Not surprisingly, both of Kansas’ senators were among the 51 votes for a $2.8 trillion spending plan and the 52 votes to raise the national debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion. These were pragmatic votes, to be sure — necessary to keep the government operating and the war going. But Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, like all congressional Republicans and the GOP White House, have to realize at some point that their stated commitment to fiscal responsibility is seriously at odds with their actions.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
23 Comments
It’s more than just a little out of character for Rhonda call for lower government spending. Or is that what she said? I couldn’t understand what she recommends in this article. Is she calling for lower government spending, or merely for politicians to actually act as they promised?
How about if we have it both ways, Lower Government Spending and our elected Politicians acting and doing what they say to get elected, Most of them say what they know you want to here, and then after elected they do what they want. We need to change the whole lot of them and put all new ones in.
Our Senators can vote anyway they want, they know they’re in a Republican state.
The Republicans are no longer the party of less government and fiscal responsiblity. The other choice, Democrats, are much worse.
We need a strong third party to conteract the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats.
JoeI’ll second that third party thing.Ross saw the danger of those free traid giveaways. He predicted that loud sucking sound of jobs going out of the country when they went into effect and he was right. We need another forward thinker and one that will think for the middle man (woman).
The reason the GOP wents less taxes and smaller government is so it will be easier for the large corporations to control.
“The reason the GOP wents less taxes and smaller government is so it will be easier for the large corporations to control.”
Hehe Guy, have you been reading Grover Norquist again?
You know the one, a charter “young republicans” member of the four horsement of corruption? Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover.
They are only for BIG gummit and NO BID contracts when haliburton is involved.
Joe, a guy;
While I certainly understand your sentiments, a third party isn’t a practical reality in American politics, for lots of structural, historical and legal reasons. That said, the way to reach that goal is to get inside the parties at the organization level and make a difference.
In order to change parties in the US, it is not enough to simply show up and vote, though that is all most of us do. You have to get involved in the organization at the grassroots when candidates are being groomed, and promoted, and get organized and active at the primary election level. It can happen; it has happened.
Stop wishing for a third party; won’t happen. Get involved in the sytem we have, where a difference can be made. Your involvement at the organizational/primary level greatly magnifies the influence of individuals.
I just hope you are on the “right” side!!
Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback voted to continue the slaughter in Iraq by funding it.
Iraq doesn’t have an army, so all that’s left is the people that live there. So the largest air bombardment yesterday since the first illegal invasion three years ago was to kill Iraq men women and children.
There are no military installations left so why did we do that? To what end?
Good Jews don’t like what America is funding through AIPAC either.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=690209&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
GMC70. Use your same advice but directed towards a third party.
It’s a wish, but try to change the evanglecial power in the Republican Party and the Socalist in the Democratic party is much more difficult than building up a viable third party.
The reason why 3rd parties are not that strong, is because of how the other two parties set up themselves to eliminate them. Such as the Commion of Presidential Debates refused to let in Ralph Nader and other viable 3rd party candidates to debate. Also, they cannot tap into public funds for elections unless they show a strong percentage in the prior election.
When Ross Perot entered into the race in 1992, it was great. He did change things and the nature of the debate. If it weren’t for him, Bill Clinton would not be elected.
People say that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in 2000. Now that is viable strength for a 3rd party.
You never know!
GMCThird party not practical, OK lets do away with the GOP then we will have only two parties. Get it? One party(GOP) subtracted from two parties (GOP & Dems) makes one party (Dems) add another party (People’s party) makes two parties (Dems & People’s party). Makes sense to me.
Joe -
The other two parties rigging the game to keep third parties out is certainly part of it. An even bigger factor is the nature of American politics – most importantly, single member districts where there is only one winner, and the relatively centrist nature of the electorate, and you have the largest reasons 3rd parties aren’t a practical reality.
Parties are made up of the people who get active in them. Evangelicals are a force inside the GOP because they got into the party and used the process to become influential. Liberals are influential in the Democratic party for the same reason. Others can do the same.
GMC–What about when the Republicans fund Ralph Mouth and the Greens to keep them in?
How about that?
I remember the good old days (when I was a republican) when the republican stood for smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
That was before the GOP sold out to big business.
XXXAnd don’t forget, being taken over by the finical religious right wing conser conservativies.Also Bushytail and his Tailwaggers.
They are truly an embracement to this X Republican that started by voting for Eisenhauer and ended with Regain’s second term that’s when I realized the good ol party left me when among other things they became a borrow and spend party and criticized the Demos for being a tax and spend party.
Aint it the truth, Guy? And now these good republicans, stout conservatives all, have spent us into a hole we’ll never find our way out of.
