Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hillary Clinton: Moving to "fiscal responsiblilty"
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 09, 2007

You probably didn't watch the last Democratic debate, but in a discussion of Social Security, Hillary Clinton told one and all that before she'd commit to any sort of fix on the program, she wanted to move the government toward "fiscal responsibility". One might assume that means cuts in spending along with other measures such as eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Given the recent bills passed by Congress, I'd say she was certainly less enthused about spending cuts and "fiscal responsibility" than she might let on:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has won tens of millions of dollars more in federal earmarks this year than her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, even though two of them have significantly more Senate seniority.

A review of the first three appropriations conference reports finished by Senate and House negotiators shows that Clinton has successfully requested at least $530 million worth of projects.
Earmarks. Yes indeed, they've cleaned that mess up as promised, haven't they? That leaves only a couple of alternatives for Ms. Clinton to use to move us toward "fiscal responsibility" doesn't it? And I think a combining of the words "massive" and "tax hike" probably highlight the most favored among them.

Because as should be obvious "fiscal responsibility" sure isn't going to be required of Congress.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Hillary Clinton told one and all that before she’d commit to any sort of fix on the program, she wanted to move the government toward "fiscal responsibility". One might assume that means cuts in spending along with other measures such as eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.
Ha! Ha!
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Fiscal responsibility? This coming from the same woman who said she would give families $5,000 per child born. The same woman who wants to fund SCHIP with taxes from potential lung cancer patients? The same woman who wants to force Universal Health Care down the throats of 300 million plus people with no viable way to pay for it? What in the hell does this bimbo know about fiscal responsibility? If it came up to her and went upside her head with a Louisville Slugger, she would still be to myopic to know it was fiscal responsibility hitting her. This woe-to-men must think we are all a bunch of inept, corn husking, hayseeds, with the IQ of a book end. Wow!
 
Written By: Keith
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider