Friday :: May 6, 2005

You Know It's Really Bad When Broder Spanks Bu$hCo!


by pessimist

It has been said of some conservatives that their only concern is the value of their holdings. Such could be said of many Bu$hCo supporters today.

Case in point: David Broder. He has reliably taken the pro-(mis)Admini$tration stance on issues of importance.

But on this specific topic - the growing deficit and how Bu$hCo proposals for its reduction fall short - he takes an anti-Bu$hCo stance. I've written about this variance in Bu$hCo support before, so at least he's being somwhat consistant.

He writes:

The sums involved are staggering; no one can fathom what $2.6 trillion in annual spending means. Who wrote this budget? President Bush submitted his blueprint two months ago, and the Republican legislators stayed close to his basic design...

So when this budget falls on its @$$, you know who to blame - Broder told you.

Broder makes a few other fiscal-conservative comments of note:

What does it do about the deficits? If you believe Putnam, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other Republicans, this budget "reduces the deficit in half over four years."
But if you read the fine print, here's what you find:
* The budget envisages the national debt increasing by $683 billion next year [2006]

* by $639 billion the second year [2007]

* by $606 billion the third year [2008]

* by $610 billion the fourth year [2009] and

* by $605 billion the fifth year [2010].

As Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee asked,

"Where is the deficit cut in half?"

What does the budget do for Social Security?

It transfers the roughly $150 billion "surplus" in Social Security taxes over this year's Social Security payments to help pay the bills for this year's government spending and to finance the additional $106 billion in tax cuts the president wants to hand out.

Now that Broder has finished his fiscal conservative rap, he reverts back to partisan political prostitute:

This budget passed with only Republican votes, 52 to 47 in the Senate, and 214 to 211 in the House. The 10 House members who missed the vote were seven Democrats and three Republicans.

Four of the seven absentee Democrats are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. If all 10 had voted with their party, as was likely, this budget would have failed by a single vote.

You have to wonder what important business kept these legislators away.

Despite the partisan slant, it's a fair question. It's one the voters of these ten districts should be asking. And should they not get a satisfactory answer, a replacement of representation is in order.


Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 11:35 AM :: Comments (14) :: Digg It!