Thursday, January 06, 2011

Baker's Dozen of Democrats Vote No To Reduce House Budget

Things continue to move along in DC. While everybody is distracted by reporting of the outburst during the reading of the Constitution the Republicans brought forth a bill to reduce the size of the House budget by 5%, which is about $35 million. While the final vote count came the closet to being bipartisan in nature that we have seen in awhile there were still a stalwart group of Democrats who voted no.

It should come as no surprise really. Four of the representatives were from CA, Lee, Filner, Woolsey, and Honda who quite frankly really have no concept of what it means to cut a budget. Conyers from MI who once again can attest to how well living above your means has worked out for the people in his district.

H/T to Jamie Dupree's tweets for the information on the vote. Jamie is a straight up reporter whom I became aware through the Neal Boortz radio show. He is the old school of reporting with a just the facts style. No editorializing, so for those of you who use Twitter look him up and follow him for updates from capitol hill.
more D's voting No on 5% cut: Jackson IL, Moran VA, Payne NJ, Schakowsky IL, Towns NY and CA, Ackerman NY, Clarke NY, Conyers MI, Ellison MN, .

Jamie also clarified the claim made by the CBO and the Dems that the repeal of the healthcare bill will result in an increase of $230 billion to the deficit. This is the result of lost revenue from the increased fees and taxes built into the bill. So in other words doing away with these yet to be enacted taxes will increase the deficit because the government was already counting on the money. The Republicans need to get the message out about how this talking point is derived at and do it in a easy to understand way. The easiest rebuttal to this claim is to ask the Democrats would the deficit increase by this amount IF this healthcare takeover had never been passed or are projected deficits from the Democrats free spending ways even higher then the American people have been led to believe?

The folks at the Heritage Foundation offer the full length version of how this claim by the Democrats is false.

The answer of course is probably not, but with they fancy accounting methods and double counting savings in certain areas and other shady language they have managed to promote a story that would make Bernie Madoff look like an unimpeachable witness for the prosecution.

No comments: