No Jon, it’ll be "Divided Government" and so spending will NOT increase, Bush’ll veto increased spending or the Senate Republicans will conference it to death... Remember, if not you, then many on this Blog informed us of the virtues, nay the NECESSITY of Divided Government.
|
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
If the Democratic Party regains control of the apparatus of government, we will see more pork-barrel spending and enforced political loyalty of which we’ve grown so tired. Well, there needs to be some party cohesion, Jon. Does that equal "enforced political loyalty"?
But I certainly do not like Mr. Moran’s position on earmarking. Anyway, I advocate gridlock, not that the Dems should do as the GOP has succeeded in doing, and hold all branches of the federal govt. And, if the Dems want to court libertarians, we should make them answer to Moran’s "earmarking" crap. |
| |
Written By:
Mona
URL:
http://
|
Bush’ll veto increased spending Surely you jest. Perhaps you meant to write Bush’ll request increased spending. With all those suffering Republicans out there due to the loss, the government will have to do something. Bush’s doctirne is to throw some ducats at it. |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
usually they’re working for the benefit of the Democratic Party I want politicians who work for the benefit of the United States as a whole... |
| |
Written By:
Keith, Indy
URL:
http://
|
I want politicians who work for the benefit of the United States as a whole... Good luck with that, Keith. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
|
Mine WAS a sarcastic reference, Mark....some have written paens to "Divided Government" here and elsewhere. I was merely pointing out the reality as compared to the libretto. |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Keith, I’m not sure that Congresspersons ARE supposed to work for the benefit of the United States as a whole...I don’t vote for Bill Frist. The benefit of my vote and contributions to his party are mostly indirect. I think a good case can be made that Frist’s primary allegiance MUST BE TO HIS DISTRICT, not the Good Ole US of A.
In fact, I would think a Libertarian would point out that it is the job of management to manage for the benefit of the company’s stockholders, not the industry as a whole. By adding value for THEIR shareholders they may, indirectly, aid the industry, but the primary focus is on YOUR shareholders.
So too, with politicians. I’m not sure that it is Nancy Pelosi’s OR Danny Hastert’s job to worry about me, UNLESS I’m a voter of theirs. Theoretically, the needs of the various voters, IF well-served benefit the BULK of voters, but not all of them.
As an example, a Congressperson representing a shipyard district really OUGHT to push for more ship-building contracts for his/her district, whether or not the Navy needs the ships. Congress may or may not do this. Again theoretically, IF the Nation needs more ships then the US does well AND the Congrssional shipyard. If however, the Navy and the Nation need no more ship building then they should decline the contracts, good for the US, but it will hurt that particular Congressperson. Is it REALLY that COngressperson’s job to say, "No, the Navy needs no more ships from the Bath Iron Works, so let’s cancal contracts to Bath?"-good for America, arguably, but bad for his/her district? I don’t think so. So I’m not sure if Representatives and Senators REALLY OUGHT TO represent the "national interest". |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Mine WAS a sarcastic reference, Mark Fair enough. As you mentioned later, some folks do believe that divided government works wonders. Or at least better than what’s there now.
I believe that as long as politicians can talk about "bringing in the Federal dollars" as if they spout from the magic Federal Money Tree, we will have a spending deficit.
Hmm. I wonder if it would be possible to sue the Congress Critters for wasting federal monies? Especially if you were to sue the Congress Critters in states other than the one in which you live? |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
"When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I’m going to earmark the s-t out of it," Moran buoyantly told a crowd of 450 attending the event." Just curious, do you ever expect a politician to be the 1st to stand up and say to his district "you know, we just don’t need all this money"?
|
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Jon, the point is you can trust the Democrats.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
|
I hope this means that Kos will disavow any Dem blogger/commenter who uses the phrase "Rubberstamp Republicans". |
| |
Written By:
Joe R. the Unabrewer
URL:
http://unabrewer.com
|
There you go. If the Democratic Party regains control of the apparatus of government, we will see more pork-barrel spending and enforced political loyalty of which we’ve grown so tired.
Then there’s that little thing where the Democrats are also non-capitalist (and therefore non-progressive), fundementally unserious about national defense, and how their over-arching fealty to their own power fetish ultimately makes them the most illiberal force in American politics.
But other than that I guess their okay.
yours/
peter. |
| |
Written By:
Peter Jackson
URL:
http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
|
Jon,
if you’re suggesting that government spending is likely to increase regardless of who you put in power: yes.
If you’re suggesting that pet projects for your districts is going to continue regardless of party: I’d also agree. If you want be part of the movement to cut that back, I’d be on board to such a movement as well.
However, this is a pretty shallow post, to suggest that Dems will follow the same fiscal policy as Bush based on one quote from one representative. Progressives and big-government folk should all run balanced budgets even while they enact their progressive, big-government plans. That’s just smart finance. Most of the Democratic leaders have learned this lesson. |
| |
Written By:
glasnost
URL:
http://
|
