The courage of the Democrats

Our good friend Wagonwheel, in a rather strange defense of the Democrats in Congress, wrote:

Look here:1

“The Obama administration projects their budget plan would save $4 trillion by 2022. However, the budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, projects a $1.33 trillion deficit, marking a fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits.

The president’s plan projects that the deficit would drop to $901 billion in 2013 and to $575 billion by 2018. It would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire. It also proposes to raise $41 billion over 10 years by hiking taxes on oil, gas and coal companies.”

In an election year, you won’t find anyone willing to support a budget with these features. They’re all cowards, every one of them. They might also be realists!!

I was somewhat surprised that WW used that source, considering that this was also part of it.

“We’ve got a nearly $16 trillion debt. We’re borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Entitlements are going broke. Millions are out of work, and Democrats can’t even put a plan on paper for a vote?” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said during a floor speech Wednesday. “What are they doing over there? Isn’t anybody over there embarrassed by the fact that they haven’t offered a budget in three years?”

“As far as I can tell, their only plan is to take shots at our plans and hope nobody notices they not only don’t have one of their own,” McConnell continued. “They’re so unserious they won’t even vote for a budget that was written by a president of their own party. It doesn’t get more irresponsible than that.”

While Wagonwheel surely doesn’t like Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), even he cannot deny the Minority Leader’s point: the Democrats in Congress don’t support the President’s plan, won’t support any of the plans offered by the Republicans, but don’t have one of their own to substitute. Your Editor noted, three months ago, that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner admitted, under oath, to Representative Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) House Budget Committee that the Obama Administration had no plans at all for dealing with the long-term debt crisis:

We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.

In 2008, when George Bush was President, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), the presidential nominee, and the Democratic congressional candidates, never really ran for anything more detailed than “Hope” and “Change,” but did a great job of running against President Bush and the Republicans. It’s 3½ years later, and it looks like President Obama and the Democrats are still running against Republicans, but apparently not for anything. The Democrats in Congress won’t vote for their President’s own budget plan, because, as our liberal from Lewes admits, “you won’t find anyone willing to support a budget with these features. They’re all cowards, every one of them.”

Well, the Republicans are running on something. The plans pushed by Mr Ryan, and others, are certainly harsh ones, and we can guarantee that a lot of people won’t like the plans or austerity, but the Republicans have the cojones to vote for those plans and run on those plans, the Republicans have shown the courage to say what they are for, have shown the courage to tell the voters just what they will try to do. Republican voters in Nebraska just nominated Deb Fischer, the TEA Party candidate backed by former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), for the open United States Senate seat, ignoring the wishes of the more traditionally-minded Republican establishment. It seems that Republicans and conservatives really are willing to vote for candidates who actually support things. All the Democrats seem to be willing to do is say, “We’re not Republicans.”

Barbara O’Brien on the Mahablog attempted to make excuses for the Democrats, echoing the complaint of the White House, that it wasn’t really the President’s budget which was rejected, but a shell of it which could have mean old Republicans play nasty tricks like change numbers or conditions. (Hat tip to William Teach.) But, as Karen, the Lonely Conservative, pointed out, “what was stopping them from putting Obama’s complete budget up for a vote?” After all, the Democrats still have the majority in the Senate, and all it would have required is for one Democratic senator to propose an amendment to substitute the President’s complete FY2013 budget proposal, and the Democrats would have had the votes to approve such an amendment; they never even tried.

Your Editor would think that a reasonably well-read Democrat like Wagonwheel would be disgusted by the Democrats’ performance. The Democrats tried the approach of not standing for anything in the 2010 elections, other than to say that they weren’t Republicans. Neither the House nor the Senate in the 111th Congress passed, or even tried to pass, a budget for FY2011, because they were afraid that, if they did, why the mean old Republicans would base their campaigns on running against the things for which the Democrats voted. Imagine that: for the Democrats, it’s now some sort of dirty trick for Republicans to run on the Democrats’ votes and stated positions. But, as is frequently the case for plans based on cowardice, running scared didn’t work out for them anyway. If they were going to lose, you’d have thought they’d at least have wanted to go down fighting.

