PDA

View Full Version : A brave senator speaks truth to power. BRAVO!



LWW
03-04-2010, 05:55 AM
It is a shame that more people in congress do not have the stones of this one old man.

SHAME ON CONGRESS!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>Why I took a stand</u>
‘If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.’

By Jim Bunning

I have been serving the citizens of Kentucky for nearly 24 years in Washington. During that time I have been a member of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. I have taken thousands of votes in relation to spending the taxpayers' money. I will be the first one to admit that I have cast some bad votes during my tenure, and I wish I could have some of them back. For too long, both Republicans and Democrats have treated the taxpayers' money as a slush fund that does not ever end. At some point, the madness has to stop.

Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks. Since the Pay-Go rule was enacted, the national debt has gone up $244,992,297,448.11 (as of Wednesday, that is).

Why now?

Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.

Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.

America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.

Only in Washington

After four legislative days of impasse, I reached a supposed deal with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on a pay-for amendment that would fully fund the legislation and not add to the debt. Only minutes before the vote, Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to set aside my amendment and not vote on the actual substance of it. Only in Washington could this happen. The Democrats did not want to vote on my amendment because they knew they were in the wrong and ignored their own rules. Hypocrisy again rules the day in Washington.

I have 40 grandchildren, and I want them to grow up in a country where they have all of the same opportunities I had as a child. I fear that they will not have those opportunities if Washington continues on its course of spending without paying for it. We are at over $12 trillion in debt. I know many Americans sit around their kitchen table and make the tough decisions. It is time for the politicians in Washington to do the same.

Jim Bunning is a Republican senator from Kentucky </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;OH MY&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/03/column-why-i-took-a-stand-.html)

LWW

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 06:59 AM
So crazy. The dems pass a bill that makes them look good politically, and then trash the one guy who tried to make them abide by the law they just passed!

Unbelievable!!

Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Over a month ago, Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law the "Pay-Go" legislation. It calls on Congress to pay for bills by not adding to our debt. It sounds like a common sense tool that would rein in government spending. Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats' Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks</div></div>

He voted against it but now he wants to enforce it....that's a good description of a classic hypocrite.


If this was about holding back a new missile program it wouldn't be so cruel. he was holding back money from those who desrepatly need it to make a political point. Shame on him.

Q

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 09:45 AM
Q. The hypocracy isn't with him. It's with the ones who passed the bill, and then decided they didn't need to abide by it.

That, my friend, is classic hypocracy. He was just calling them out on their own rule.

Steve

Qtec
03-04-2010, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That, my friend, is classic hypocracy. <u>He was just calling them out on their own rule.</u> </div></div>

<u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>That he voted against.</span> </u>

Something you ignored yet again.
He choose to make his stand denying emergency money to those Americans living on the edge. What a guy.

Q

Q

LWW
03-04-2010, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That, my friend, is classic hypocracy. <u>He was just calling them out on their own rule.</u> </div></div>

<u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>That he voted against.</span> </u>

Something you ignored yet again.
He choose to make his stand denying emergency money to those Americans living on the edge. What a guy.

Q

Q </div></div>

He voted against it because, as claimed and now proven, it was a sham.

You prefer the lie over the truth ... that is only your fault.

LWW

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 11:59 AM
Yes, he voted against it, because he knew it was nothing but political posturing on the part of the dems.
But, since the dems did it anyway, he decided to force the issue and make them live up to the law they made.
While the issue he chose to make his stand with is regretable, it was probably necessary to get enough publicity to bring the democrat hypocracy to light.

By the way, Q, the UI benefits have since been extended. He didn't stop it, he just used it to make his point.

Steve

sack316
03-04-2010, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
He voted against it but now he wants to enforce it....that's a good description of a classic hypocrite.
</div></div>

True on it's face... but also, though he voted against it the fact still remains that it passed. So why not try to enforce it?

Granted, I personally think he chose a bad thing to take his stand on.

Of course, then again, using your own 'good description' of a classic hypocrite--- wouldn't the inverse apply as well? i.e. 'someone voted FOR it but now doesn't want to enforce it'.

Sack

pooltchr
03-04-2010, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Of course, then again, using your own 'good description' of a classic hypocrite--- wouldn't the inverse apply as well? i.e. 'someone voted FOR it but now doesn't want to enforce it'.

Sack </div></div>

That is priceless!!!!!!! But then, rules don't apply to Democrats!

Steve

sack316
03-04-2010, 12:44 PM
Well, it is true.

Of course, there must (and should) be exceptions made for emergency spending. Nevermind that perhaps those benefits in this situation should have been addressed before they reached 'emergency' status and were about to expire. Nevermind that there is money sitting out there as-is already that could be used to cover it AND be recouped relatively easily. Even with those mistakes, truth is the help did need to be given for the citizens that need it. So while I personally didn't like Bunning's choice of examples to use (only because the action does hurt the wrong people), there is merit in what he was trying to say. Just chose the wrong time to say it IMHO.

Now, with that said, and granting emergency spending can and should be an exception. What wouldn't constitute 'emergency'? This is one example. Another/more bank failings... emergency. Healthcare... emergency. Lack of funds to hire/maintain police/fire protection... emergency. Educational system... arguably emergency. Disaster relief (domestic or abroad)... emergency. Pretty much name it, and whoever wants it could likely make the case for emergency status (whether it is or isn't... to someone somewhere it would apply). So while PayGo is a wonderful sounding thing... I can't help but think it is some sort of grandstanding and slight of hand to create an appearance of fiscal responsibility in order to create political points. That's my fear anyway, time will tell whether or not they are serious about it or only posturing.

Sack

eg8r
03-05-2010, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He voted against it but now he wants to enforce it....that's a good description of a classic hypocrite.</div></div>Why would you think someone is being a hypocrite for asking a group of people to honor the bill they voted for?

When the speed limits on certain roads in my city were reduced I was completely against it but yet I follow them every time I drive on those specific roads. Does that make me a hypocrite?

eg8r