The first rule of holes.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
So much for cutting spending! lol
Another “Emergency” Spending Bill
March 20, 2006
“Congress funds the federal government through 13 enormous appropriations bills, but even an annual budget of more than $2 trillion is not enough to satisfy Washington’s appetite for new spending. As a result, a new category of spending bill has emerged, known as the “emergency supplemental” appropriation. There’s no real emergency, however; Congress simply needs a 14th spending bill as a grab bag filled with hundreds of pages of goodies for countless favored groups, industries, individual companies, and foreign governments. It’s common for dozens of amendments to be added to the supplemental bill, all with more money for somebody.
So-called emergency supplemental spending bills, once a rarity, have become the norm over the last ten years in Washington. There’s always some excuse why Congress cannot stick to its budget, so supplemental bills are passed to permit spending extra “off-budget” funds. “Emergency” spending now has become routine, planned spending.
American taxpayers should know this latest emergency supplemental bill spends almost $92 billion, making it the largest supplemental appropriation in the history of the U.S. Congress. The entire federal budget was less than $92 billion in the early 1960s!
Is there really an “emergency” that requires $1.2 billion to pay off our allies for their help in Afghanistan? If Pakistan, Jordan, and other nations chose to join our war effort, why can’t their taxpayers foot the bill? Won’t those nations in closer proximity to Afghanistan benefit from the stability we are told U.S. troops will provide? Perhaps they should pay us for stabilizing their neighborhood. But it’s always American taxpayers who end up paying.
What is the emergency that requires $36 million for taxpayer-funded broadcasting programs overseas? How about $30 million to build roads in Liberia?
If we’re serious about spending money for emergencies, surely $92 billion could be better spent addressing the aftermath of two domestic emergencies, namely hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The real emergency is in Washington, where Congress is spending and borrowing America into a perfect storm. As economist James Turk explains, the federal government now relies upon debt to finance 20% of its spending. Low interest rates during the 1990s and early 2000s kept interest payments on government debts- Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills- somewhat manageable. During the same period, however, the Federal Reserve greatly increased the money supply, which has caught up to us in the form of price inflation. The Fed now must raise rates to combat this inflation, but higher interest rates will chill economic growth and slow tax revenue. To quote Mr. Turk, “The federal government faces a potentially toxic mix of constrained revenues, soaring expenditures, ballooning debt, and rising interest rates.”
This is the real emergency that must be addressed in Washington, and the only solution is to reduce government spending substantially. If we don’t put the brakes on the spending spree soon, we may find ourselves facing another period of economic malaise that rivals the 1930s.”http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst032006.htm
V.L.R.B!!
Add me to the list of former republicans. That party sold out long ago and is still doing so.
Redistribution of wealth? Hell yeah I’m in. If my choice is equal chance and shared opportunity for all vs. shoving the money and power upwards to those who already have plenty, I’ll take from the greedy and give to the needy anytime.
The middle class was born of the policies of Democrats. Republicans have just about killed it.
See I got this little problem. I don’t love being used to make folks who already have a lot of money and power more wealthy and powerful.
JR,
I am a recovering Republican as well but unlike a drug addict, there is no chance of me backsliding! The repubs have only a zionist, globalist, wall street first agenda and sadly the dems are no different.
V.L.R.B!!
JR, how are you being used?
Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback need to be called home to explain this vote.
And punished.
The government of Israel is the enemy of Israel and the enemy of the United States.
They spend our money like it was their own. And no wonder they hardly work and give themselves automatic pay raises, which we as the voting citizens let them do.
Interesting article:
Lawmakers get out of the House
By Kathy Kiely
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is on track this year to be in session for fewer days than the Congress Harry Truman labeled as “do-nothing” during his 1948 re-election campaign.
Members of Congress are taking an entire week off for St. Patrick’s Day. It’s the latest scheduling innovation to give members more time to meet with constituents.
Through Friday, the House was in session for 19 days, compared with 33 for the Senate. If they stick to their current schedule — including two weeks off in April, a week in May and July, plus all of August — House members will spend 97 days in Washington this year.
The House was in session 108 days in 1948, according to the chamber’s archives, compared with 141 days last year.
“This is an election year and people want to see more of their constituents,” says House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
During the first two months of the year, House members logged a total of 47 hours in the Capitol. They took off almost the entire month of January , while the Senate confirmed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
For both chambers, workweeks have become short in recent years. Roll call votes are seldom scheduled for Mondays or Fridays. In the House, they are often postponed until late Tuesday.
As a result, it’s difficult to schedule committee meetings. Some panels meet when Congress is not in session, but not often.
When in Washington, lawmakers do a lot of multitasking. Last week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., struggled to ready an immigration bill for the full Senate, as panel members drifted in and out of the room. They were juggling a floor debate on the budget and other meetings.
Critics contend Congress needs time to discuss important issues. “The Tuesday-to-Thursday work schedule is a detriment,” says Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., who served five terms in the House during the 1980s and returned last year.
Some experts think an absentee Congress is not bad. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them being out of Washington,” says John Samples of the Cato Institute, a think tank that favors limited government. “They might be better representatives.”
Lawmakers will make $165,200 this year. Leaders earn more.