Instead, with two out in the bottom of the ninth inning, and an 0-2 count, the Democrats took a called third strike, on a fastball right down the middle.

  1. Wagonwheel did not provide this link; I found it through a Google search.


  1. Besides the fact that the Democrats just know they don’t like the Republican plan(s), there is one more certainty. The Democrats despise spending cuts, unless they happen to be to defense. They can be trusted completely to increase spending and never cut it.

  2. Mr Jackson, that’s why I am so adamant about not raising taxes. Republican Presidents who promised not to raise taxes were twice snookered by “deals” from the Democrats that they would cut $2 (President Reagan) or $3 (the elder President Bush) of spending for every $1 of tax increases, if the President would just eb reasonable and increase taxes some due to the deficits.

    Taxes got raised, but somehow, some way, the Democrats never came through with their end of the bargain, to cut spending. Republicans need the discipline of reduced revenues if spending is ever going to be cut. Now, after serious spending cuts are actually in place, it might be reasonable to consider raising taxes, to get the budget balanced, but if we agree to tax increases before spending is cut, spending will never be cut.

  3. The Editor’s comment reminded me of another one-sided deal: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) or as it was known colloquially, the Simpson–Mazzoli Act.

    IRCA was first introduced in the Senate by Alan K. Simpson (R-WY) on May 23, 1985 and was subsequently approved by the 99th Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. IRCA reformed United States immigration law.

    In brief the act:

    Granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided here continuously in exchange for making it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants, Employers would be required to attest to their employees’ immigration status.

    Well, illegals got amnesty, and here we sit 25 years later and the federal government still hasn’t forced employers to stop providing jobs to illegals.

    Worse, illegals now get Food Stamps, Welfare, free health care, free cell phones, free education for their children, and much more, so much more that MSM won’t total up the whole package of taxpayer funded benefits for fear the public outrage would eviscerate the entire elected branches of federal, state, and local governments combined along with about 95% of the bureaucrats associated with dispensing unconscionable largess to illegals.

  4. “It also proposes to raise $41 billion over 10 years by hiking taxes on oil, gas and coal companies.”

    How sad is it that Mr. Wagonwheel can’t acknowledge, (or fails to understand), that 99% of these proposed tax increases on energy producers would be passed on directly to the consumer. Perhaps if the Federal Government were to also confiscate/run this industry, we could all feel better about “paying our fair share” of $8.00 a gallon fuel prices, since all of us can afford to pay more to support paying down the debt? Look at all the “new money” Democrats would have to expand our entitlement minded society, while soaking the middle class———-again.

  5. Actually BrokenWheel you are incorrect by stating that “99% of these proposed tax increases on energy producers would be passed on directly to the consumer”. I gaurantee it’s 100%. Speaking as a businessman, I know all taxes are considered as “expenses” and therefore are fully passed on to the consumer. There is no difference between the cost of taxes and that of electricity, heat or labor. All are expenses and all are figured in the final price of the product.

  6. To expand a bit on Hoagie’s comment: I suspect the real cost to consumers is 100% plus a fairly stiff premium, say about 25%, to cover the time, effort, and expense of collecting the tax, keeping the appropriate records, and maintaining other protections in case of a government (witch hunt) audit.

    All of which will be passed along to consumers, of that you may doubt, or not, but pay you will, through the nose.

  7. The Liberal from Lose (Perry lives in a homophone) has declared Democrats don’t vote in lock-step, and as proof, he gave the multiple unanimous votes against Obama’s budgetary agenda. And that’s proof why Obama needs to be re-elected, those multiple unanimous votes against him.

  8. You are correct, ropelight. “The bottom line” is the true profit to the owner(s). All expenses have a +profit added to them, including tax expenses.

    For example, if it costs me $2 to build and deliver a hoagie in food costs and labor costs that is not the whole story. There is rent, electric, phone, advertising, insurance, the paper wrapping, ketchup packets, napkins, bags, salt, pepper and on and on. Those of us who have never run a business (ahem to Wagonwheel) really don’t understand the costs of delivering such a simple product as a hoagie. But if I were to charge $5 for said hoagie, a guy like Wagonwheel would instinctively assume I made $3 on the transaction. He would be dead wrong. In the food business I looked foe a 15% profit on the gross which turns into about a 7% on the net. So if I sold said hoagie for $5, my net profit would be around 35 cents. That’s a lot of investment and a boat load of work for three bits, ain’t it?

  9. “Those of us who have never run a business (ahem to Wagonwheel) really don’t understand the costs of delivering such a simple product as a hoagie. “

    Wrong Hoagie, again. What you describe is elementary. But I will admit to not understanding very well how to perform an assessment of business potential, for a proposed business at a proposed site, which you very likely understand well, assisted by your failures.

    On the other hand, how well do you understand the science of climate change?

    So what is your point?

  10. “All of which will be passed along to consumers, of that you may doubt, or not, but pay you will, through the nose.”

    Through the nose, ropelight? Hardly! Our current tax rates are the lowest they have been post WWII. As I see it, all of us have an obligation to our country to pay sufficient taxes to support the necessary activities of government, don’t we?

  11. Perry, taxpayers will gladly support the necessary activities of government, emphasis on necessary which is defined as only those activities designated in the Constitution as exclusively the responsibility of the federal government). All other governmental activities, including their associated expenditures, are reserved to the states and to the people respectively.

    That’s the law of the land right here in the good old US of A.

    It’s the accumulated weight of all those other expenditures which represent federal encroachment into areas expressly forbidden that provoke citizen outrage and lead to the development of TEA Parties.

    One good example is the underhanded bribes (Corn husker kick-back) Obama uses to get greedy Democrat politicians to support pay-offs to his campaign contributors (Solyndra anyone?) that are going to get the whole pack of Democrat crooks kicked out of office in November.

  12. Just watching Hannity and the application of the Liberal Double Stanard is staggering. Years ago Romney cut off some hair of a fellow student – The end of the world as we know. Same age frame as Romney, Obama drank to excess, marijuana and coke, and a Big YAWN from the MSM. Obama harasses a girl when both about the same age, YYYYAAAWWWWNNNNN. Obama sought out radicals, Marxists and other near do wells, the MSM, yawn. Before the 2000 election GWB had a DWI, the end of the world as we know it from the MSM.

  13. Wagonwheel wrote:

    As I see it, all of us have an obligation to our country to pay sufficient taxes to support the necessary activities of government, don’t we?

    Indeed we do. However, you and I have a great difference on just what constitutes “the necessary activities of government.”

  14. We know that you like National Public Radio, but is it actually necessary? After all, the republic survived not only before radio, period, but for forty years after radio became popular before NPR was created.

    The republic survived, and prospered, for well over a century before welfare and food stamps, before federal meddling in public schools, before the Departments of Energy and Education were created, which certainly calls into question whether those things are necessities or luxuries.

    In 1934, the worst of the Depression years, total federal outlays were 10.7% of GDP. In 1955, when we were fat and happy and prosperous, but still spending a lot of money on Defense due to the Soviet threat, we were spending 16.5% of GDP. Why, then, is it necessary that we spend 22.5% of GDP at the federal level in FY2015, a year that President Obama forecasts strong economic growth (5.95%)? (All figures given from President Obama’s proposed FY2013 Budget, Table 1.2.)

    The President wants to spend more in a year he sees as prosperous than we spent in the Depression; the President wants to spend more in a year than we did during a prosperous economy but with a huge Soviet threat. The President wants to spend more during a year he projects as having strong economic growth, and when he projects that we will have withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan, than any year during the Korean War or the Vietnam War.

    Just how is all of President Obama’s proposed spending necessary? The nation survived, and prospered, without much of what Mr Obama wants to spend.

Comments are closed.