of Trump's plans for the country, "His tax plan in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt," said Romney.
Personally, the tax plan was brilliant. Now, the tax structure is less complicated so that the system is less likely to be manipulated by those who would do so, while providing tax cuts to businesses and everyone under $500,000, while keeping the top rate the same (and as the Democrats allege it is a tax cut for the rich, it isn't - the elimination of a number of deductions, in fact, may lead to some upper-level folk paying more taxes). It's a way to make our economy healthy by reducing what the government steals from its producers. I've always believed we have a spending problem more than we have a revenue problem. By my estimation, 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional. So, while I get Romney's concern, his lack of understanding when it comes to economics as it pertains to taxes is either appalling, or politically motivated.
However, Romney may have had a point with the spending part, as may Rand Paul. Curtailing spending and reducing debt, at least during the years Obama was in office, were always a Republican mainstay. Thomas Jefferson warned about debt being passed on to the next generation.
Paul offered, during this most recent showdown, that it was wrong to ram through at the last minute a two-year spending bill that would increase the federal deficit by more than $300 billion -- and without any amendments being offered.
It is as if the Republicans have forgotten any of their long-term conservative goals, and instead they knee-jerk from reaction to reaction, as the Democrat snap the reins, and the GOP's inner-politician salivates over the money in secrecy.
"The reason I'm here tonight is to put people on the spot," Paul said. "I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, 'How come you were against President Obama's deficits, and then how come you're for Republican deficits?'"
The government did wind up shutting down, but it was the shortest shut-down in history. The $400 billion budget was passed during a pre-dawn vote in the House of Representatives 240-186, with 73 Democrats jumping on board. The split was interesting, to say the least. 29% of House Republicans voted against the budget deal, and 62% of House Democrats voted against it.
President Trump signed the $400 billion budget deal this morning (Friday).
After signing the bill, Trump Tweeted: "Just signed Bill. Our Military will now be stronger than ever before. We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more. First time this has happened in a long time. Also means JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!
5:39 AM - Feb 9, 2018
“Ultimately, neither side got everything it wanted in this agreement, but we reached a bipartisan compromise that puts the safety and well-being of the American people first," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said in a statement. "We will have a clear path to pursue our ambitious agenda for 2018."
The Democrats continued to play their immigration card, placing illegal aliens above our budget, the military, and the American People.
Nancy Pelosi said during the fight, "In contrast, Senator McConnell not only gave his commitment to the Senators, he has already begun the process to bring a bill to the Senate floor. The fight in the House to protect DREAMers is not over. I’m greatly disappointed that the Speaker does not have the courage to lift the shadow of fear from the lives of these inspiring young people.”
Not all Democrats agree with Pelosi and the hardline Marxists of the Democrat Party.
5:39 AM - Feb 9, 2018
“Ultimately, neither side got everything it wanted in this agreement, but we reached a bipartisan compromise that puts the safety and well-being of the American people first," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said in a statement. "We will have a clear path to pursue our ambitious agenda for 2018."
The Democrats continued to play their immigration card, placing illegal aliens above our budget, the military, and the American People.
Nancy Pelosi said during the fight, "In contrast, Senator McConnell not only gave his commitment to the Senators, he has already begun the process to bring a bill to the Senate floor. The fight in the House to protect DREAMers is not over. I’m greatly disappointed that the Speaker does not have the courage to lift the shadow of fear from the lives of these inspiring young people.”
Not all Democrats agree with Pelosi and the hardline Marxists of the Democrat Party.
Representative Cheri Bustos, a Democrat who represents a swing district in Illinois, told USA TODAY on Thursday she thought the bill was a good deal for Democrats. She didn't think DREAMers needed to be "jumbled together" with spending legislation.
"We got a lot of what we’ve asked for, whether it’s opioid funding, whether it’s transportation funding, defense — I’ve got an arsenal in my district, which is one of our largest employers — domestic spending," said Bustos, who voted in favor.
The Freedom Caucus (a Tea Party manifestation) took an official position against the deal. While they supported additional defense spending, they argued the deal bloats the size of government.
"I promised my constituents in Western NC that I would work to cut government spending," the group's chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted Thursday night. "This budget deal does the opposite--it expands government spending well beyond the caps, by almost 15%. We have to do better."
The House vote followed earlier Senate approval of the budget pact that was initially delayed by Rand Paul's protest. The Senate vote passed 71-28.
The budget agreement is attached to a six-week temporary funding bill needed to keep the government operating and to provide time to implement the budget pact.
The spending deal eliminates strict budget caps — set in 2011 to reduce the federal deficit — and paves the way for Congress to increase defense spending by $165 billion and hike domestic spending by $131 billion over the next two years. All told, the agreement, negotiated by congressional leaders and released late Wednesday night, provides for more than $400 billion in new spending — $300 billion above the caps and more than $100 billion in “emergency” funding that doesn’t count against the spending caps.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"We got a lot of what we’ve asked for, whether it’s opioid funding, whether it’s transportation funding, defense — I’ve got an arsenal in my district, which is one of our largest employers — domestic spending," said Bustos, who voted in favor.
The Freedom Caucus (a Tea Party manifestation) took an official position against the deal. While they supported additional defense spending, they argued the deal bloats the size of government.
"I promised my constituents in Western NC that I would work to cut government spending," the group's chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., tweeted Thursday night. "This budget deal does the opposite--it expands government spending well beyond the caps, by almost 15%. We have to do better."
The House vote followed earlier Senate approval of the budget pact that was initially delayed by Rand Paul's protest. The Senate vote passed 71-28.
The budget agreement is attached to a six-week temporary funding bill needed to keep the government operating and to provide time to implement the budget pact.
The spending deal eliminates strict budget caps — set in 2011 to reduce the federal deficit — and paves the way for Congress to increase defense spending by $165 billion and hike domestic spending by $131 billion over the next two years. All told, the agreement, negotiated by congressional leaders and released late Wednesday night, provides for more than $400 billion in new spending — $300 billion above the caps and more than $100 billion in “emergency” funding that doesn’t count against the spending caps.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment