Why are we cheering on this budget battle victory?

By Erick Posted in Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Let's look at the budget battle today.

Pull back the curtain a bit and you see a GOP in Congress that is totally caving in on fiscal responsibility. Instead of supporting an omnibus that is $11 billion $24 billion over budget and that contains the second highest amount of earmarks in history, the GOP should have gone for a continuing resolution and made the Democrats fund the troops anyway. We would have won that. Instead, we let the Mitch McConnells of the world go the earmark route.

It is okay to cheer the GOP on for making Democrats cave on troop funding, but we need to hold our guys accountable when they promise a big spending fight all year long and then back down like little girls.

As Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the Republican Study Committee, notes

the massive 3500 plus page spending bill last night contained over 9000 earmarks (spread over 692 pages). What you may not have heard is that over 300 of these earmarks were "air-dropped" into the bill, which means that they were secretly inserted in back room negotiations between House and Senate appropriators.

While you can see this so called budget victory for the GOP as a short term victory because of troop funding, it is a long term failure because it is an abandonments of the GOP's fiscally conservative base.

This is no way to get our brand back.

« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for CensorshipComments (5) | Politico.com rips off the bandage in one fell swoop.Comments (7) »
Why are we cheering on this budget battle victory? 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

however funds for the border fence have also been stripped.

Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.

Proprietor Nation

It's the Democrats Congress, so its the Democrats folly. Bush won his battle. I don't think it's so bad. More fodder to beat the Democrats in 2008.

as he is a master at the rules and making Harry Reid look foolish.

But really, I have given up on believing the Congressional Republicans are capable of "getting the brand back." Primarily because I don't think that many of the "leaders" we have now were ever selling the "brand" in the first place.

If Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott and others had ever been the kind of conservatives we long for now, then this would seem like a capitulation, but these guys were big-spenders when they got in the door. It's in their very existence to spend your money on their own pet projects. The only way you will stop them from protecting them is if you levied an outright ban on them.

I'm at the point where I truly believe that we need to forcibly remove ever one of our incumbants who has held his seat since before 1994. Anybody that was elected prior to 1980 should be taken out back and shot - they are probably Rockefellerites and no friends of ours. Point out a Republican who has been disappointing on the fiscal conservative base issues, and I will show you a Critter that, at the very least, pre-dates the Revolution (mind you, I don't exempt some squishies who have appeared since 1994 - all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles).

Mitch has been in Congress since 1984 - and was in the Ford Justice Department prior to that. We all know the provenance of the luminary porker Ted Stevens. Boehner (granted he's getting better) was elected in 1990.

Then look at the fiscal "heros" - Coburn: elected to the House in 1994. DeMint, elected to the House in 1998. Flake - elected in 2000. Hensarling - 2002. Cantor - 2000. Shadegg - 1994. Jeff Sessions - 1996.

It's time to push the mush members out and insist that their replacements be committed to real fiscal responsibility.

On monday, December 17, the House passed an omnibus spending bill that will allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to build a single-layer fence instead of the two-layer fence as outlined in the 2006 Secure Fence Act.


But Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, said if the goal was to give DHS flexibility, the senators have failed.

"This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country," the New York Republican said. "As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable."

I guess PORK is more important than protecting our border.

Say with with me, "TERM LIMITS!!!"

Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

We have it, at all times, within our power to limit our guy's term. We have the power to encourage others to limit their Critter's term.

Official term limits are bad policy - I would argue that the 22nd Amendment limiting the President to 2 terms was also a poor idea, passed in response to one man's egregious disregard for the history and tradition of the office.

We should constantly seek to effect our own term limits. Don Young and Ted Stevens should be told to retire and that they will not receive support from the official party apparatus if they do not. We should not shy away from finding and funding primary challengers to those of our Critters that refuse to "get with the program."

But at the end of the day, if the members of the Party want to keep a porker, they should be permitted to keep a porker. Besides, just look at how many "new" Critters (people who would be within any limit), are good and faithful porkers - loading up on pet projects. Term limits are not the best answer to the problem - a ban on earmarking would be significantly better.

...there are still GOP congressmen that aren't listening.


==== 13 ====

I believe that those 'errant' Republicans, both new and old, who voted for this mess are nothing more than closet liberals who have convinced their voters of the opposite or they are from heavily liberally infiltrated states.

Like these. They'll have extra oomph because they're imported from Britain.

I'm a long time liberal and even I share your frustration. For us Dems, pork is in our blood. But, back in the day, the GOP pushed for sound fiscal policy and were quite successful in doing so. Currently, we have a two party earmark and pork fest/political game-fest with everybody's money. Tax cuts won't accomplish squat if this continues. Bernake can't keep cutting Fed rates as the dollar drops. I think you Redstate guys (especially) know this.

It would be refreshing to see someone, from any party, focus and gain traction on basic fiscal matters. (not Ron Paul type pie-in-the-sky talk though) No Dem candidates are doing that. It would seem that there's a golden opportunity for Republicans here going into the general.

Some prominent R's that might tackle this are McCain and Thompson. Why aren't they leading? Concern over the economy reaches everyone, including Independents and Dems.

I believe that many mainstream Dems and Indies could get behind some of the Republican candidates if fiscal responsibility was their main message. Maybe that message could give you a win instead of the trouncing that so many R's seem to have just accepted.

Believe it or not, many of us Dems are not thrilled with our crop and you guys could bring a strong message on the fiscal side. Hope you manage to field a candidate that can both articulate and catch the political wind with it. Don't yet see a groundswell on your side for that though.

McCain and Thompson haven't done anything during their time in Congress to cut spending. They have no will to combat spending. Neither does the tax raiser Huckabee or the big government authoritarian Rudy, or the universal health care mandating Romney.

Thompson isn't in congress anymore. While he was there he fought diligently against this stupid system of pork and bribes we have.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

"Thompson was fiercely protective when it came to his own earmarks. His congressional website boasts of the federal dollars he was able to "snag" for his Tennessee constituents, including $25 billion in highway funds; $70 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority; $2 million for the Tennessee River; and $23 million for the Spallation Neutron Source project. Thompson felt so strongly about preserving funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, he fought to exempt funds for the TVA from the balanced budget constitutional amendment in 1995, carving out a new category of "constitutional pork." And though Thompson supported and voted for the presidential line-item veto, he fought vehemently to undo President Clinton's veto of two Tennessee projects."

Two strikes, he wanted an unconstitutional line item veto AND he wanted to protect billions in cash, some of which was to go to FDR initiated programs. This is typical of most "spending cutters" in Washington; they want to cut spending, but not for the people that they're bribing in their own district to elect them.


You don't even need to look at his record though, just look at what he is saying now.

"Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable."

This is what Thompson says on healthcare. It is, of course, either impossible if the national government doesn't spend more money. (It's impossible even then, the health care system is a system of finite resources that will either be distributed by cost or by shortages).

"An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions."

Here is Thompson talking like a Sierra Club member. He's going to spend even more (we already spend billions of tax dollars unconstitutionally) on "alternative energy" (read, subsidies to farmers and industry) that reduces CO2 emissions! If he wanted to solve our energy problem then he needs to get the government out of the way and allow drilling where ever the private sector wants to drill, but instead he's trying to incorporate Al Gore language and spend more money to boot.


Nope, sorry, but Fred is no spending reducer or Constitutionalist. He's just more of the same; tax the people, spend government money on cronies by subsidizing economically questionable activities, and involve the government more in our lives to our detriment all under the guise of helping us out.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service